Tariffs, Hardline Measures, Alliance Distrust — Reasons Why More People Feel "America Has Worsened"

Tariffs, Hardline Measures, Alliance Distrust — Reasons Why More People Feel "America Has Worsened"

"Worse than imagined."—An essay beginning with these words is spreading in the United States. Reflecting on a year since Trump's return to power (so-called "Trump 2.0"), the author asserts that "missteps," "chaos," and "institutional fatigue" are occurring simultaneously. What is crucial here is that the discussion is not reduced to a matter of mere "likes or dislikes." The essay depicts a process where "the very mode of political operation" transforms beyond the merits of individual policies, accumulating daily anxieties.


What happened in a year—at a pace that outstrips "news fatigue"

The events listed in the essay are all significant enough to be major incidents on their own. Confusion over tariff policies, mass firings and rehirings in government agencies, instability surrounding healthcare and social security, actions reminiscent of judicial pressure on political opponents, and concerns about the impact on infectious disease control and public health—all intensify the feeling of "not knowing where to start."


This "simultaneous occurrence" is the core of the essay. When crises occur in succession, people become "accustomed" before they can get angry at each one. Acclimatization is not indifference. Rather, the exhaustion of "nothing changes even if we get angry" erodes the willingness to participate in politics. What the author fears is precisely this "normalization of the state of emergency."


Numbers indicating "disappointment"—the intensity of support and the spreading negative evaluations

It is true that some people may feel the tone of the essay is "exaggerated." However, the harsh numbers shown by public opinion polls at least indicate that "criticism is not just a minority voice."


For example, foreign reports citing CNN-related polls show that a majority consider Trump's administration over the past year a "failure," and there is a widespread view that the response to living costs is inadequate. Furthermore, another large-scale survey indicates that approval ratings have sunk significantly into the "negative zone," with more people feeling the country has "gotten worse" rather than "gotten better."


What is interesting here is the structure of "a solid support base, but others are drifting away." While fervent supporters continue to strongly affirm, distrust is growing among independents and moderates, who perceive that politics is not moving in a direction that improves "their own lives." The deepening divide is due more to the feeling that "we are talking about different worlds even though we are looking at the same reality" than to the differences in opinions themselves.


What the "Greenland affair" symbolizes—impulsive politics that unsettle allies

The essay touches on the Greenland affair as a symbolic example. If diplomacy moves based on personal obsessions or the logic of "deals" rather than discussions of national interest or security, it naturally shakes alliance relationships.


In the realm of international politics, "words" create reality. Brandishing tariffs, stepping into territorial claims, hinting at military possibilities—such stances stimulate domestic politics in counterpart countries, creating an atmosphere that "partnering with the U.S. is a risk." Indeed, European media and international forums prominently feature the narrative that Trump's diplomacy erodes trust in alliances and raises the cost of U.S. credibility. The essay views this as entering a "realm where it can't be dismissed as a joke."


Why it doesn't stop—"Congress," "within the party," "institutional" shrinkage

The essay pierces the question, "Why can't it be stopped even after coming this far?" The author describes the reason for the silence within the party as a mixture of "fear" and "dependency." Defying a strong leader can end a political career. Attacks from supporters will come. One might be dropped in the primaries. Such fears stifle policy debates and weaken the brakes on deviations in character and behavior.


What is even more troublesome is that the soundness of the system depends on the "application of rules." Democracy cannot be protected by legal texts alone. Practices, moderation, accountability, respect for facts—when these "invisible pillars" break, the procedures may be formally maintained, but the substance becomes hollow. The essay is concerned precisely about this hollowing out.


"Supporting even knowing it's a lie"—the twist in psychology

Another focus of the essay is the possibility that "supporters are not unaware of the lies," but rather "don't care even if they know." This encapsulates the difficulty of modern politics. It is not a matter of factual errors but of values and a sense of belonging.


For some supporters, politics is more about "winning or losing" than "rightness," a pleasure in defeating "enemies," and a narrative of "reclaiming what is ours." Therefore, the evaluation axis becomes "who was angered" or "who was silenced" rather than whether statements are accurate. The essay warns that this psychology destroys the space for democratic debate.


Reactions on social media—anger, resignation, ridicule, and anxiety about daily life

When such essays become a topic on social media, reactions are broadly divided into three layers.


① The "I knew it would come to this" layer (resignation and fatigue)
Posts symbolized by phrases like "Every day is a breaking news alert" and "It's scary not to be surprised anymore" represent exhaustion more than anger. The more one follows politics, the more mentally drained they become, wanting to block out the news. However, blocking it out weakens the watchful eye. That dilemma lingers.


② The "It's exaggerated/media is overreacting" layer (rebuttal and backlash)
The narrative style of the essay is dismissed as "incitement" or "bias," with strong voices pushing "borders," "security," and "strength" as achievements. Here, "stance" is more likely to be supported than the side effects of policies. The stronger the criticism, the more solid the unity phenomenon occurs.


③ The "Life is tough" layer (the middle class's reality)
On the other hand, dissatisfaction directly connected to "daily wallets," such as tariffs, prices, employment, and healthcare, tends to spread across party lines. Posts like "In the end, prices haven't gone down" and "Do something about life rather than political fights" can become a common language regardless of political stance.


Social media is a device that accelerates division, but it is also a place where "real feelings" leak out. The sense emphasized in the essay that "we are all affected by this" gains persuasiveness when connected with the voices of people on social media.


Still thinking about "how to end it"—not optimism, but realistic hope

The essay does not end in despair. Rather, it concludes with a call to action: "The problems have been identified. So, let's begin." Two keys are crucial.
One is to create motivations within Congress and the party that surpass "fear." Elections, public opinion, changes in the support base, the ethics of institutional defense. The other is to find a way to convey to supporters, "You are also being hurt." Not as a sermon, but as a discussion of life and dignity.


In a deeply divided society, the country won't move by defeating someone in an argument. What is needed is realistic collaboration to protect the system and the recovery of politics rooted in the perspective of the people. The essay, knowing the difficulty, urges, "To avoid being too late, we must start now."


Source

Related Articles