The Presidency of Lowered Expectations: How Trump Turned Failing Upward Into a Feature, Not a Flaw
Most of us never imagined we’d end up in an America led by such a petty, thin-skinned criminal.
What’s even more surreal is how many toxic personalities rally behind him—people who, under any other circumstance, would mock a man so performatively fragile.
It’s stunning. It's sad.
When exactly did we start electing leaders who, instead of exceeding our expectations, keeps lowering the bar—as Trump does—seemingly by the minute?
Let’s never forget who—and what—we’re dealing with when it comes to Donald Trump: a man whose criminal tendencies and psychological instability I detailed in a previous blog post that resonated widely.
Devaluation Disguised—When Control Hides Behind Concern: Donald Trump
What is THAT article about? Well... it analyzes a (mental aberration and) tactic used by Donald Trump known as "covert devaluation." A strategy that involves making subtle, demeaning comments to undermine others' confidence and establish dominance. Examples are included from Trump's interactions with various individuals, illustrating how he employs psychological tactics such as devaluation, passive-aggression, and gaslighting.
The article contrasts Trump's behavior towards perceived weaker individuals with his more deferential approach to authoritarian leaders, highlighting his narcissistic need for power. Ultimately, I express a strong aversion to Trump, not only for his political views but also for his (lack of) character and (despicable) treatment of others, offering insights into the psychological (and pathological) mechanisms behind Trump's ill behavior.
Trump’s covert devaluation of everything around him—truth, institutions, norms, even language—is often mistaken for strategy. But in reality, it reflects his psychological makeup more than any calculated plan. It’s also why some mistake his unfocused, contradictory actions and statements for “genius”: he simply throws everything at the wall, then sticks with whatever gains traction or applause.
At first glance, it may seem like a political tactic: lowering expectations so consistently that corruption, incompetence, and cruelty become mundane. But this isn’t chess—it’s a compulsive pattern. Trump doesn’t just devalue others to consolidate power; he does it reflexively, because he needs to.
This behavior is rooted in:
-
Narcissistic fragility – Others must be diminished for him to feel big.
-
Insecurity masked as dominance – He attacks anything he doesn’t understand or control.
-
Cognitive dissonance aversion – Rather than reflect or adapt, he redefines success downward to match failure.
While some aides and enablers may try to frame it all as “strategy”—after all, Trump is in the Oval Office, and not everyone around him is a fool—the truth is more chaotic and disturbing. Yes, he surrounds himself with sycophants, but even smart people can’t steer a man driven by impulse and grievance. It’s not a master plan—it’s pathology masquerading as politics. And the damage is real, even when the intent isn’t coherent.
Moving on...
Remember when we used to elect presidents hoping they’d
rise to the occasion? That they’d surprise us with depth, courage, leadership—even if we didn’t vote for them? Somewhere along the line, that dynamic reversed. Today, particularly with figures like Donald Trump, the phenomenon feels inverted: the longer they’re in office, the
lower our expectations sink.
And somehow, bizarrely, that’s become part of the
appeal.
A Broken Feedback Loop
Presidents used to be measured by how well they adapted to the weight of the office. Lincoln and FDR were tested by crisis and became legends. Even recent presidents—Obama, George H.W. Bush, even Nixon—were assessed by their ability to balance power with responsibility. The system wasn’t perfect, but it expected a certain upward trajectory, or at least a competent plateau.
Enter Trump: a man whose supporters don't seem to care if he governs competently, tells the truth, or respects democratic institutions. In fact, for many, the lack of those traits is exactly why they voted for him.
What we’re watching isn’t leadership. It’s a degradation of standards so thorough that merely reading a speech without slurring, or not insulting a foreign leader that day, is treated like a triumph.
This line appears in the section where the Founders list grievances against King George III, justifying the colonies’ decision to break away from British rule.
How Did We Get Here?
This shift didn’t begin with Trump, but he weaponized it in a way that no one else had the audacity—or nihilism—to attempt.
-
Post-Watergate Disillusionment: After Nixon’s resignation, Americans became deeply cynical about government. That disillusionment never healed. Instead, it became a breeding ground for anti-establishment sentiment.
-
The Rise of the “Folksy Outsider”: Reagan, Bush II, even Palin played the role of the relatable outsider. But they still engaged with policy, institutions, and norms. Trump took the performance further—he turned disengagement into defiance and ignorance into authenticity.
