It's far more simple than that. We have a national shared image of what is "Presidential". Or we did until recently.
Do we though? Look at the media, when you have a President character that's portrayed as the hero of a tale (e.g., The American President, Dave) they're almost almost portrayed as liberal/progressive/Democrat by implication and when they are taking on the nefarious/conspiracy aspect they're almost always portrayed as Republican by implication).
Do you really thing that the characterization of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman and Franklin Roosevelt is the same as the characterization of Trump, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Ford, Nixon?
You have to go back to Eisenhower in the 50's before you get to a Republican the media hasn't characterized as addled/incompetent (Trump, Bush Jr., Reagan, Ford), a criminal (Trump, Bush Jr., Reagan, Nixon) or just plain evil (Trump, Bush and Bush, Reagan and Nixon). Meanwhile, all of Obama, Clinton, Kennedy and Roosevelt have been characterized as close to the second coming (don't know enough about Truman to say), only Carter has been labeled incompetent, only Clinton a "criminal" and most of the media coverage excused it, and Evil? Not a one, no matter what they did in foreign or domestic policy.
So with a straight face, tell me you really think we have a single standard of "President" without regard to party, or is this one where there's an idea in your head that actually doesn't match reality?
As far as gravitas, Carter? Not close to it at the time. Clinton? It was okay, but he was the one jogging around in sweats, eating at hamburger joints and talking in a manner to "commonalize" the Presidency, in many ways that was a huge break from the image of the serious President.
I don't know if his immediate predecessor being a black man broke that for many or not,...
You "don't know" and yet you thought it worth mentioning? Just to virtue signal?
Obama is quite literally the most gifted speaker that we've had as a President that I can remember. That's going to be a tough act for anyone to follow.
but Trump is counter to the imaginary / hypothetical picture we (as a country) have in our head of what a president should be. How they should speak, how they should be a calming influence when needed. How they should voice the collective outrage of our nation when required. How they should embody the very best of us. They are more than one person, they embody the country they represent FOR us.
Like the way Kennedy was the "best" of us, when he was openly cheating on his wife? Or Nixon when he was spying on his opponents? (oddly, total pass on Obama doing it far more effectively). Or Ford? When he was routinely labeled as a bumbler? Or Carter? Pretty much the same? Or Reagan when he was derisively labeled as deep into Alzemiers? Or Clinton with his serial cheating, sexual abuse and behavior with a certain intern? Or Bush, the CiA mastermind of evil who lied about raising taxes? Or Bush the incompetent party boy turned "Hitler" war criminal?
Again, Trump is in fact doing a lot of things that the majority of the country has claimed it wants. He's actively not ignoring issues like the border, and unfair trade that the politicians have been lying about for decades. He's signed off on multiple compromises, something his sainted predecessor found impossible because he wouldn't concede anything.
They may fall short at times, but their job, is to represent the nation.
There job is to lead the nation, sometimes that means being a cheerleader/representative, sometimes it means doing unpopular things that need to be done. Clinton did that with Welfare Reform, Trump seems to do it a great majority of the time.
We complain a lot, A LOT about career diplomats and politicians, but we do have this stereotypical vision in our heads of what that person is.
Convince me that you believe that without regard to party.
I find it hard to believe that Jerry Nadler, and his petty and mean ways, fit the stereotype, but you rarely see him called out. Are you as hard on AOC as on Palin? Does Sanders remotely fit a mold? Sure there a bunch of politicians that could play a politician on tv, but there a bunch that couldn't as well.
Donald Trump does not fit that mold. Not in any possible way. Now maybe the desire to break that mold is powerful enough that many enjoy that fact. For others that factor makes everything he says and does more than just a political / policy disagreement.
He doesn't even WANT to fit that ideal.
I agree with this, he doesn't fit any mold on this. On the other hand, the "mold conforming politicians" have for decades just lied to us about what they wanted to do and then not done it. He's not in that mold for sure.
Therefore he is unhinged, broken, maybe mentally ill. He MUST be a narcissistic sociopath because he refuses to adapt to being "presidential".
Not clear to me if you're making this as a substantive claim, or as an attribution to others. It's just wrong as a substantive claim to define doing what you say and carrying out your promises as unhinged, broken and mentally ill. I don't think there's any question he's a narcissist, nor any question that he's not a sociopath.
Both sides have tolerated presidents who push partisan policy a lot more than the last two presidents, but it seems when something strains our internal template of what a president should look like and how they should act, something in us just... breaks.
I've said it before, the age of rabid partisan ship can be traced back to the Contract with America. We had a one party congress (effectively) controlled by the Democrats for over 50 years, when the Republicans took control by promising a serious packet of reforms the Dems had ignored it pushed the Dems out of power. Once they realized it wasn't a fluke they took to heart the wrong lesson. They decided that party loyalty was the only thing that mattered, and we've an extreme partisan divide ever since (and if you think it was both parties you're really forgetting the battle between the contractors and the old guard, and later the Tea Party and everyone else, it's a facade for the Dems that's only started to crack since the last election and import of the radical younglings on the left). Only when one party is in enough control that it's internal differences rise to the top would I expect that to end.
You should remember that before Bush Jr, the last Republican President to have had a Republican Congress was Eisenhower (for 2 years in the early 50's). Meanwhile, beginning in the 30's Roosevelt had a Democratic Congress for all of his terms, Truman for 6 out of 8 years, Kennedy, Johnson and Carter for their entire term.
Of the more modern guys? Best Reagan got was a split Congress, Bush Sr - D controlled Congress, Clinton 2 years D controlled, 6 years R controlled, Bush Jr? 6 years R and 2 years D, Obama 2 years D, 6 R; Trump? 2 yrs R, 2 years split.
I think what that has reflected more than anything is that country as a whole has not wanted Congress to push radical democratic policies, and has expected the Courts to constrain Republican abuses. That's pretty much how it's played out. How's that going to work if they only Democratic options in the election are to go all in on extreme policies?