The problem with Trump is that since he was anti-establishment (the "political" establishment), he scared the BeJesus out of career politicians - and rightfully so. In the sense that Republicans favor smaller governments, his initiatives to reduce the number of regulations is consistent with the party line - except that he's actually doing something affirmatively and that makes him unusual.
His policies have led to reductions in unemployment across the board, including blacks, Hispanic immigrants (legal ones, of course), and women. He has a lot of followers who see him as getting business back into "hiring" mode and that makes him popular with people who have been struggling. The tariff situation is another interesting thing. So we slapped heavy tariffs on other nations and they put tariffs on food. Oddly enough, other customers popped up willing to offer fair (and better) deals. So after a brief disruption, some things are settling down. For instance, many USA restaurants are reporting that they can offer price reductions because the different balance in shipping makes more food available in domestic markets. A case of trickle-down economics in action.
The international stances he has taken make him a maverick and I know that upsets a lot of people, but (at least to my way of thinking) he is not wrong in the way he talked to NATO. The other member nations have realized that if they want good security, they need to at least assist in the process of providing that security. We (the USA) CANNOT afford to be the world's police force. First, too expensive. Second and probably even more important, if we crack down on something somewhere in the world and as a result seem culturally insensitive, well what the Hell did you expect? If you want peace and lawful behavior enforced according to your culture, YOU should be the ones to provide it. Don't blame us if we don't get your cultural sensitivities quite right. It's HELL being the only activist good guy.
As to the media, several times in the last couple of months some of the big-name media outlets have had to print retractions. The most recent one was lambasting Ms. Haley, the UN Representative (or whatever her title is) over 50K US$ draperies, complaining about a useless expense. Of course, they buried the explanation in the sixth follow-up frame in the article - that in fact it was her predecessor under Obama who had actually ordered the drapes, which were necessary because of special rules about insulating rooms against stray radio signals if there is ANY sensitive information to discuss in that room. CNN has twice or three times had to correct itself on reports that are unkind to the Trump administration. DJT's complaints regarding "fake news" were unsettling but now begin to at least look somewhat justified.
OK, I know that DJT is as rough as a cheap rat-tail file, and probably just as abrasive. But I also know that Hillary's "politics as usual" was not what the country needed. Whether he will, in the long term, be good or bad for the country? Damned if I know. I believe that we need a historical perspective to be able to answer that question. But in the sense that the country needed to break out of its mold, he was the right man at the right time, rough edges and all.