-
Media Saturation & Scandal Fatigue: Trump’s strategy of flooding the zone with chaos numbed the public. What would be a multi-week scandal for any other president—say, calling veterans “suckers and losers,” or suggesting bleach injections—was just Tuesday for Trump. With outrage exhausted, expectations dropped by necessity.
-
Partisan Armor: In a hyper-polarized era, many voters don’t defend Trump's actions—they defend their identity. And admitting Trump failed would mean admitting they were wrong. It’s easier to move the goalposts than face that mirror.
The Dangerous Appeal of the Low Bar
Trump isn’t just surviving despite lowered expectations—he thrives on them. When nothing is expected, the smallest gesture is praised. This is how you get media headlines like “Trump Acts Presidential in Address” simply because he read a teleprompter without going off-script.
This inversion of accountability is corrosive. It:
And perhaps worst of all: it redefines leadership as nothing more than domination, spectacle, and ego.
Examples. Trump's Pardon Attorney: "No MaGA Left Behind."
In 2025, President Donald Trump issued multiple controversial pardons that have drawn significant criticism. Why pardon these people? Trump sees himself in them, in his own forms of criminality.
Here are some of the most contentious:
1. Todd and Julie Chrisley – Reality TV Stars Convicted of Fraud
Trump granted full pardons to Todd and Julie Chrisley, stars of the reality TV show Chrisley Knows Best. In 2022, they were convicted of bank fraud and tax evasion, having defrauded banks of at least $30 million by submitting false documents. Todd was sentenced to 12 years, and Julie to 7 years in prison. The pardons were announced by their daughter, Savannah Chrisley, a vocal Trump supporter who had campaigned for their release. Critics, including Ana Navarro on The View, condemned the pardons as unethical and indicative of corruption.
2. James Callahan – Union Leader Convicted of Failing to Report Gifts
James Callahan, former president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, received a full pardon from Trump on the eve of his sentencing. Callahan had pleaded guilty to failing to report $315,000 in gifts from a company that did business with the union. Prosecutors had recommended a six-month prison sentence. The pardon was unexpected, especially since Callahan's union had endorsed President Biden in the 2023 election.
3. Scott Jenkins – Former Virginia Sheriff Convicted of Bribery
Trump pardoned Scott Jenkins, the former sheriff of Culpeper County, Virginia, who was convicted in December 2024 on multiple counts of bribery and honest services fraud. Jenkins had accepted over $75,000 in bribes in exchange for appointing individuals as auxiliary deputy sheriffs. He was sentenced to 10 years in federal prison in March 2025. The pardon was granted just before Jenkins was due to begin his sentence.
4. Consideration of Pardons for Convicted Plotters in Governor Whitmer Kidnapping Case
President Trump has indicated he is considering pardons for Barry Croft Jr. and Adam Fox, the ringleaders convicted in the 2020 plot to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The two were sentenced in 2022 to over 19 and 16 years, respectively, for conspiring to kidnap and use weapons of mass destruction. Trump described the trial as a "railroad job" and suggested the men may have simply made "stupid" remarks while under the influence of alcohol.
5. Pardons for January 6 Capitol Riot Participants
On January 20, 2025, immediately after taking office for his second term, President Trump granted clemency to approximately 1,500 individuals charged or convicted for their roles in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. This included full pardons for prominent figures such as Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys and Stewart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers, both of whom had been convicted of seditious conspiracy. The mass pardons have been widely criticized as undermining the rule of law and accountability.
6. Pardon for convicted drug trafficker Jonathan Braun, and child abuser
President Donald Trump granted clemency to Jonathan Braun, a convicted drug trafficker, who was later arrested for assaulting a 3-year-old child.
In 2019, Braun was sentenced to 10 years in prison for smuggling over 100,000 kilograms of marijuana into the U.S. from Canada. In January 2021, Trump commuted Braun's sentence, leading to his early release.
Following his release, Braun faced multiple legal issues. In March 2025, he was arrested and charged with several offenses, including assaulting a 3-year-old child. According to court documents, during a Sabbath event at his home, Braun punched a man in the face and then shoved his 3-year-old son to the ground, causing a red mark on the child's back.
Braun's post-commutation conduct has raised concerns about the vetting process for presidential clemency and the potential risks of granting clemency to individuals with histories of violent behavior.
