Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
US PRESIDENT DONALD Trump learned a few things from his first stint residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The key lesson, from his point of view, was not to surround himself with professionals who have the ideal CVs to fulfil some of the most important roles in the government of the United States. Instead, yes men and women in possession of a singular qualification – a willingness to do the commander-in-chief’s bidding, no matter what – were what he needed.
And regardless of one’s opinion of Trump’s second tenure to date, it is undeniable that there has been an incessant flurry of verbiage and activity since he was inaugurated on 20 January.
The creation and swift collapse of the once-heralded, now-infamous DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) together with his on-again off-again “bromance” with Elon Musk topped the domestic itinerary early on. That was followed by the ongoing roundups of alleged “illegal aliens” and the often disturbing tactics of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents.
Trump has gone too far on these two initiatives for that crucial segment of the American people, including the fast-growing demographic of Latinos, whose votes are up for grabs and who decide the result of elections. DOGE and ICE are partly responsible for his steady decline in the polls.
They are dwarfed as factors, however, by his inability to solve the inflation and cost of living crisis which he effectively blamed on the Biden administration and pledged to ameliorate if returned to the White House. That he currently denies the problem still exists is, frankly, dumb politics. It’s directly at odds with the lived experiences of many who have supported him.
On the global stage, there has been a marked departure – rhetorically, at least – from the America First messaging that resonated so well. Conversely, his words about buying Greenland and making Canada the 51st state, and deeds, attacking Iran and annihilating boats supposedly sailing from Venezuela replete with drugs, have been expansionist and interventionist.
While Trump brags about ending multiple wars, there is a very imperfect ceasefire in Gaza and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues. The peace he promised to deliver so rapidly to both places is a distance off, sadly. Equally regrettably, the plight of Palestinians or Ukrainians doesn’t really register on the radar screens of a solid majority of US voters.
Among his party’s politicians and pundits, there is undoubtedly a sense that President Trump is morphing into yesterday’s man, as the vote on the release of the Epstein files suggests.
This was the first occasion on which congressional Republicans openly defied him. It mightn’t be the last.
Against that, even as they will be guided by their re-election prospects above all with midterms looming, they will simultaneously be cognisant of the opinion surveys revealing that the man who has redefined American conservatism retains the loyalty of approximately 90% of ordinary Republicans.
As for the Democrats, they seem, finally, to be emerging from the funk and intraparty discord flowing from their poor performance in November 2024.
In aggregated generic congressional polling on RealClearPolitics.com, they are five percentage points ahead of the GOP.
Triumphs in recent contests indicate that they have stumbled into a winner with the “affordability agenda” in response to the serious concerns of most all Americans, excepting the very wealthy, over how they can pay their mortgages, fill their gas tanks or send their kids to colleges and universities.
As a tumultuous 2025 reaches its close, what should we be watching for in 2026, which will be dominated by the midterms and, before too much longer, start to feature conjecture about who the Republicans and Democrats will pick to succeed President Trump?
On the Republican side, will incumbents and aspirants be smart and shrewd enough to acknowledge their constituents’ suffering and propose tangible solutions, such as targeted tax cuts and vocational retraining? As the perceptive, roving Fox News columnist David Marcus has written, decrying beneficent government programmes as socialist in an effort to disabuse hurting individuals and families of their worth is not a great strategy anymore. Indeed, the “Trumpism” that engendered a formerly implausible GOP coalition bears little resemblance to traditional economic conservatism.
Albeit implicitly, this subtle acceptance that President Trump hasn’t improved the situation may provoke his ire, yet dismissing what they are hearing across the country would be fatal to their chances. Additionally, expect that Republicans will endeavour to exploit the extent to which, on cultural issues, the Democratic Party platform is out of tune with the perspectives of most Americans beyond the coasts and the major cities. Negative ads in the heartland will link Democratic candidates with the more unpalatable ideas of high-profile progressives.
And the perpetual question remains for the Democrats: will they allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good or will they choose their standard bearers strategically?
The special election in deep red Tennessee this week offers a cautionary tale. Although Republicans held the seat, they were clearly frightened of an upset. Staving it off was made a lot easier by their opponent’s unpopular utterances. Among others, she tweeted “good morning, especially to the 54% of Americans that believe burning down a police station is justified” in 2020.
This leftist, ultimately beaten by nine percentage points, was straight out of central casting for the tried-and-true conservative playbook. Could a moderate have prevailed in that district? Probably not. Nonetheless, he or she would have fared better. Extrapolating therefrom, while doubling down on the affordability agenda everywhere, the party must nominate capable people of varied ideological stripes from within what should be a broad, welcoming tent.
To put shape on the abstract, this means, for instance, celebrating the achievement of Zohran Mamdani, a talented young man, a compelling figure who met the moment, but also recognising that the soon to be mayor of New York City couldn’t get elected dog catcher in vast swathes of the US.
All of the foregoing will be in the ether in the campaigns to come and will be watched keenly by those with their eyes on the biggest prize.
As the dust settles from the midterms, the next race for the White House will commence in earnest.
The two names mentioned prominently and frequently these days are Vice President JD Vance and California Governor Gavin Newsom.
But history shows that being deemed a favourite at this premature juncture does not make one a presumptive nominee, and certainly not a president-in-waiting.
Larry Donnelly is a Boston attorney, a Law Lecturer at the University of Galway and a political columnist with The Journal.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say