Anonymous Tell-Alls in The New York Times Are More a Threat to the Republic Than Trump The president may well be unprincipled, ignorant, and awful, but he was, well, elected fair and square.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The New York Times has just taken what it calls the "rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay" by a "a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us." Why the secrecy and urgency? "We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers." The author, we're told, would lose his (her?) job if he/she went public.
Please. An identifiable, high-level person quitting on principle might actually command respect and change some minds. But venting that the president is an idiot and throwing a link to a Times piece on Bob Woodward's new anti-Trump book, Fear , is hardly a profile in courage. The anonymity of the author will only work to harden Trump loyalists and members of the so-called resistance. So much for transcending partisanship among the shrinking numbers of Americans who call themselves Democrats or Republicans ( Gallup's latest numbers put self-identified independents at 43 percent of the electorate, compared to 28 percent for the GOP and 27 percent for the Democrats).
In a nutshell, the op-ed complains that Donald Trump is "amoral" and "not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making." Many in the White House, we're told, are actively working to subvert the president's agenda on certain issues though weirdly, the op-ed is filled with qualified praise, such as the claim that "many of [the administration's] policies have already made America safer and more prosperous." Still, Trump is an idiot, argues the author, who is protected from enacting all of his own policies by the unsung "adults in the room" who have created a "two-track presidency."
In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
"There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first," writes the author, wrapping in treacly cliches of patriotism the bald fact that a duly elected president is being undermined by his own staff.
Exactly the same sort of thing, albeit in softer form, could be said about any White House. There are always factions and cross-currents. How many members of George W. Bush's administration, for instance, really gave a shit about their boss' desire after re-election to enact immigration and Social Security reform? Zero. The Obama White House was riven by differences over health-care plans and foreign-policy disputes as well. Read any history of the Reagan years and you'll find that it was amazing that anything ever got done given all the in-fighting. Bill Clinton actually had officials resign over policy differences. It's patently absurd to elevate frictions within the Trump White House to an existential threat to the Republic. In fact, it's the sort of overstatement that is worthy of, well, Donald Trump, who just doesn't do nuance.
Which isn't to say that the author's reading of the Trump White House sounds wrong, especially in light of the revelations reportedly contained in Woodward's book. Among other things, Woodward, whose credibility is hardly above reproach , says that Defense Secretary dismissed Trump's command to assassinate Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and instead prepared a "more measured" response involving bombing Syria instead. Woodward asserts that Mattis told colleagues that the "the president acted like — and had the understanding of — a 'fifth or sixth grader.'" Mattis has denied using such language or whatevering the president, saying, "This is a uniquely Washington brand of literature, and [Woodward's] anonymous sources do not lend credibility."
Neither does the Times ' publishing of an anonymous White House official.
There is no question that Trump was a uniquely unqualified candidate to run for president and he seems to have virtually no expertise in anything other than Twitter trolling. He clearly understands nothing about trade deficits , for instance, and his policies clearly don't add up to anything particularly coherent (then again, they didn't on the campaign trail, either). He is not a traditional Republican, but since when is that an impeachable offense? The author genuflects to John McCain, a well-respected public figure but also one whose incoherent and grandiose economic, social, and foreign policy positions were hardly worth emulating , and concludes
Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.
With all due respect: What the fuck does that even mean?
Few outlets have been more stridently #NeverTrump than The New York Times, a fair stand-in for the legacy media which also has nothing but contempt for Donald Trump and sympathy for Hillary Clinton (it was her time!) and a broad Democratic agenda of more-active government. The anonymous op-ed can only be read through that light and thus discounted.
