The Style of Presidential substance I sense that relatively few Americans really understand and appreciate the breadth and depth of successful leadership responsibility for very large and complex organizations. The stark contrast in commitment and style between our last two Presidents has much to do with their comparative accomplishments and popular respect. Whatever you may think of his brusque and testing style, it’s hard to criticize Trump for dedication, accessibility, forthrightness, and ability to respond spontaneously and in some detail to questioning on almost any pertinent subject. He definitely is not scrupulously scripted nor addicted to the teleprompter. Neither is he reluctant to encourage cabinet members to speak for the administration on matters under their purview. Effective leaders must weigh the full range of considered effects of their executive judgements with differing constituencies and potential associated fallout. It is impossible to please all the people all the time and important to explain why the scale was tipped one way or the other. Decisions reaching the Presidential level are sufficiently complex to preclude slam-dunk opinions. The differences in energy level and mental acuity are obvious and undeniable, as was any coherent plan for executive succession. One was forced to rely heavily on unseen advisers while the other encourages top-level Vice Presidential participation and public exposure of agency heads. Over-reliance on the Democrat brand was inconsistent with the product offered in 2024. The business mentality of customer satisfaction and financial discipline has replaced constant awareness of inter-party positioning. Aggressive focus on demonstrably popular product offerings for the bipartisan consumers who decided the election has replaced a lackluster effort to preserve empty shelf space in the public mind. Phil Osifer