The New York Times decision to publish an anonymous Op-Ed piece from a “senior White House official” is troubling. Reading the piece reinforced many beliefs I have of the Machiavellian nature of the Presidency. But on contemplation, a more troubling aspect of this action by an administration official bubbled to the surface. If we are to believe the motivation is to put country first over politics, the veil of anonymity casts a shadow of cowardice.
It would seem the writer is more concerned with protecting themselves, continuing the professed but inconsistently followed policies of the President, and maintaining Republican control of the White House than protecting the country from the deranged and dangerous President.
The American people, for reasons I still cannot fathom, elected Mr. Trump. He is the President of the United States. That the American people should breathe a sigh relief because unnamed, unknown, and unelected officials are manipulating government policy on our behalf is ludicrous.
This shadow government bears a strong resemblance to the “Deep state” so often blamed by the President for his problems.
If, as the writer points out, consideration has been given to invoking the 25th Amendment then that is the only path provided for removing an incompetent, deranged, or dangerous President.
When faced with a moral or ethical crisis within government it is expected those called to such service rise to the occasion and publicly take a stand. If that comes at the cost of one’s position such is the burden of public service.
The New York Times is not blameless in this. The media faces an unprecedented challenge to its survival. The public trend of seeking only that which confirms beliefs, no matter how foolish or wrongheaded, and disparaging different perspectives is dangerous. There has rarely been a time in history where a free and respected media is more critical to our survival.
Protecting anonymity is often the only way to obtain critical information. The long-protected secret of Watergate, ‘Deep-throat,” is the classic example. But protecting the anonymity of individuals who offer evidence of a dangerous man at the head of our government and profess to know what is in our best interests is a conspiracy to undermine the very foundation of government.
The anonymous writer invoked the name of John McCain as someone we should use as a model for a government of compromise. I admired John McCain. Millions of Americans admired John McCain. If McCain were still among us, I believe he’d be the first to demand the veil of anonymity be removed for the good of the country.
2 thoughts on “An Act of Courage or Complicity?”
Yeah, i’m not a fan of this. Sign your name, resign, demand Congress act. This is just collaboration. You want the GOP creds, and applause from the Dems. You end up wit neither. Or, like in Vichy, despised.
Exactly. I know those who oppose Trump take delight in this. Hell, I take delight in it to some extent. But, imagine a different scenario of a Democrat in the White House and such a letter being written about protecting the country and subverting policy. There’d be wild outrage