Acting presidential has now become acting boring

The argument

Describe them as you will, few people will refer to Trump's rallies and speeches as boring. He makes bold claims about policies, current affairs and his latest feuds with the press, other politicians or celebrities, and the effect is that a presidential appearance carries the unpredictability of an event rather than the formality of an announcement. That unpredictability is what much of his support responds to. Many of Trump's supporters are encouraged by his uninhibited way of speaking; "He tells it like it is" is a common answer to what they like about the president. He is good at telling his base what they want to hear, and the manner of the telling is itself treated as evidence of sincerity. Some argue his words come across as too bold or problematic, but much of his base rallies behind what he says and follow his lead — so the objection and the appeal identify the same quality and disagree only about its value. The transformation this argument points to is in what the word "presidential" now signals. His unpredictability brought about much of his original publicity and coverage, and his claims that he could act presidential, but that would be too boring, have come up several times during rallies, to the delight and encouragement of his crowd. The remark reverses the traditional relationship: acting presidential is presented not as a standard to be met but as a restraint to be discarded, and the audience treats the refusal as the point rather than as a failing. Many Americans in the 2016 election voted for Trump because of how he spoke, not what he said — which, on this argument, is the clearest sign that the standard itself has changed rather than simply gone unmet.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Only Trump and his core supporters see it this way. Even some people who voted for Trump, and are planning on doing so again, admit they would prefer to see him take the presidency more seriously.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Being unusual is not the same as changing a norm. The premise establishes that the style drew attention, which is a fact about coverage — and coverage tracks novelty rather than acceptance, much of it critical. [Rejecting P2] The premise generalises from a base to a country. Polling throughout showed a substantial majority who did not describe the conduct as presidential, and surveys found that even among his own voters a sizeable share said they would prefer he take the office more seriously. Approving of what someone says is not the same as accepting it as the standard for the job. [Rejecting P3] A president saying that acting presidential would be boring is a claim about himself, not a revision of the norm — indeed the norm's continued existence is what makes the line work at a rally. Whether the standard has actually shifted is a question about successors and about what the public expects of the next occupant, and the argument offers nothing on either.