Despite the hand-waving about breaking "free of the tribalism trap," this op-ed is clearly in the service of the anti-Trump resistance. The real liberation is to break free both of Trump loyalism and Trump Derangement Syndrome , which both put the president at the white-hot center of every goddamn minute of every goddamn day. As even the anonymous author of the op-ed will grant, good things have come out of the Trump White House. So have many bad things, especially on the immigration and free trade fronts. That doesn't make Trump uniquely awful, it simply means he's the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
From a libertarian perspective, the best course of action is not to elevate Trump to Satan or to Saturn, but to acknowledge that he is a mixed bag. In this, he's perhaps more like Bill Clinton than anyone wants to admit. The major successes of the Clinton years—welfare reform, balanced budgets, capital-gains tax cuts, acknowledgment that the "era of Big Government was over"—came not out of one faction winning but the tension among various factions. If there is a problem to be solved, it's not a president who, like his predecessors, refuses to cut the size, scope, and spending of government. It's Congress, which has abdicated its constitutional role of actually writing legislation. And it's government at all levels, which seeks to control and regulate the hell out of social and economic innovation in the name of some imaginary greater good. There are midterms afoot, so it's easy to understand why people in the dying Republican and Democratic parties are desperate to view everything through partisan lenses. But the rest of us, especially libertarians, are free of such blinders and do well to remember that independence means first and foremost not making everything about politics .
Tags
Who is online
91 visitors
This sentence, in and of itself, renders the seeded article ludicrous.
Trump defenders wallow in misapplied what about ism.
Unless Bob Woodward is a total liar, he has hundreds of hours of Trump officials on audio recording, saying that the Trump white house is dysfunctional to a degree we have never seen.
The kindest thing you could say about the seeded article is that it is misguided. More likely it is intentional bs.
"There is no question that Trump was a uniquely unqualified candidate to run for president and he seems to have virtually no expertise in anything other than Twitter trolling. He clearly understands nothing about trade deficits , for instance, and his policies clearly don't add up to anything particularly coherent (then again, they didn't on the campaign trail, either). He is not a traditional Republican, but since when is that an impeachable offense?"
So even this author recognizes the President is "uniquely unqualified", has "virtually no expertise", he "understands nothing about trade deficits " and has no "coherent" policies. They're just making the case that being an inept moron isn't necessarily impeachable. Sure, it's disastrous for the nation, it damages our image around the globe making trade deals and business ventures less certain and may be creating far more anti-American sentiment and possibly even more terrorists than we're defeating, but I guess as long as being completely incompetent at your job isn't a fire-able offense then we're stuck with him. I have no doubt that Trump wouldn't last half a day even as a fast food fry cook before the manager fired his ignorant bumbling ass. I'm sure that's who our founders intended to run our county. /s
Trump is incapable of performing his duties. (Incapacitate) It doesn't matter is if he was when elected or became so...
Irrelevant.
There are at least two constitutional mechanisms available so that a dangerously disturbed autocrat cannot do irreparable damage before the next election.
Well, get to it. Time's a wastin'!
"August 19, 1934, Adolf Hitler , already chancellor, is also elected president of Germany in an unprecedented consolidation of power in the short history of the republic."
Those fearful of such a Presidency question his legitimacy to lead but are met by supporters with such messages as "Hey, next election cycle, we suggest your candidate actually campaign in swing districts so this doesn't happen again.".
Will there be a next election cycle if the very fabric of our constitutional republic is torn asunder?
Oh, it's on and has been for some time. Such impatience!
Good gawd! Sometimes the melodrama in here rises right up to the crotch and beyond ....
Yes, unless I'm completely mistaken and we have indeed become a nation full of complacent pussies, there will be another election cycle, and another, and another........
Sure, but I do recall hearing the right say the same of "King Obama".
My comparison to Hitler was simply comparing how some today defend the Trump Presidency by telling their opponents to "win some elections", but the fact is, Hitler won an election too so his followers were saying the same thing to the dissenters of Hitler's policy and regime, and we see how well that worked out.
"What is your answer to electing someone you feel will more adequately represent you?"
Besides the fact that the bus boy at any local Denny's would likely make a better President than the ignorant buffoon elected by a minority, there is a huge field of very eligible candidates for President.
Mitch Landrieu
Deval Patrick
Kirsten Gillibrand
Joe Biden
Liz Warren
Bernie Sanders
Terry McAuliffe
Corey Booker
Any one of them would make a FAR better President than the one currently besmirching the office.
It's relevant to the discussion, not that I have to justify anything to you. It's also no different than what I have seen you do. Why don't you mind your own posts and leave me to mind mine.
John Kerry: That NYT Op-Ed Means We Don’t Have A President, He’s Not Capable Of Doing The Job
Yes because we all know, an anonymous OpEd writer most definitely proves that.
