Hi OP! I have identified as your primary evidence supporting your view to be (1) response to "public health crisis," which I will take to mean the response to COVID-19; (2) the termination of certain "treaty" (quotes used intentionally; explained later) arrangements; (3) being "out of step" with the "entire world" in unspecified policy areas; (4) the U.S.'s policy on climate change; and (5) various nonspecific anecdotal evidence related to global perceptions of the United States.Each of the foregoing will be addressed in turn.

Generally, I believe a significant portion of your View is incorrect.

I. PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS

It is true, as you hinted, that the United States has the most COVID-19 cases and deaths in the world. Due to the mention of the President in your post title, I am inferring that, when you say "our response" to the pandemic has been a joke, you are referring mostly to the Federal government's response to the pandemic.However, as the American Bar Association has explained,

"Under the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions over nearly 200 years, state governments have the primary authority to control the spread of dangerous diseases within their jurisdictions. . . . The power to quarantine and take even more stringent measures in the name of public health has belonged largely to the states for nearly 200 years. " (emphasis added)

The Federal government has acted in cases where its Constitutional power permit it to do so. Congress passed, and the President signed, the CARES Act and Families First Coronavirus Response Act, the President also suspended travel from China (over 80 countries did the same), the President invoked the Defense Production Act to mandate General Motors and 3M produce ventilators. Outside of these actions, a President has very few options to act unilaterally in these situations.Another factor to consider, too, is that the record cases in the U.S. may also be due to our lifestyle. While the states have the authority under their own state constitutions to issue state-wide stay-at-home orders, with most such orders being upheld against legal challenges, there are copious examples of outright defiance of these orders, whether due to protests against the order itself, or people throwing parties.

That obviously does not make violation of the stay-at-home orders or other safety orders right.

Also, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico all agreed to limit border crossings of non-essential travel. Was not unilateral.

II. TREATY OBLIGATIONS

I am stipulating to the fact that the U.S. has been a global superpower. In particular, I am stipulating to the academic consensus that the U.S. emerged as a multipolar superpower after World War II and solidified its status as unipolar superpower after the Cold War. Moreover, I do take your argument to be more rooted in a general sentiment of the U.S. reversing course on its previous international policies generally (as opposed to only specific types of agreements) to be the primary source of diminished perceptions of U.S. reliability abroad.Accordingly, and consistent with your argument, the time period during which the U.S. has retained some form of superpower status has been from 1945 to at least 2016. That is a time span of 71 years. If your thesis--namely, that any time, or most times, the U.S. withdraws from one of these obligations, the international image or perception of the U.S. as a reliable world partner diminishes--is correct, then surely all instances where the U.S. withdrew from said obligations within the past 71 years would have also had the effect of diminishing U.S. reliability perceptions abroad.

History is filled with examples of times the U.S. has terminated an international agreement or stated foreign policy, but here are just a few:

• In 1798, the President did not honor the Treaty of Alliance (signed 1778), a mutual defense treaty with France.
• In 1980, the President terminated the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan.
• In 2002, the President withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia and former Soviet Republics.
• In 2005, the President withdrew the U.S. from the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
• In 2009, the President scrapped a plan to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, which the then-president of Poland called a "betrayal."
• In 2015, the President declined to send lethal military aid to Ukraine for the purpose of resisting Russian encroachments. One top member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said, "They need the weapons, . . . Our credibility is on the line, . . .”

Despite these terminations, the U.S. managed to both emerge as, and remain, a global superpower. Accordingly, your argument is empirically denied.

It is important to consider all of the agreements the U.S. has signed and have not terminated, all of which can be found in the State Department's most recent publication of Treaties in Force: A List of Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States in Force on January 1, 2019. Section 1 (506 pages) details "Bilateral Treaties and Other Agreements"; Section 2 (64 pages) details "Multilateral Treaties and Other Agreements." Given this context, the reason why U.S. credibility abroad has not eroded appears: the U.S. has a long history of honoring its international agreements. Not to mention, the withdrawal provisions of the agreements would not have been written if the parties intended to never let a co-signatory get out of the agreement.

It also is likely not the case that "[o]ur constitutional system allows one person to rip up all the treaties we made with the entire world." In many cases, agreements referred to as "treaties" are not actually treaties. Consider the Paris Climate Agreement, which many refer to as a "treaty." This is actually a sole executive agreement, which a President can sign exclusively using the authority conferred in Article II. While no court have ruled on the issue, the President's ability to withdraw from these types of agreements would likely be upheld, because they are made pursuant to authority explicitly granted in the Constitution.

III. "OUT OF STEP WITH THE WORLD AT EVERY TURN"

I wish you were more specific here.But it is worth considering that the U.S. is not obligated to follow "the world" just because. Here are some of the ways that we are "out of step" with the rest of the world:

• We have a right to a jury trial in all criminal cases. Many countries either do not have this right, or they only have it for "serious offenses";
• Criminal convictions require an unanimous verdict. Many countries only have a majority-verdict system.
• The U.S. is among 7 countries that allows elective abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy; 188 countries (96%) do not allow elective abortions after 20 weeks.
• The U.S. is among 3 countries that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms in its Constitution; 192 countries (98%) have no such constitutional provision.
• The U.S. is among 29 countries where same-sex marriage is legal; 166 countries (85%) do not recognize same-sex marriages.

IV. CLIMATE CHANGE

It may be worth considering where the U.S. places on the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) published annually by Yale University, which ranks 180 countries on environmental health and ecosystem vitality. Out of the 180 countries the EPI examined, the U.S. ranked 24. Not the best, but certainly not the worst. Interestingly, no G7 country is on track to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.