A View of Trump from Down Under – Revisited

This article from our archives was originally published in 2018.

Trump’s presidency is one of the most scrutinised in recent American history. It raises sharp questions about effective leadership today. For Australians, watching from afar, understanding how the U.S. handles accountability and leadership goes beyond theory. It prompts us to reflect on our political strengths and flaws. This piece shows that, when measured by integrity, transparency, respect for democratic norms, and priority of the public good, Trump’s approach shows fundamental unfitness for leadership. By comparing Australian political accountability and culture, I will clarify what’s at stake for Australians and why this matters. I’ll show this through analysis of major controversies, contrasts with Australian accountability, and the impact of American exceptionalism on his style.

Research by James MacGregor Burns and Pew Research Centre surveys show these leadership qualities are key to public trust. Pew’s 2018 survey found 65 per cent of Americans say honesty and respect for democracy matter most.

Trump refused to release tax returns, enforced the 2018 family separation policy, and rolled back climate policy. These actions fuel debate about his fitness for office.

To clarify these controversies for Australian readers, I will directly contrast how political accountability works in both countries. In Australia, swift consequences can follow scandals like the “sports rorts” affair or leadership spills. Ruling party members can remove a Prime Minister between elections through party-room votes. Compulsory voting means leaders must appeal to a wide electorate, not just a narrow base. By contrast, U.S. presidents usually remain in office after controversy. They face slower or more indirect consequences, such as congressional investigations or rare impeachment. These key differences in accountability systems shape leaders’ reputations and public trust in each country.

Many see Trump as confrontational and dismissive of equality and diversity. His 2017 transgender military ban drew widespread criticism and reversed earlier progress. Some see his actions as blunt, others as firm.

In 2018, I described Donald Trump as assertive, confident, and impulsive. His leadership shows self-promotion, charisma, and frequent defiance of presidential norms. Observers identify high dominance, low empathy, and a focus on personal interests over collective ones. These traits appear in his public self-assurance, his disregard for protocols, and his insistence on his own views despite criticism.

Observers point to Trump’s extreme extraversion and low agreeableness. His confrontational rhetoric, repeated lying, name-calling, and self-righteousness dominate the media. He lacks empathy and openness. These traits explain why people react so strongly to his style.

Trump’s leadership resembles that of other populist leaders, such as Jair Bolsonaro, who is known for direct communication and the rejection of norms. Both use confrontation and blunt messaging to mobilise supporters, but different political systems shape the outcomes. Trump draws strong media attention and polarised reactions, while Bolsonaro faces constant conflict in Brazil.

This stirs loyalty among supporters and sharp criticism from opponents, who see it as harming democratic institutions and minority rights. Allegations of misuse of power erode his popularity.

A further example from Europe is Viktor Orbán, Hungary’s Prime Minister. He consolidated power through nationalist rhetoric, anti-immigration stances, and moves against independent institutions. Trump is limited by checks and balances in a presidential system. In contrast, Orbán used parliamentary control and legislative changes to entrench power over the course of many years. Both leaders promise to restore national sovereignty and challenge the elite consensus. Orbán uses long-term legislative tactics, while Trump’s actions are more immediate and confrontational. This creates sharper shifts in opinion and policy reversals. These cases show that contemporary populism varies by context. Yet it often ignores norms and relies on polarising rhetoric.

Returning to the American context, Trump’s 2018 Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin captured his bold, unpredictable leadership. Standing with Putin, Trump questioned U.S. intelligence on Russian election interference and sided with Putin. This broke convention and shocked many. It raised questions about his temperament. After twelve years writing for The AIMN, I am convinced: Trump’s leadership makes him unfit for the presidency. Some view him as direct. They credit him for challenging the political order or for his economic and border security policies. Others argue his norm-disrupting style energises disengaged voters. This essay outlines my reasoning. I begin with an assessment of Trump’s leadership against key criteria and major controversies. I compare American and Australian expectations of accountability and culture. I then examine the influence of American exceptionalism on his worldview.

Others value his willingness to disrupt norms and believe this energises disengaged voters. I will assess Trump against key criteria and controversies, compare American and Australian accountability and culture, and show how American exceptionalism shapes his worldview. This structure clarifies how these factors inform my judgment.

With this in mind, I now revisit how I saw Trump in 2016. His views seem shaped by his wealth and life experience.

He is assertive and outspoken. He recovers quickly from controversies and stays confident under fire. Some find his style entertaining and uniquely American; others say leaders need a broader outlook. From the start, he is bombastic and deluded about his power.

For Australians, this contrast is especially evident in figures like Julia Gillard, whose time as Prime Minister attracted intense scrutiny as a woman and was marked by persistent public feminine hatred and Murdoch media scrutiny.

Media criticism contributed to Julia Gillard’s ousting by her own party through a leadership ballot. Kevin Rudd served two turbulent terms. His time was marked by internal party conflict, questions over his leadership style, and declining public support. He was ultimately replaced by his deputy, Julia Gillard. On the right, leaders such as Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, and Scott Morrison were also swiftly removed. Reasons included unpopular policy decisions, poor poll results, or a loss of confidence from colleagues. These rapid leadership changes highlight how Australian political culture and party structures respond quickly when leaders are seen to fail public or parliamentary expectations.

Scott Morrison faced criticism over his government’s responses to bushfires, COVID-19, and the Robodebt scandal.

Public and political opinion turned quickly against him, highlighting a key contrast: Unlike Trump, whose office insulates him from immediate consequences, Australian leaders are more vulnerable to swift accountability from both voters and peers. Australia’s party-room leadership ballots make changing leaders between elections easy, compulsory voting drives broad participation, and robust media scrutiny hastens accountability. By contrast, in the U.S., presidents face slower, more indirect consequences.

These examples show that Australia values accountability. A broader perspective leads to stronger leadership. Culture shapes outcomes. Authentic leadership matters more than just surviving controversy.

Trump will continue to attract global media attention with disputes and bold statements. His actions in the Middle East are controversial and may influence the November midterms. If not, the war in Iran or the lewd Epstein Affair will.

As the world faces complex problems, some critics say his style undermines cooperation and liken him to other divisive figures.

Trump and his supporters highlight “American exceptionalism,” the belief that the U.S. has a unique mission and values. At best, this inspires rights movements and innovation. Critics argue that Trump uses it to justify unilateral action and ignore consensus.

By contrast, Australia does not have an equivalent tradition of exceptionalism; its national identity is shaped more by values of fairness, egalitarianism, and collective responsibility. The “fair go” ethos and emphasis on mateship reflect a cultural preference for modesty and inclusion over grand narratives of global destiny. While Australians take pride in their achievements, their sense of national purpose is less focused on projecting values abroad and more on maintaining social cohesion at home. This fundamental difference shapes how Australians view leadership and accountability, and it highlights important cultural contrasts in how each country understands its role in the world.

According to the Chicago Council Survey, Americans view the United States as the most influential country in the world, rating it 8.6 out of 10 for global influence. This shapes how leaders like Trump emphasise America’s distinct global role. In contrast, Australians typically value national modesty, equality, and the “fair go” ethos, leading to a less pronounced sense of exceptionalism. Where American leaders use national identity for global action, Australian leaders often focus on fairness and inclusion at home.

Australians express their uniqueness modestly, with less focus on global missions than Americans do.

In “A Brief History of American Exceptionalism,” Burton Mack explains what the phrase truly means.

Mack’s definition shows how Trump’s worldview reflects a strong sense of American uniqueness, even as his actions diverge from the values and responsibilities the idea is meant to support. This contrast helps clarify why authentic, accountable leadership remains essential in shaping both reputation and lasting public trust.

“In truth, “American exceptionalism,” a term currently making the rounds among journalists, denotes those features of American self-understanding that distinguish it from other modern societies, especially European nation-states. Most of the features of note are familiar to most Americans with some sense of our history and of Europe’s since the Industrial Revolution. Chief among these is the notion of democracy born of a revolution against monarchy, not driven by an alternative vision of society (as was the case in the European revolutions).

The purpose of the American Revolution was to give the people and their colonies freedom to pursue their own interests without any control by the king in England and only minimal control by the other colonies in America. It was this kind of founding principle and focus regarding individual freedom that has given rise to the popular idea of the United States as the ‘land of the free.’

Understanding this concept clarifies why American leaders such as Trump regularly highlight the nation’s unique role and mission globally, sometimes prioritising US interests over international cooperation. For Australians, reflecting on exceptionalism helps illuminate fundamental differences in national identity: Americans may celebrate exceptionality and defiance of tradition, whereas Australians often prioritise pragmatism, collective responsibility, and cooperation over claims of uniqueness.

“The Office of the American President should stand as a symbol of integrity and responsibility. When these ideals are abandoned, ridicule and division follow – a warning relevant to any nation that hopes to be respected.”

The mindset and standards of those we elect set the tone for our nation’s reputation and its future. Trump’s tenure is a stark reminder: we must demand more from our leaders, reject mediocrity and division, and refuse complacency.

Imagine the possibilities if we chose a different path; picture lawmakers from both sides uniting to pass a bold climate agreement, setting a new standard for cooperation and global leadership. Such a moment would restore unity, trust, and excellence in public life, and show the world what can be achieved when we move beyond division. Only by raising our expectations can we shape a future that truly reflects our highest values.

For Australians, this means we have the opportunity to actively engage with our democracy and demand accountability from leaders. Participate in civic discussions, support policies that promote transparency and fairness, and hold representatives to account – whether by writing to MPs, attending public forums, or voting thoughtfully. Each of us can help raise the bar for leadership and ensure our political culture values both integrity and results.

My thoughts for the day

Just because we are governed by clowns it doesn’t mean we have to laugh.

Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN

Dear Reader,

Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless voice for truth, giving public interest journalists a platform to hold power to account. From expert analysis on national and global events to uncovering issues that matter to you, we’re here because of your support.

Running an independent site isn’t cheap, and rising costs mean we need you now more than ever. Your donation – big or small – keeps our servers humming, our writers digging, and our stories free for all.

Join our community of truth-seekers. Please consider donating now via:

PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below

Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund to help secure the future of our site.
Your support will go directly toward covering essential costs like web hosting renewals and helping us bring new features to life. Every contribution, no matter the size, helps us keep improving and growing.

Thank you for standing with us – we truly couldn’t do this without you.

With gratitude, The AIMN Team