President Trump has a habit of talking the talk and not walking the walk.

A few recent examples come to mind, in policy areas both foreign and domestic: immigration, tariffs, Russia, Venezuela and Iran. Now, if you’re liberal and you oppose Trump on nearly everything, you may be wondering how Trump could possibly have been harsher on — well, at least a few of those areas. 

When it comes to immigration, Venezuela and Iran, in particular, you may think that he was, if anything, too harsh. After all, the nationwide crackdown on immigration has sparked nationwide protests. The decision to briefly invade Venezuela and seize Nicolás Maduro, stripping him of power to stand trial in the United States, sparked condemnation from progressives and protests in opposition. 

Similarly, last year’s strikes against Iran led to more signs at protests, congressional condemnation and questions about legality. Russia is probably the one area where you might think Trump hasn’t been harsh enough, with his threats of severe retaliation against Moscow for refusing to engage in real negotiations and his subsequent unwillingness to follow through on those threats.

Conversely, if you’re a conservative — even if you support Trump — you may see several of those areas as weakness, if not failure. While he sent federal agents swooping into Minnesota, Maine and other places to enforce immigration law, he often rapidly backed down in the face of local opposition.

After early deployments of the National Guard were struck down, he backtracked and didn’t send in the Army. Watching his immigration crackdown, many of his supporters are likely disappointed by his willingness to retreat in the face of opposition. That’s hardly the image of a strongman. You don’t see Vladimir Putin or Ali Khamenei of Iran negotiating with mayors or governors; Trump just did.

With tariffs, you might be similarly disappointed. Trump often makes big threats of tariffs, then backs down if the market dips or if he gets some sort of concession. We saw this recently with the dispute over Greenland. Trump threatened additional tariffs against European allies for supporting Denmark and opposing his claim, then retreated without getting much in return.

Similarly, after the big summit with Putin in Alaska, he threatened severe retaliation if Russia continued to refuse to negotiate, but failed to follow through. With both Iran and Venezuela, it’s a mixed bag. He overthrew Maduro, but hasn’t dismantled the regime. He’s threatened retaliation against Iran for slaughtering protesters, but hasn’t followed through, instead opting for negotiations.

As a traditional conservative, I agree with many of these critiques against Trump from both sides of the ideological divide. When it comes to foreign policy, I applaud his willingness to strike Iranian nuclear sites and seize Maduro. It was vitally important to the United States that Iran never have nuclear weapons, and Maduro is an evil dictator who deserves to stand trial for his crimes. In both cases, however, Trump left the job half-finished.

In Venezuela, he left the regime apparatus in place, rather than insisting on a transition to democracy. In Iran, he failed to completely destroy its nuclear capability, allowing it to rebuild it, and so far he has failed to follow through on his threats to attack if it slaughters protesters. Instead, he’s viewed it as an opening to restart negotiations, which were entirely pointless when Barack Obama was president and seem equally pointless now.

On immigration, I’m heartened to see his administration willing to pursue illegal immigrants anywhere they might be, but disheartened by his willingness to back down in the face of opposition and the disorganized nature of the enforcement. If he wants to get tough pursuing illegal immigrants, he ought to be directing his administration to do it in an effective, legal manner. While the liberal base would still protest that, it would give them much less ground to stand on if the administration were simply more effective in pursing their policies.

Liberals like to portray Trump as a strongman who’s pushing America toward some kind of fascism. If he were, he wouldn’t back down so often in the face of opposition.

The simple fact of Trump that both sides need to understand is that while he often stakes out a maximalist position, it’s a negotiating tactic. Foreign leaders seem to understand this readily enough. It would be nice if the American press did a better job following their lead, explaining this instead of turning everything into a crisis.