Question: What do Trump supporters think of his use of derogatory terms, such as calling people stupid?

Main Content:

As Grok, I’ll rate Donald Trump’s overall job performance during his first term (2017–2021) on a scale of 1–10 (where 1 is abysmal and 10 is exceptional), compared to the preceding five U.S. presidents: Joe Biden (2021–2025), Barack Obama (2009–2017), George W. Bush (2001–2009), and Bill Clinton (1993–2001). Note that Trump’s second term (2025–present) is only ~11 months old as of December 10, 2025, so it’s too early for a full evaluation—early approval ratings hover around 47% (Gallup), similar to his first-term average of 41%, but I’ll focus on his completed first term for fairness.

My ratings are informed by a balanced synthesis of metrics: average Gallup approval ratings, historian rankings (e.g., 2024 Presidential Greatness Project), key achievements/failures, economic indicators, and foreign/domestic policy outcomes. These draw from non-partisan sources like Gallup, C-SPAN, and academic surveys. Trump’s first-term performance earns a 5/10—middling at best, driven by pre-COVID economic gains but dragged down by divisiveness, COVID mishandling, and norm-breaking. He ranks below Clinton, Obama, and Bush but above Biden in this group, largely due to stronger economic stewardship before 2020.

Key Metrics Comparison

Here’s a snapshot of core indicators for context:

President	Avg. Gallup Approval	Historian Rank (2024 PGP/C-SPAN)	Unemployment Low	GDP Growth Avg.	Major Scandal/Impeachment	Debt Increase ($T)
Bill Clinton	55%	12th / 19th	4.0%	3.9%	Impeached (acquitted)	+1.4
George W. Bush	49%	32nd / 29th	4.6%	2.1%	No impeachment; Iraq WMD controversy	+5.8
Barack Obama	48%	7th / 10th	4.7%	1.6%	No impeachment	+8.3
Donald Trump (1st term)	41%	45th / 41st	3.5%	2.5%	Impeached twice (acquitted); Jan. 6	+7.8
Joe Biden	42%	14th (interim)	3.4%	2.8%	No impeachment; Afghanistan withdrawal	+7.0

• Approval: Trump’s was the lowest average among modern presidents, reflecting deep polarization (81-point partisan gap).
• Historians: Trump ranks dead last overall (10.9/100 score), cited for undermining norms; Biden debuts strong at 14th, Obama excels.
• Economy: Trump shines pre-2020 but crashes during COVID; Biden outperforms on jobs but faces inflation backlash.
• Debt: All recent presidents added trillions, but Trump’s tax cuts contributed heavily without offsetting revenue.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Trump’s Performance

Trump’s tenure was transformative but chaotic—disrupting status quo in ways supporters hailed as bold, while critics saw as reckless.

Strengths (Boosting the 5/10):

• Economic Momentum: Achieved record-low unemployment (3.5%) and stock market highs pre-COVID; 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act spurred growth (2.5% avg. GDP), benefiting corporations and high earners.
• Foreign Policy Wins: Brokered Abraham Accords (Israel-Arab normalization); no new major wars started; pressured NATO allies on spending.
• Judicial Legacy: Appointed 3 Supreme Court justices and 234 federal judges, shifting courts rightward for decades.
• Criminal Justice Reform: Signed First Step Act (2018), reducing sentences for nonviolent offenders—a bipartisan success.

Weaknesses (Capping at 5/10):

• COVID-19 Response: Downplayed the pandemic, leading to 400K+ U.S. deaths by term’s end; erratic messaging eroded trust.
• Polarization and Norms: Rhetoric fueled division; two impeachments (Ukraine aid, Jan. 6 insurrection) and 30K+ false claims damaged institutions.
• Trade and Immigration: Tariffs sparked trade wars (e.g., China), raising consumer costs; family separations at border drew global condemnation.
• Failed Repeal of Obamacare: Promised but couldn’t deliver, leaving healthcare unresolved.

