Has Trump transformed what it means to be Presidential?

Trump's behaviour affects international relations

Question: Has Trump transformed what it means to be Presidential?
Position‹2 of 3›: Trump has not changed what acting presidential means
Argument1 of 2›: Trump's behaviour affects international relations

In the international sphere, what it means to lead a nation has not changed. Acting unpresidential is seen as a weakness. Trump’s behaviour and America First policies have plunged US favourability internationally.

The argument

Trump’s comments about foreign nations even as a candidate alienated America’s allies and lowered his credibility and authority in the international sphere. The President of the US is the face of the nation in the international arena. How he behaves determines how the country is seen by the international community. Here, the meaning of presidential has not changed. Other nations and their leaders judge the strength of a country based on how they see their leader. A Pew Research Center study shows that while the US is seen relatively favourably internationally this figure has dropped from 64% approval in 2016 and in 2019 was around 53%. Furthermore, confidence in Trump is significantly lower than his predecessor’s Obama. Figures suggest that in 2016, Obama had an approximate 74% favourability internationally. On the other hand, Trump in 2019 was at 31% favourability. This has been compounded by Trump’s response to Covid-19. With approval ratings for the US plummeting to the lowest figures on record. Trump’s credibility internationally is lower than leaders in Germany and France, but figures also find him losing to China and Russia.

Premises

[P1]The US president is the face of the nation, so how he behaves determines how the country is seen abroad. [P2] Trump's conduct alienated allies and sharply lowered US and personal favourability — from 64% to 53%, with his own rating far below Obama's. [P3] That international judgement of a leader's behaviour is the same standard as ever. [C] Therefore, because acting presidential still matters for international standing, Trump has not changed what it means.

Counter-arguments

Other heads of state have followed in Trump's footsteps. This is the case of Rodrigo Duterte from the Philippines who was also elected in 2016. Other nations have also revised their requirements for leadership and what is needed in a president.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] That a leader's conduct shapes perceptions abroad is not in dispute; what the premise needs, and does not supply, is that the standard by which conduct is judged stayed fixed. Falling approval is consistent with the standard remaining the same and with it having shifted. [Rejecting P2] The favourability figures measure foreign publics' opinion of a particular president, not the criteria for presidential behaviour. Polling that finds one leader rated below his predecessor shows a change in reception, which is the argument's evidence for something remaining unchanged — so the premise does not connect to the conclusion it supports. [Rejecting P3] The counter-argument on record contests the constancy claim directly, noting that other heads of state elected in the same period adopted a comparable style, and that expectations of what a national leader should be have been revised in several countries. If the standard were fixed, that pattern would be difficult to explain. [Rejecting C] The premises describe international costs of a president's conduct, which is compatible with the rival position that the meaning of 'presidential' has changed — costs and redefinition can occur together.