That's a weird way of putting. The "means" are just words. EVERY President should be mostly judged by the results. The tangible stuff. All the other stuff is just noise.
Ends justifying the means would be like if he started a war with Europe to get us out of the Paris climate change agreement. But he didn't do something crazy to get us out, he just got us out.
I grew up during a time where one of the biggest sayings was "sticks and stones can break my bones but WORDS CAN NEVER HURT ME." We should get back to that way of living. Everybody gets so butt-hurt over WORDS these days.
Seems like we have come full circle as we had this conversation a week or so ago on this thread.
Words matter. You can't have it both ways. If you feel words lead and inspire, like Neil Armstrong, Winston Churchill, George Bush on the rubble of 9/11 or Ronald Reagan telling Gorbachev to tear down this wall, then you have to accept hateful, demeaning or selfish egotist words matter too.
As far as judging a President by his results, I agree with you. Trump has done many things he has said he would do. But it is his method that doesn't always match with what he promised or his words. For example, drain the swamp, but yet his cabinet and people around him have been as "swampy" as any others, including our own Scott Pruitt. He said Mexico will pay for the wall but tries to get it appropriated through Congress. He said he would eliminate so many personal tax brackets, but in the tax plan, personal tax brackets stayed the same. He said he would eliminate Obamacare and keep guarantees for preexisting conditions, but the Justice Department is looking to eliminate both of those in court after Congress failed to reform. Like every politician, he has broken a LOT of campaign promises, but the things he has done he said he would do. It's just the methodology that doesn't help our country.
Look, I am a conservative who likes many of his policies. But to say his words and how he does things doesn't matter is the antithesis of the definition of a leader and leadership. The problem with politics right now in this country is everything is tribalism. You support the extremes or those in power or you are an idiot.
I think bigabd left out one category in his definition and categorization of political ideology, and that is where I would put myself in- a pragmatic conservative constitutionalist. This is someone that respects the institution and principles that have made our constitution hold up for 230+ years. One who believes in conservative principles both politically and socially, but accepts that partnership with those of all ideologies is needed to get things done in this country. I would call this center-right, which bigabd left out.
In a President, we
should be able to have both- results and leadership.