Has Trump transformed what it means to be Presidential?

Acting presidential is not necessary for being president anymore

Question: Has Trump transformed what it means to be Presidential?
Position1 of 3›: Trump has changed what acting presidential means
Argument‹3 of 4›: Acting presidential is not necessary for being president anymore

Trump campaigned on the premise of getting deals done and putting America first. These are now the defining features of "acting Presidential".

The argument

After nearly four years of Trump in the White House, the standards of what is expected of a president have fallen. Furthermore, his rhetoric has inspired other politicians to speak and act like him. Trump is praised for acting presidential when he follows his script, we saw this after his State of the Union address in 2019. Yet, Trump’s behaviour presents an example to follow for the rest of his party. When people vote for him despite his unconventional behaviour, they acknowledge that these qualities are acceptable in a president. His behaviour encourages others to act similarly too. We have seen this in the case of Roy Moore the ex-Alabama senator who ran for office despite allegations of sexual misconduct and assault. If the president can act in an unpresidential way, others will follow suit, lowering the standards expected in our leaders.

Premises

[P1]Voters electing and re-supporting Trump despite his unconventional conduct signal that such behaviour is acceptable in a president. [P2] Other politicians, like Roy Moore, have followed Trump's example by running and acting in ways once considered unpresidential. [P3] When the president models unpresidential behaviour, the standards expected of all leaders are lowered. [C] Therefore, Trump has transformed what it means to be presidential, making conventionally presidential conduct no longer necessary for the office.

Counter-arguments

Before Trump took office there was an expectation that he would correct his behaviour once elected. We have not seen this happen, and even some of his supporters now find themselves disappointed with his behaviour. So the expectation for better leadership remains.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Electoral support is a weak indicator of a changed norm, since voters weigh policy, party and the alternative alongside conduct — and, as the counter notes, many supporters expressed disappointment in the conduct while still voting. [Rejecting P2] The Moore example runs the other way: he lost a Senate race in Alabama, a state his party normally wins comfortably, which suggests the standard held rather than fell. [Rejecting P3] The sibling position offers a competing explanation the argument does not rule out — that the conventions of presidential conduct have been shifting for decades through television, cable news and social media — in which case this is an instance rather than a cause.