In the wake of recent tragedies, some pundits have described Donald Trump’s conduct as “presidential.” This is upsetting to a selection of his detractors who believe it sets a low bar for our commander-in-chief.
HuffPost, for instance, ran an article rounding up those reactions on Monday after the tragic shooting in Las Vegas titled, “Journalists And Pundits Praise Trump’s Response To Las Vegas Shooting As ‘Very Presidential.'”
The article, written by Associate Politics Editor Marina Fang, argued: “Monday’s commentary is part of a pattern of some reporters and pundits setting a low bar for the president and then praising him when he manages to stay on script and not create any controversy.”
But rather than setting a “low bar,” aren’t those comments simply noting that Trump appears to be meeting the bar? Calling Trump “presidential” is an observation that his conduct matched the standard our society has set for what constitutes appropriate behavior from a president. Given that this particular president so often engages in behavior many believe to be beneath the dignity of his office, why is it not worthwhile to note when he conducts himself more in line with the standard established by his predecessors?
Making that observation does not necessarily amount to praise. If anything, that pundits feel compelled to observe the president is acting like a president is an indication they see it as a noteworthy development.
Anyone referring to conduct which departs from that standard as “presidential” is what would be worthy of concern. That would actually qualify as lowering the bar. But when Trump addresses the nation after tragedy and speaks with the compassion, clarity, and resolve we’ve come to expect from our presidents, there is nothing wrong with observing as much.
Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.
