IT all seemed so simple on the campaign trail, at least to Donald Trump and his supporters. For much of 2016, the property tycoon turned presidential candidate prescribed a series of quick fixes for America’s millennial angst.
So he told those worried about immigration that he would put up a giant wall on America’s southern border – and, of course, make the Mexicans pay for it – and he promised those scared of terrorism he would ban Muslims.
The now President Trump came to define the politics of the Twitter age, the politics of simple – or simplistic – solutions to complicated problems. After just a 100 days in office, Mr Trump may be realising the world is not so easy.
His headline-grabbing pledges have flopped: there is no Congressional or, indeed, Mexican, funding for a wall and two successive bans on visitors from mostly Islamic countries have been kyboshed by the courts.
Mr Trump may not always be the most self-aware of politicians. But even he has acknowledged complexity where once he saw only glib soundbites.
“Nobody knew health care could be so complicated,” the president declared as his proposals to overturn so-called Obamacare medical insurance stalled.
Nobody, that is, apart from politicians and commentators inhabiting the old world where policies could have more than the 140-character limit of Mr Trump’s favourite micro-blogging site.
But what now for Mr Trump? His populist campaign promises were – thankfully – always going to be hard to deliver. His angry outbursts against those he believes stand in his way – legislators, judges and news media – suggest frustration.
That may be dangerous, especially if, stymied at home, he seeks new outlets for his simplistic vision on the world stage.
However, Mr Trump, incapable of delivering, may retreat to a social media one-term presidency, tweeting America rather than leading it. This too may bring perils, those of a White House whose only power is to blame others for its own shortcomings.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel