Source: VICE News
Summary & Analysis
An anonymous op-ed published Wednesday has shocked people across the country. Not only is it basically unheard of for a major newspaper like the New York Times to publish an anonymous op-ed, but the article itself is almost unbelievable: according to the source, a senior official in the White House, many of his top officials and closest confidants, fed up with Trump's “amorality,” and “anti-democratic impulses” have been part of a quiet resistance against him.
While the descriptions of Trump's beliefs and behavior are, at times, alarming, the op-ed attempts to reassure a country divided by Trump’s presidency: “Americans should know that there are adults in the room,” said the source. “We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.”
The source goes on to describe a “two-track” presidency -- one "track" being that of a president who admires dictators, frequently flip-flops on important issues and betrays Republican ideals; the other being a cabinet of officials constantly desperately attempting to “walk back” his “ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions.”
This article paints a picture of a White House we haven’t heard of before: one where Trump’s top officials complain about him in private and his staff hurry to try and keep his disastrous comments and actions contained in the White House.
Of course, this has created a rift in the White House, with many of his cabinet members (including Vice President Mike Pence) claiming they didn’t write the article. Trump went as far as accusing the author of the op-ed of "treason". The author and other top officials mentioned in the article certainly don't see it that way: “We believe our first duty is to this country,” the source said. “The president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”
It seems as though President Trump and many of his top officials have different interpretations of the phrase “America First.”
Sources:
Read the op-ed here:
Opinions / Reactions from the left & right:
2 comments:
Although many media companies are currently busy trying to find out exactly who the op-ed author is, I think the more interesting part about this op-ed is the purpose -- What was the author's intent?
Were these senior officials so tired of Trump that they published this article to vent their frustration? Was the op-ed meant to be another strategically timed blow to Trump's reputation, following the events of Manafort and Cohen? Could it just be to create public outrage? The "resistance" doesn't explicitly call for the president's impeachment, but its criticisms of Trump's "amorality" and "anti-democratic impulses" implicates to the public a need for change in the government.
I agree with Andre in that I'm curious about the author's intent. Specifically, I find it difficult to see a situation where this ends up being a net positive for the author. He/she is already being panned by the left for not pushing for the 25th Amendment, among other things, and by the right for defying the president. Once his/her identity is revealed, if ever, they'll still be called a coward by both sides and have a huge hit to their reputation in whatever public office they serve.
Beyond that, there were interesting points to be found in the Times' Q&A about the article, How the Anonymous Op-Ed Came to Be, though most answers could be anticipated. Among them include that the Times' Op-Ed editor, James Dao, believes the author's primary intent was to "describe, as faithfully as possible, the internal workings of a chaotic and divided administration and to defend the choice to nevertheless work within it," an opinion that would justify the posting of the op-ed as opposed to, say, if it was just an attempt to discredit the president.
Post a Comment