G. Terry Madonna & Michael Young: Will Trump become ‘new normal’ in American politics? | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

G. Terry Madonna & Michael Young: Will Trump become ‘new normal’ in American politics?

1544244_web1_PTR-Trumpvisit45-081319
Nate Smallwood | Tribune-Review
President Trump speaks to the press Tuesday after being given an overview of Royal Dutch Shell’s ethane cracker plant in Monaca, Beaver County.

Paradigms, sometimes called “world views,” are the ways we experience, think about and often measure particular ideas, subjects and institutions.

Paradigms are notorious for “shifting” as described by a generations of scholars dating back to Thomas Kuhn in 1962. Paradigm shifts are fundamental changes in the way we look at, understand, and evaluate a process or institution.

The presidency, for example, comprises a paradigm as certainly do presidential elections, including the way we measure them. Arguably, the Trump presidency and his prospects for re-election confront us with a classic paradigm shift.

Beyond debate, Donald Trump is the most unconventional president in modern American history. Indeed, traditional ways of perceiving him or his presidency are obsolete or becoming more so every day.

His style and personality have no parallel. In fact, from the start of his presidency that was apparent. He was the first president to win election while actually being more unpopular than popular with voters — and he was the first candidate elected who was more unpopular than the opponent he defeated. Alone these factors represent profound shifts in presidential electability.

But there is more — much more. Throughout his presidency Trump’s job performance has shown less variation than any other president since scientific polling began to track what voters thought of presidential job performance. For most of Trump’s presidency his job performance has been frozen between 38% and 45% positive. At the moment his polling average on Real Clear Politics is 43% positive. Before Trump, no president winning re-election has had a positive job performance below 48%.

Moreover, Pew Research informs us that the views of the president by opposition party Democrats have remained abnormally negative over time. It’s not uncommon in polls for Democrats to give Trump a negative rating in the plus 90% range.

All of this raises a fundamental question: Will the president’s job performance ratings or, for that matter, other traditional means of measuring political viability actually determine his electoral fate — or has Trump shifted the electoral paradigm to such an extent that the old metrics simply don’t work?

Perhaps he has!

Trump’s metrics are particularly unconventional with the disconnect between the economy and his general job approval. The past 10 years of economic growth, low unemployment rates and a record stock market have produced a booming economy. Traditionally, presidential approval ratings closely track economic conditions: a president’s overall job performance is high if the economy is growing or robust.

But Trump with an anemic 43% overall approval rate is not getting the kind of job approval that a roaring economy has bestowed on past presidents. Presidents simply don’t struggle with weak approval ratings when the economy is strong. But Trump is doing exactly that.

The key question then is: Can Trump win re-election despite the historical disjunction between his low ratings and the very good economy? To do this, Trump has to win narrowly enough key battleground states to bring him to the magic 270 electoral votes. Most analysts believe he must win at least two of the three battleground Rust Belt states he won in 2016 (Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin).

Conventional wisdom, aka the prevailing political paradigm, holds that Trump’s low approval ratings and high negatives makes winning implausible if not impossible. But as far back as Trump’s unlikely but successful 2016 campaign, that paradigm underlying that conventional wisdom has been wobbly. Indeed, Trump’s 2016 success suggests that his electoral prognosis can’t be reliably predicted by the sort of political measures that once determined the fate of presidential candidates.

But we must wait to find out if the electoral paradigm has permanently shifted — or if the last four years represent an anomalous, not-to-be-repeated aberration.

If the age of Trump turns out to be as short as Democrats hope, the Trump presidency will probably be remembered as a bizarre interruption in normal American politics, an asterisk rather than an era.

But if Trump wins re-election, he will have ushered in a new political paradigm in American politics — a “new normal” with implications certain to stretch far beyond 2020.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.