Teflon Trump’s rise in the polls makes second term more likely

Divisions between conservatives and liberals in America are deepening fast, writes Dan O’Brien

AUGUST’S slower pace allows more time for reading and reflection. I’ve been reading and reflecting on Donald Trump’s America in preparation for a discussion tomorrow with Sean Spicer, former White House press secretary and holder of numerous roles in the Republican Party since the 1990s.

Much of the almost nonstop rolling news about and around Trump is noise. The brouhaha in recent days surrounding the departure of (yet another) White House staff member is an example of an event that generated a lot news coverage but that doesn’t mean much in the broader scheme of things.

Seeing the wood for the trees is not easy, but among the many notable aspects of Trump’s presidency is that de- spite the unprecedented scale of media coverage, which is mostly negative, his approval ratings have been more stable than some previous presidents. Nor have they slumped when coverage becomes particularly negative, as it did last month when he sided with the Russian president against US intelligence agencies on a Monday before doing a 180 degree U-turn 24 hours later.

He appears to have become something of a Teflon president — scandals and allegations do not damage him with his base. Nationwide opinion polls, conducted almost daily in the US, show that Trump’s approval ratings have been trending upwards since the low point of his presidency in December last year. In the middle of that month, just under 40pc of respondents gave him a positive approval rating. Over the past few weeks his ratings have been closer to the mid-40s.

Apart from the months just after taking office and just before leaving it, Barack Obama’s approval rating was consistently in the 40-50pc range. George W Bush’s ratings were different. They soared to 90pc in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks before sliding almost uninterruptedly, reaching lows in the 20s by the end of his second term, far below anything Trump has ever registered.

Things, of course, could change with time. Trump has been in office for less than two years and those who support him could tire of the novelty. But, as of now, those who support him are anything but fickle and, as a PEW opinion poll last week showed, they retain unusually “warm feelings” for him.

Even his supporters struggle to explain this. Spicer’s recently published book – The Briefing: Politics, The Press and The President — which is overwhelmingly admiring of his former boss, gives plenty of insights into the phenomenon that Trump is in so many ways, but offers limited explanation of why he can ignore the long-standing rules of the political game with seeming impunity.

Nor do I claim to have any novel insight. Before the 2016 election, I was convinced millions of Americans — even conservatives who liked his message, his style or both — would not vote for him because he was just too unpredictable and too different from previous presidents and candidates. Conservatives, after all, tend to favour continuity over rupture; prize self-discipline over unrestraint; and are more naturally cautious about changing tried, if not always fully trusted, ways.

There were (and are) many “Never Trump” Republicans — a bigger share of the overall electorate voted for Mitt Romney in 2012 than voted for Trump in 2016. But the difference was small, suggesting that for every Republican who did not vote Trump, others were mobilised.

Many of the studies of the election point to social and broader cultural issues being more important than economic ones for Trump voters.

Loss of social status, religion, abortion, immigration and gun control are frequently cited as being the most important issues for Trump supporters.

The political focus on these issues reflects the increasing polarisation in US society, as those who identify as liberal become more liberal and those who identity as conservative feel more conservative. That, in turn, has been reflected in the parties, as the Trump takeover of the Republicans has moved it further to the right while the Democrats are shifting further to the left.

None of this is to say that economics doesn’t matter any more. The fact that Trump came to office at a time when the economy was strong, and that it has strengthened further on his watch, can only have helped.

His success last December in getting the first major tax reform in three decades through congress was a major political victory and will have appealed to his base, who believe in low taxes and small government.

Tellingly, Spicer does not rank the tax cut package as Trump’s biggest political win. He believes the appointment of Trump’s pick to fill a vacancy on the federal supreme court takes that honour. “To millions of Trump voters, this was easily the president’s most important accomplishment of his first year of taking office,” he wrote.

The political importance of supreme court appointments is one of the great differences between the US and Europe. It reflects the much greater powers the Washington court has compared to most of its European counterparts (the Irish supreme court is closer to the US model in its powers), but also the deeper divide between social conservatives and social liberals in America when compared to Europe.

That Spicer views the appointment of a conservative judge to be more important to Trump voters than a radical tax-cutting package is yet another sign of how socio-cultural issues have risen in political prominence relative to economic ones.

The shift away from economics in American politics is also reflected in Trump’s views on trade with other countries.

He has prioritised the political gains of portraying himself as the president who puts America first over the economic costs of trade conflicts, which economists overwhelmingly believe are considerable.

Although there can be downsides to trade, the upsides — both economic and in terms of bringing countries closer together — are much greater over the long term. It is for this reason that the most powerful country in the world has supported global economic openness since the 1940s. Until Trump that is.

As in many other areas, his views on trade are different from all his post-World War II predecessors. His willingness to enter into trade conflicts has become more evident in recent months, and this plays well with his base according to opinion polls.

His position on trade has also accelerated a wider shift towards protectionism in both the Republicans and the Democrats, and this is only one area where Trump is likely to leave a deep and lasting impression.

From the conduct of domestic politics to the conduct of foreign policy, a president who even Spicer concedes is “mercurial” and “erratic” has brought great change.

Another two years, or, as seems increasingly possible, another six years as global disruptor-in-chief will bring a lot more.

‘Trump’s got another two or possibly six years as global disruptor-in-chief’