There's no theory behind Trump

[BloombergOpinion]( [Early Returns]( [Jonathan Bernstein]( I’m a big fan of the historian Julian E. Zelizer, but I think he’s [got this one wrong](: President Trump has a coherent theory about American politics that can be summed up in one sentence: Republicans will always come home. … Until now, that strategy has worked relatively well – allowing him to retain much of his support, even as he has pushed the envelope rhetorically and with policy. This strikes me as a version of the clever fallacy, in which smart political observers concoct coherent strategies for what is, with Trump, usually just a case of acting on impulse. It’s true that Trump has often stuck with Republican orthodoxy, but there are plenty of times when he hasn’t; it's true that he’s been extremely partisan, but he’s also attacked Republicans who for whatever reason he was upset with. To say that’s all part of a coherent theory? I’m skeptical. To the extent Trump has embraced Republican policies, it reveals more about the power of parties than about any calculation on his part. I expected Trump to run a far more personal presidency; instead, he’s been almost as partisan as Barack Obama, George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. Why? In large part, because personnel matter, and the only people willing to work in a Trump White House have been Republicans and a few personal loyalists. Since Trump tends to be indifferent to public policy, and often indifferent to what his administration is up to outside a handful of areas, a lot of things are just run by standard-issue Republicans by default. So, no, I don’t think there’s anything more coherent going on. I’m also skeptical that ignoring everyone except his strongest supporters has “worked relatively well.” Yes, Trump won in 2016 because Republicans did in fact come home. But the real implication of that tendency is that a Republican president should have some leeway to appeal to everyone else, and there’s every possibility that Trump, had he done so, could’ve fared a lot better than the fluke victory he squeezed out while losing the popular vote. And since then? Zelizer focuses on an outlier poll giving Trump a 47 percent approval rating. But overall Trump has been the least popular president during the polling era. It’s hard to see how that’s a win, especially given a solid economy and no particular disasters abroad. And while we don’t yet know how the midterms will go, we do know that special and off-year elections have gone quite badly for Trump and Republicans, and the evidence right now suggests that the midterms will too. Here’s the thing. A president who resists polarization, instead of constantly reinforcing it, has at least a chance to break through at times. Bush, after all, had record approval ratings and remained very popular until the Iraq War deteriorated and the economy collapsed. Obama had a relatively normal first-year honeymoon, with legislative accomplishments to match, and ended up pretty popular as well. It’s not all that long ago that Clinton, with peace and prosperity, managed to have an Ike-like second term. Perhaps Trump will rally and actually become popular at some point. And perhaps the pollsters, political-science models and district experts are all wrong about the midterms. But so far, I think, it’s a huge mistake to say that what Trump is doing is working.  1. Karen E. Young at the Monkey Cage on where [Saudi Arabia’s economy]( goes from here. 2. Mallory SoRelle at A House Divided on Trump and the [importance of the federal bureaucracy for civil rights](. 3. Elaine Kamarck and Alexander R. Podkul at Brookings look at the self-reported [ideology of 2018 primary voters](. I'd be careful about this; Republicans may just like calling themselves conservative more than Democrats like calling themselves liberal. Good to know, anyway. 4. Dan Drezner is [fed up with the president's lies](. It certainly is odd, to say the least, to have the president talking about purely fictional riots in California. (As it happens, I was driving around Los Angeles all weekend. No riots!) 5. Brian Alexander on the incentives for members of Congress to [break their own rules](. 6. Richard L. Hasen on [the voting wars](. 7. Pema Levy talks with Henry Waxman about what [oversight from a Democratic House]( should look like. Short version: Emphasize fairness and policy. Yes, that would still score partisan points, but good oversight doesn’t begin and end with that. 8. Jennifer Bendery reports on the Democrat running for [governor in Idaho](. 9. And Sarah Kliff on a sloppy White House report that accidentally [makes the case for single-payer health care](. Get Early Returns every morning in your inbox. Click [here]( to subscribe. Also subscribe to [Bloomberg All Access]( and get much, much more. You’ll receive our unmatched global news coverage and two in-depth daily newsletters, the Bloomberg Open and the Bloomberg Close. Bloomberg L.P. ● 731 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022 [Web]( ● [Facebook]( ● [Twitter]( [Feedback]( ● [Unsubscribe]( If you believe this has been sent to you in error, please safely [unsubscribe](.