Here are a few other controversial pardons issued by Donald Trump:
-
Steve Bannon
-
Bernard Kerik
-
Dinesh D’Souza
-
Joe Arpaio
-
Michael Milken
-
Rod Blagojevich
-
Charles Kushner
-
George Papadopoulos
-
Roger Stone
-
Paul Manafort
These actions have intensified debates over the use of presidential pardon powers, with critics arguing that they reflect a pattern of favoritism toward political allies and supporters, raising concerns about the integrity of the justice system.
David Frum has characterized the Trump administration's corruption as being on a scale comparable to that of a post-Soviet republic or a postcolonial African dictatorship. In a recent episode of The David Frum Show, he stated:
“This is American corruption on the scale of a post-Soviet republic or a postcolonial African dictatorship.”
Frum elaborated that the extent of self-enrichment and the brazenness of the actions taken by the administration are unprecedented in American history, likening them to the corruption seen in authoritarian regimes.
He further emphasized that the scale of financial gain by the president and his family, through ventures such as meme-coin sales and foreign-financed golf courses, cannot be compared to any previous American administration. Frum noted:
“The scale of the self-enrichment—billions of dollars flowing to the president and his family, not just from American donors, which would be shocking enough, but from people all over the world—this can’t be compared to anything in American history. It’s more like something from a post-Soviet republic or a postcolonial African state.”
These statements underscore Frum's view that the Trump administration's actions represent a level of corruption more akin to that found in certain authoritarian regimes than in any prior U.S. presidency.
There’s another disturbing layer to all this: Trump didn’t cause the rise of authoritarianism—he rode it. That’s what he does. He finds a flaw, then leans into it. Is that genius? No. It’s a lazy, destructive tactic long favored by the narcissistic and the criminal. He became POTUS45 in a world already tilting that way. Don’t kid yourself—Russia, under Putin, has spent decades undermining democracies. And it’s working.
At the 2025 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) events in Europe, particularly in Hungary and Poland, CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp emphasized the global expansion of the MAGA movement and expressed concerns about perceived authoritarianism from international institutions.
In an interview with NPR, Schlapp stated:
"I felt like America's institutions were definitely in an autocratic slide. I felt like people who have CPAC-type values couldn't get a fair shake in the major national media... I've talked to tons of Hungarians who feel like it's Brussels that are the autocrats, it's the U.N. that are the autocrats, it's the WHO that are the autocrats that tell doctors how they should prescribe medicine."
He further noted the international interest in Trump's policies, saying:
"The one thing that's undeniable is that everybody wants to know where Donald Trump is on the issues that matter to their country. They're really rooting for Donald Trump to succeed."
Schlapp also highlighted the proliferation of Trump support abroad:
"When I go to these countries, I'm always shocked. Poland: a lot of Trump hats. This is what's happening all around the world."
These statements reflect Schlapp's perspective that global institutions are perceived by some as authoritarian, and that there's a growing international alignment with the MAGA movement's ideals.
Matt Schlapp’s comments about MaGA support growing internationally—like seeing Trump hats in Poland or hearing that the UN, WHO, and Brussels are the “autocrats”—reveal just how deep he is inside a right-wing information bubble. Yes, there’s been a coordinated global rise of nationalist, illiberal movements—but interpreting that as a grassroots global revolt against “autocracy” is a complete inversion of reality.
Authoritarian regimes and illiberal leaders—from Hungary’s Orbán to Russia’s Putin—have openly attacked democratic norms, stifled press freedom, and weakened judicial independence. When CPAC aligns itself with these figures and Schlapp calls them the ones fighting autocracy, he’s flipping the script: casting democracy defenders as the tyrants, and the actual authoritarians as freedom fighters.
It’s a narrative warped by ideology and self-interest, not fact. He’s not observing a spontaneous world movement toward freedom—he’s helping manufacture and market an illusion that justifies erosion of liberal democracy under the banner of “saving” it.
What Are We Losing?
When expectations decay, so does civic responsibility. We become a culture of enablers, cheering mediocrity or worse, as long as it “owns the libs” or feeds our own political appetite. We stop demanding growth, intelligence, integrity. We settle for bluster and cruelty masquerading as strength.
And the bar keeps falling.
Can We Reverse It?
Yes—but only if we stop accepting theater as governance. If we stop measuring “success” by who can yell loudest or trigger the opposition hardest. And if we return to the basic idea that public office is not a show, it’s a service.
Presidents are not supposed to “disrupt” just for the sake of disruption. They're supposed to rise—to crises, to compassion, to the occasion.
It's long past time we start electing leaders who want to elevate the nation, not themselves.
Compiled with aid of ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment