I want to make something clear at the outset. I was a supporter of Donald Trump returning to the White House for a second term. I wasn't necessarily a supporter of everything he said or did, but I genuinely believed there was an opportunity for a different sort of American presidency.
I thought Trump might be the man to restore some common sense to American government.
His campaign had made some quite attractive promises. He talked about putting America first, rebuilding American industry, controlling illegal immigration, reducing unnecessary government expenditure and, perhaps most importantly, avoiding the endless foreign military adventures that have cost America so dearly over many decades.
He presented himself as a man who could negotiate, make deals and bring an end to conflicts rather than start new ones. I thought there was considerable merit in that approach.
But somewhere along the way, the Trump we saw campaigning for his second term seems to have become a rather different president. And I find that disappointing.
The recent midterm elections have delivered a considerable setback for Trump and the Republican Party. Democrats have taken control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This was not simply a disappointing collection of individual election results. It was a substantial rejection of the president’s political direction.
The voters have delivered their verdict and the White House should take notice.
There are several reasons why this has happened, but I suspect one of the most important is the difference between what Trump promised and what Americans have experienced.
His approach to international affairs is a particular concern.
The war with Iran has raised some very serious questions. I have spoken with retired New Zealand military personnel and their observations have been interesting. They question whether the American military strategy was sufficiently thought through.
Air power can destroy installations, missile sites, radar systems and military infrastructure. But destroying targets from the air does not necessarily achieve the strategic objective.
What was the plan for securing the Strait of Hormuz? What was the intended outcome? And what happens when the bombing stops?
There are legitimate military arguments about whether securing strategic islands and positions would have been a better approach. There are also substantial risks associated with putting troops on the ground. But these are precisely the questions that should have been answered before committing America to such a campaign.
Then there is Israel’s influence over American policy. Israel has its own national security priorities, and it is perfectly understandable that its government should pursue them. But America has wider responsibilities. American interests are not automatically identical to Israeli interests.
The American President must ultimately decide what is in the interests of America, not simply what another government believes should be done.
I also wonder whether Trump has surrounded himself with too many people who agree with him and too few who are prepared to challenge him.
A president needs advisors who can say no. He needs people who can explain why an idea might be unworkable, why a military operation could become a prolonged commitment or why an apparently attractive political decision could have serious economic consequences.
Loyalty is important, but competence and independent judgement are considerably more important. And perhaps this brings us to the central problem.
Has Trump’s ego become more important than the administration of the country?
His public confrontations, personal attacks and apparent unwillingness to accept criticism have increasingly become part of the political story. A president should be able to withstand criticism without turning every disagreement into a personal contest.
There is a difference between strong leadership and simply insisting on having one’s own way.
I don’t believe America elected Trump for another four years of political theatre. Many people voted for him because they wanted practical results.
They wanted lower living costs, a more secure country, a stronger economy and a president who would put American interests ahead of personal political battles.
The midterm results suggest that a substantial number of voters believe those expectations have not been met.
I don’t take any particular pleasure in saying that. I would much rather have seen the president fulfil the promise of his campaign.
But political support should never become unconditional loyalty.
I was prepared to give Donald Trump the opportunity to demonstrate that he could govern sensibly. I remain open to acknowledging achievements where they occur. But I am equally entitled to question decisions that appear inconsistent with the very principles on which he sought election.
Perhaps the greatest disappointment is that the opportunity was there.
America needed a president who could exercise strength with restraint, challenge established interests without becoming consumed by personal battles and conduct foreign policy with a clear understanding of the consequences.
That is the president I thought we might see.
Instead, we have a midterm election result that should serve as a very serious warning.
Being elected President is an extraordinary privilege. It is not a licence to govern according to one’s ego. And for those of us who genuinely hoped that Trump’s second term might deliver something better, that is a rather sad conclusion to reach.
