At the same time, I think that he gives expression to issues which many people feel but cannot find a way to express.
Clearly there's a large constituency which is frustrated by immigration policy. The way the conversation normally goes, these people are closed down by folks shouting "racist" or "islamophobe" at them. The previous president refused to give a name to the violent jihadists because he was concerned by islamic sensibilities - while ignoring those of many Americans.
The frustration doesn't end simply because people are shamed or shouted into silence. It metastasizes.
So Trump comes along and "says it as it is". He signs an executive order which removes the subtlety and stops immigration from a variety of Moslem countries in the name of security. Huzzah, say the immigration doubters. At last, we have a president who understands us!
Trouble is, subtlety turns out to matter. The law requires it. Instead of delivering a thoughtful reduction, Trump steamrolls the entire immigration structure. His intention is obvious: it's a Moslem ban in disguise and such a ban is problematic in law.
Immigration looks like a policy area designed for a con man who would be king. It grants a president wide discretion. But there are currents running underneath the surface, with constitutional meanings. If you are going to do something like this, you really don't want to have someone like Rudy Giuliani saying it's a Moslem ban written to make it seem like something else. Because this is what ends up disclosing the reality. It gives authority to those saying there are discrepancies between the EO and constitutional safeguards about non-discrimination. INA itself explicitly states that you can't discriminate on the basis of birthplace, which makes a country ban problematic.
Oh dear.
Trump's supporters - Americans frustrated by immigration policy - don't get it. They don't even understand the way the law works. They think the President can do pretty much what he wants. They imagine one clause, in one section, in one law is all that matters. They cannot comprehend an outcome which isn't their expectation. That they have an argument, but there are others as well. The courts will decide which one is better. That's their job.
If Trump was careful, he'd have a restriction which delivers 90% of what he wants. Instead, he has a good possibility of rendering any change toxic.
I suspect this sets the pattern for Trump's presidency. But maybe Trump's American id will be controlled by a variety of factors: the people he selects to run departments; his legal advisors; where those don't work, the courts; and finally, the people through the agency of the media - the media whose job it is to disentangle fact from fiction, much to Trump's frustration. Heck, maybe even Congress will grow a spine.
Moving away from immigration, it sounds like the Republicans are discovering that - shock - there are many people who depend upon Obamacare and don't want its repeal. This movement scares Republican politicians. Maybe they will decide to listen to them.
A controlled Trump might be a reasonably successful president if your perspective is from the right.
| 