How Consequential Is the Trump Administration? Historians Weigh In

It is always interesting to hear historians discuss how consequential presidents have been. Whether Lincoln, Carter, Reagan, Roosevelt (both Teddy and Franklin), Obama - each have been consequential in their own way. Even President Chester Arthur, who was deemed by Peter Robinson as a non-consequential president, oversaw the Chinese Exclusion Act, modernization of the navy, and civil service reform through the Pendleton Act. It should be noted that being consequential does not denote whether a president was good or bad, but whether their actions had a profound effect on the nation.

Several months ago, three esteemed historians were hosted by Peter Robinson to discuss the consequentiality of the Trump administration. Victor Davis Hanson, Sir Niall Ferguson, and Steven Kotkin - all accomplished historians - engaged in an interesting discussion about the Trump administration. Unfortunately, Hanson and Ferguson have the propensity to filter their sense of history and presidential consequentiality through their ideology. As both gave the president high marks, Kotkin to his credit maintained his role of historian when he stated that it is too soon to tell.

There is no doubt Trump has been consequential in several areas. One area is through his appointment of Supreme Court justices who subsequently overturned Roe v. Wade and tend to support the unitary executive theory.

Despite his animosity towards the nation's European allies, in a continuation of demands by presidents from Eisenhower to Biden to increase their contribution to NATO, he has managed to get allies to pay a collective 20% increase. What was not discussed is the cost that America may have to pay. Many American allies have decided America is no longer a reliable ally. His threats towards Greenland are considered misguided as well as his call to make Canada the 51st state. This has led to the belief among many allies that the US is a threat to their democracy.

When it comes to China, they credited the president with recognizing China as an economic threat but left out that it was former President Obama who listed China as an economic threat, with his response being the Transatlantic Pacific Partnership. Ferguson was right that China's share of manufacturing has declined while the United States has increased. What was left out was the fact that China, despite its decline, still produces the largest share of manufacturing.

Hanson, who downplayed the events of Charlottesville by referring to the marchers as "a few creepy guys," made the claim that because of President Trump, most colleges have reinstated SAT scores. The reality is that most colleges remain test optional. Hanson, in a clear example of hyperbole, compared President Trump's policies to the Thermidorian reaction of the French Revolution - where a coup was carried out against Maximilien Robespierre. His apparent equating of policies of the left to the Reign of Terror, which left 18,000 people dead, is obviously absurd.

What was interesting is what both Hanson and Ferguson missed or deliberately left out. One is that most historians have deemed Trump's as the most corrupt administration in history, surpassing the administrations of Richard Nixon and Warren Harding. Second is the administration's tendency towards nationalism which historian Jon Meacham describes as allegiance towards one's own kind. It is this propensity that, if sustained, would be the most consequential aspect of his administration.

He is also the most sued president in history. During his first term, his administration was named in 750 lawsuits. From the legal perspective, he has lost over 150 lawsuits including his policy of tariffs, which has been deemed unconstitutional.

The historians left a lot out of their assessment of the administration thus far. While Hanson lifted up the fact that the electorate supported the idea of immigration, Kotkin reminded Hanson that the public, despite its support for the general policy, clearly rejects his method of removing undocumented immigrants from the nation. It would be interesting to see how both Hanson and Ferguson would react to the latest New York Times report about the White House discussing the possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807 and suspending Habeas Corpus in reaction to protests in Minnesota or the war in Iran.

The reality is that policies come and go. It was good to see historians debate the consequence of a president. Nonetheless, it would have been more beneficial for them to discuss the effect on the nation rather than engage in what at times seemed like a cheerleading squad with Hanson and Ferguson. The problem is when ideology takes precedence. While they were critical about the administration not addressing the national debt, the reality is every president in modern times has increased the debt.

While President Trump's activities suggest a barrage of changes, their permanence remains to be seen. Many of his directives have been by executive order, which can be reversed under a different administration. In fact, to date President Trump has relied on executive orders more than his predecessors, with over 400 so far. The question is not whether President Trump is consequential but how consequential and for how long. Steven Kotkin is right - it is too early to tell.