September 8, 2018
On September 6, The New York Times
opinion page carried a column by an
anonymous “senior official in the Trump administration,” which denounces
the President as an individual, and bewails his negative effect. “The root of the problem is the president’s
amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible
first principles that guide his decision making.” His “leadership style . . .
is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.”
However, the author and others are ever vigilant: “The
erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in
and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the
media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions
contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.”
Reactions have included speculation as to the identity of
the author; a rush by members of the Trump administration to deny being that
person and to denounce such disloyal tactics; discussion of whether the Times
editorial page staff should have published the column without demanding that
the author identify himself; and speculation as to what the Times news
department will do if it discovers his identity.
The content of the column has received less attention,
partly because its comments on Trump’s limited ability and erratic behavior are
old news. The one item attracting
comment is its claim that insiders, including the author, have conspired to
prevent Trump from making egregious mistakes.
Many have commented that the author, rather than hiding
behind anonymity, should have signed the article and then resigned, either as
an admission of guilt or as a protest. However, that would not serve the
author’s aims. The column inadvertently
reveals that the senior official is sticking with Trump, despite his
incompetence and the danger of disastrous acts, because he can be used.
The most important
aspect of the article is the agenda the author wishes to protect and
advance. He wraps it in a few clichés:
“We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have
already made America safer and more prosperous.” He concedes that “the president shows little affinity for ideals
long espoused by conservatives: “free minds, free markets and free people,” and
Trump is “anti-trade.” However, there
are “bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the
administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a
more robust military and more.” To further such policies, the author will rely
on his and others’ skill — and luck —to restrain the idiot.
If Trump is as much a menace as the author states, and
that seems clear, then the proper move is to initiate action under the
Twenty-fifth Amendment. He has rejected
that because it would cause a constitutional crisis, as if having as President
an unstable adolescent with autocratic tendencies, whose election was supported
clandestinely by a foreign power, were not. Very well, resign in protest and go
public. No; tax cuts for the rich,
freedom to pollute and throwing more money at the fiscally irresponsible
military are too important.
That’s what is wrong about the column and the author’s
program: risking disaster to protect a reactionary agenda. The Times
shouldn’t have given that an implied endorsement.