How Trump Compares to Each of the Last 5

• Vs. Bill Clinton (8/10): Clinton outperforms on economy (longest peacetime expansion), welfare reform, and balanced budgets—despite scandals. Trump’s growth was solid but shorter-lived; Clinton’s charisma and adaptability edge him out.
• Vs. George W. Bush (6/10): Both low on historian ranks due to wars (Iraq for Bush, norm erosion for Trump). Bush’s post-9/11 unity (90% approval peak) and Medicare Part D contrast Trump’s divisiveness, but Trump’s economy was stronger. Slight edge to Bush for crisis leadership.
• Vs. Barack Obama (9/10): Obama’s ACA insured 20M+, killed bin Laden, and recovered from recession—iconic but gridlocked. Trump undid some (e.g., Paris Accord) but couldn’t match Obama’s vision or approval stability. Obama wins decisively.
• Vs. Joe Biden (4/10): Biden’s infrastructure law, CHIPS Act, and COVID vaccine rollout (25M+ ACA sign-ups) are substantive, but inflation (peaking 9%), Afghanistan chaos, and border surges tanked his ratings. Trump’s pre-COVID economy and judge appointments give him a narrow lead, though Biden’s historians’ rank is higher.
• Overall Group Rank: 3rd out of 5 (behind Obama and Clinton; ahead of Bush and Biden). Trump’s disruptor style yielded tangible wins but at high institutional cost—effective for his base, less so for broad governance.

In truth-seeking terms, Trump’s performance was a high-wire act: innovative in spots, but the falls (e.g., Jan. 6) outweighed the feats for most metrics. If his second term sustains economic gains without repeating divisiveness, history could revise upward—but based on the first, 5/10 feels fair. What aspect (e.g., economy, foreign policy) would you like to drill down on?

Question: So a big takeaway is that Trump doesn’t follow norms? Are norms a prerequisite for being the leader of the free world?

Yes, a major takeaway from analyses of Donald Trump’s leadership style is that he frequently deviates from established presidential norms—unwritten rules and expectations around decorum, institutional respect, transparency, and the separation of powers. This includes things like using inflammatory rhetoric, intervening in private business deals (e.g., recent pledges to influence media mergers like Netflix-Paramount), challenging birthright citizenship via executive order, or issuing pardons that blur political loyalty lines (e.g., for Rep. Henry Cuellar). These actions contrast with predecessors who generally adhered to norms to preserve public trust and institutional stability.

As for whether norms are a prerequisite for being the “leader of the free world” (a term often applied to the U.S. president as a symbol of democratic leadership globally): No, they aren’t an absolute requirement in a strict sense—leaders can win elections, wield power, and achieve short-term goals without them, as Trump’s two terms demonstrate. However, from a truth-seeking perspective grounded in political science, history, and expert consensus, norms are highly valuable and often essential for effective, sustainable leadership that upholds democracy, fosters international alliances, and maintains domestic cohesion. Here’s a balanced breakdown:

Why Norms Aren’t Strictly Prerequisite

• Electoral and Legal Reality: The U.S. Constitution doesn’t mandate norms; it focuses on formal powers and checks (e.g., impeachment, elections). Leaders like Trump have been elected despite—or sometimes because of—norm-breaking, appealing to voters frustrated with the status quo. Partisan views heavily influence perceptions: Supporters may see norm violations as bold innovation, while opponents view them as corrosive.
• Historical Precedents: Other presidents have bent norms without derailing their leadership. Andrew Jackson ignored Supreme Court rulings on Native American rights; Richard Nixon abused executive power leading to Watergate. Yet they governed effectively in some areas until consequences caught up.
• Short-Term Gains: Breaking norms can enable decisive action, like Trump’s rapid judicial appointments or trade renegotiations, which bypassed traditional consensus-building.

Why Norms Are Often Essential for Effective Leadership

• Upholding Democracy and Trust: Norms act as “guardrails” for constitutional principles, preventing abuse of power and ensuring peaceful transitions. Eroding them can undermine public faith in institutions, as seen in declining U.S. democratic rankings during periods of norm erosion (e.g., Freedom House reports post-2016). For the “leader of the free world,” this is critical—global allies expect predictability and respect for democratic values to maintain coalitions like NATO.
• Long-Term Stability: Without norms, leadership can become chaotic or authoritarian-leaning. Political scientists argue norms promote empathy, integrity, and ethical boundaries, which are prerequisites for enduring impact and societal trust. For instance, norms around military neutrality (e.g., not using troops for domestic politics) preserve civil-military balance.
• Political Skills and Reputation: Effective leaders need “political savvy” to navigate alliances and public opinion, which norms facilitate. Norms shape who can lead and how, making politics more inclusive and less prone to violence or division.
• Global Implications: As “leader of the free world,” norm adherence signals commitment to international rules (e.g., sovereignty, as in recent U.S. stances on China-Japan tensions). Deviations, like interventionist “corollaries,” risk alienating partners and weakening U.S. soft power.

In summary, while norms aren’t a hard prerequisite (proven by leaders who succeed without them), they are a strong facilitator of good governance. Ignoring them can lead to short-term wins but long-term erosion of democratic health. Efforts to rebuild norms—through modeling behavior and public education—could strengthen leadership across the board.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5