I’ve thought that it is extremely unlikely that Trump will withdraw from NAFTA, so it is encouraging that this has so far borne out. The Washington Post highlights this ‘reversal’ in an ‘inside look.’ Coinciding with the 100 day mark of his presidency, this and other ‘shifts’ have led on a raft of punditry claiming he’s betrayed his voters, but which avoids an actual critique on the efficacy of his policies. Political punditry applauds politicians with expertise in espousing carefully crafted, thoughtfully worded statements and Trump obviously does not fit the mold. He’s an extremely successful salesman who operates in hyperbole and bullshit. Unfortunately, this disconnect has led to thoroughly uninteresting commentary. ‘Serious people’ think nuanced speech is a hallmark of a competent president and Trump’s demeanor is a direct challenge to that assumption. In an effort to combat his assault on perceived political norms, they retreat to arguments over meaning. ‘See? Mexico isn’t paying for the wall, the US taxpayer is!’ This is a meaningless debate over what amounts to a political prop. His constant effusing over building a wall is signaling that he is serious about combating illegal immigration, and he has agitated for it in office quite openly. Although he’s faced setbacks in the courts on his executive orders, illegal immigration has fallen in the first few months of his term. It’s fair to point out that the economy is a factor, but it is clear that his administration has had a major impact.

Is Trump a genius ‘Master Persuader’ that some of his more ardent supporters claim? Of course not. There have been actual stumbles as he learns the ropes of the office. However, it’s clear there is a method to his behavior. His detractors often misread his statements for what they usually are, a negotiation tactic usually in the form of a very basic technique, anchoring. His more extreme statements anchor the conversation to something heavily in his direction, allowing him to give up ‘concessions’ and still end up at a point in his favor. So while his critics claim vindication for Trump reversing his stance on tearing up NAFTA, he’s actually forced parties to the table to renegotiate for simply maintaining the status quo. There are serious questions about the merits of this tactic, but the longer critics refuse to address the actual strategy employed, the longer we’ll have to deal with insipid political hot takes.