Definitely!
Are you willing to tell us for whom you voted in 2016? After all, you're pot-shotting everyone else for their choices so it would seem only fair for you to give us yours since it must have been the perfect one we all missed.
Wow, it must have taken a lot of careful thought and diligent research to come up with whomever that was (still no name, eh?). [ deleted ]
The candidate who didn't know Aleppo was Gary Johnson.
Trump . . . was elected fair and square.
As was President Richard Nixon.
Somehow I think BF missed the connection that both of these scumbags buggered their elections. So they went into office as criminals and will leave the same way, regardless of the how the current one goes.
So typical of the trumpers who will keep propping up Scumbag's lying, mentally incompetent ass to blame the media rather than their own horrible excuse of a "president" and all of chaos and perfidy he's created. But he's right about the writer of the editorial being a coward...actually, the whole mess of those cowards who're in on keeping this diseased mess of a president in power when he's clearly unable to carry out his duties. Scumbag is exactly who the 25th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was meant for. And for these people to hide in anonymity and not come forward to provide the American people with the cold, hard facts is despicable. But they're Scumbag's choices after all, so that's a feature, not a bug. Scumbag complains about these people but they're all "made" in his image.
so this entire rant ( seeded article ) is just - Trump is great and everyone hates him because.... Hillary ! - and that means Trump's done nothing wrong while President ? seriously ? seems even the author of the seeded article admits that the op-ed in question did highlight some good things about Trump - yet this author of the seeded article seems to be stuck on Hillary as many conservative minded posters , it seems they are scared she'll come in the night and kidnap their children or something , so scared they can't accept that she lost and that some people may actually be criticizing Trump based upon... well... Trump !
Anonymous Tell-Alls In The New York Times Are More A Threat To The Republic Than Trump The President May Well Be Unprincipled, Ignorant, And Awful, But He Was, Well, Elected Fair And Square.
WHO THE FUCK WOULD WRITE SUCH A HEADLINE WHEN THE POTUS IN QUESTION IS CLEARLY UNSTABLE …
… And in control of THE NUCLEAR CODE?
Shoot the messenger who raised the red flag … only the most ignorant of partisan fools would agree with that!
If we can't use it now, why do we even have the 25th amendment?
It's a long arduous process that was created in reaction to the assassination of JFK and a perceive fear of a vacant presidency and unsure interim.
It’s foolish to even consider that it has a remote chance of success. Anyone who is pushing for it is simply pandering to their base.
But by all means, keep chortling on about such a foolishness. It’s hilarious!
Chortling is laughing and I can often be justly accused of such. My post that you replied to, however, is not an example of me chortling. Definitely not.
Hummm it was such a silly comment i thought for sure you must have been chortling ..... not a bad guess since you are usually in a constant state of chortle here .....
I was...
AS AN UNRELATED ASIDE …
I'll be signing off … if you can turn on the EAGLES/FALCONS GAME … you'll get a good idea of what we're like in Philly.
Later!
GO EAGLES!!
Trump is now saying that whoever posted the article in the NYT is guilty of treason. Not true in the least, not even close. He has also told Sessions to go after whoever posted the article...again, the DOJ is not trump's personal lawyer, why doesn't he understand that? We all know trump thinks the world revolves around him, but even he must realize that the DOJ isn't his personal legal team. Why is trump attacking this op-ed piece anyway? I thought he supported free speech?
....
The reality? There must be a LOT of truth in the article to get trump so riled up. If there wasn't, he would just do his usual, "hey look over there!!!", bs and move on.
Disloyalty to the Fuhrer is treason, right?
In 1940 Germany it sure was. Maybe trump is Hitler's reanimated corpse....with worse hair.
That is what I thought as well. He called it "fake" and all that to begin with, but for a fake article he sure is shitting his adult diaper more than usual.
I don't know, this is a tough issue to discuss. I mean, when the president is about to do something fucking retarded (a daily event with Trump) then those around him should act to stop him. But at the same time, dip shit was elected (via the EC) to the office... Eh fuck it, let's just see what happens at this point. The Founders were too good for us.