Trump and the Anonymous Op-Ed

Two weeks ago, the New York Times published a damning,anonymous Op-Ed by a Senior Official in the White House.  The picture the author painted is a terrifying one, showing a White House nearly crippled by an incompetent, amoral, petty president.  They confirmed all the things we feared about Trump, and they showed that those within the White House are just as afraid.  The author attempted to assuage our fears by explaining how they and others in the White House were resisting Trump’s worst urges and behavior; that they were trying to keep him in check for the sake of the country.  But I also feel that this essay was an attempt at bolstering their own conscience.

On the one hand, I think the author was very brave to publish this essay, as was the New York Times for taking the extraordinary step of agreeing to keep their identity secret.  Whoever wrote this has every right to worry about their job (and possibly more than that) as Trump has shown time and again that he is an incredibly vindictive man.  Indeed, within hours of its publication, Trump tweeted a demand that the New York Times unveil the author’s identity, claiming that national security is at stake.  But under the bravery the author showed is cowardice, born of the extreme partisanship that permeates every nook and cranny of this administration.

 The author, in no uncertain terms, lays bare why Trump is dangerous and unfit to be president.  They call Trump’s impulses “generally anti-trade and anti-democratic” and refer to his leadership as “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.”  Conducting business with him is difficult because “Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.”  The author even laments that Trump has already done great damage to our Republic, noting that “The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.”

They are correct on every point.  Many of their concerns about Trump have been known for some time, and his mental state is certainly no secret; nearly every mental health expert in the country agrees that Trump is dangerously mentally deficient.  Many had long suspected, given previous leaks from the White House, that certain high-level officials were working to subvert his worst tendencies (and we already knew that Chief of Staff John Kelly was one of these people, as multiple reports have showed him doing exactly this).  This op-ed confirms this, but it also begs the question: why aren’t they doing more?

The author clearly sees Trump for exactly what he is, and recognizes the inherent danger this man represents, as do his colleagues in White House.  They even note that the Cabinet had internal discussions early in this administration’s tenure about invoking the 25^th Amendment, which specifically allows for removal of a president if they are not mentally and/or physically fit to carry out their duties.  According to the author, they ultimately decided against this course of action for fear of creating a Constitutional crisis.  But there wouldn’t have been a Constitutional crisis.  There was no issue whatsoever.  They had the power to remove him, and they chose not to exercise it because they knew it would be a long and arduous fight.  Like so many, they are hiding under the guise of not wanting to interfere in the democratic process, but this is a pathetic and cowardly argument (especially when you consider that Trump lost the popular vote by the biggest margin in history).

To add insult to injury, the author claims that even if Trump is unfit to serve, it isn’t very relevant because this administration has nonetheless enjoyed a great many successes.  Whether or not this administration has had any successes is a question we can’t answer now because there hasn’t been enough elapsed time to judge every single thing Trump has done.  But the author notes several specific things that they consider successes, such as the record-setting pace of deregulation and the tax reform passed last December.  The problem is that while Trump certainly has succeed in getting these things accomplished, there is near universal consensus that they will do far more harm than good.

Take the push for deregulation, for example.  This administration instituted a policy that required two rules to be axed for every rule that is passed.  As such, rules are being slashed with zero regard for the consequences.  Countless regulations are being directly targeted purely because they were passed under Obama, such as Net Neutrality, without which ISPs are already throttling connections.  Trump pulled us out of the Paris Accords and the EPA has actively worked to undo rules and regulations designed to mitigate the effects of climate change, which will lead to disastrous consequences.  He is also pushing hard to open up pristine wilderness for mining and protected waters in Alaska for oil drilling.  On top of all of this, Trump is also pushing for expanded use of asbestos, which is known to cause various cancers such as Mesothelioma, and to ease restrictions on the output of methane, which is a greenhouse gas that is THIRTY TIMES more efficient than Carbon Dioxide at trapping heat.  None of these things can possibly be considered a success because they threaten our very survival.

Claiming the tax reform as a success is equally spurious because every metric irrefutably proves that it has only helped the wealthy (most estimates show that about 90 to 95% of the benefits went straight to the wealthy).  The massive tax cuts given to corporations went not into higher wages or renewed investment, but into a record amount of stock buyback.  The wealthy received the bulk of the tax cuts, and certain cuts, such as the Estate Tax, were targeted directly at them (contrary to popular belief, almost no one is subject to this tax; under the previous tax code, only estates worth in excess of around $5.2 million were subject, and the new tax code more than doubled this, which means even fewer people will pay this).  On the other hand, small businesses and the majority of taxpayers will see little change in their taxes, and many will actually see a net INCREASE.  The corporate tax rate was slashed to 20%, but the effective tax rate, which is the average rate paid, was already about 20% because of various exemptions; under the new tax code, almost all exemptions were eliminated, meaning many smaller businesses will actually see an increase in their tax burden because there are fewer ways to mitigate it.  The same is true for the average taxpayer; between shifting tax brackets, the loss of exemptions, and a smaller amount being withheld from their paychecks (due to badly calculated withholding tables), most taxpayers will see a smaller refund next year, and many who normally get small refunds could actually end up owing money.  With all of these cuts, the tax code is forecast to add trillions to the deficit because spending is increasing while revenue is being slashed.  As such, this cannot be claimed a success because it threatens to send us into another recession.

That the author tried to play politics is bad enough, but the arguments he used simply don’t work.  There has been little true success from this administration because the policies it pushes are at best idiotic and incompetent and at worst blatantly corrupt and hateful.  But even if the policies were good, even if they were succeeding at improving this country, it wouldn’t matter.  Good policy does not excuse Trump’s corruption, vindictiveness, pettiness, or general incompetence.  This isn’t a zero-sum game, and the ends don’t justify the means.

This author clearly sees Trump for exactly what he is.  They know he is dangerously mentally deficient and that his impulsiveness and vindictive nature represent a grave threat to the stability of the country and the world.  They admitted there is sufficient evidence to invoke the 25^th Amendment, which allows for the removal of a president who is unable to carry out his duties.  But instead of doing what is right, instead of acting in the best interest of the country, they chose partisanship.  They put the Republican Party over the country because they want to maintain both the GOP’s grip on power and their own.  It took courage to publish this Op-Ed, but that doesn’t negate the inherent cowardice of refusing to do the right thing simply because it would be difficult. 

The tone of this Op-Ed suggest we should be thankful because there are people within the White House working to mitigate Trump’s most dangerous and deranged impulses.  But it should never have come to this point.  Moreover, as President Obama recently noted, this is actually a dangerous and disturbing precedent because these people are unelected and unaccountable to no one.  As such, how can we be sure THEY will do the right thing?  This is nothing less than the protection and enabling of a dangerous and unfit president by cowards who care more about their own political ambitions than the future of this country.

I am thankful that the author spoke out because we need people within this administration to speak out.  We know their claims about Trump are true because the dozens of other narratives that have surfaced about this White House say exactly the same thing.  But it’s time for them to do the right thing.  It’s not enough to just run damage control against him.  The author and their colleagues need to pressure Vice President Mike Pence and the Cabinet to invoke the 25^th Amendment because Trump is unfit by any metric.  If the Cabinet is unwilling to act, then they should pressure Congress to act; under Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment, Congress may create another body for the purpose of invoking this amendment (Democrats proposed the creation of a bipartisan committee for this purpose last year, but it never materialized).

This isn’t about politics or parties.  This isn’t about ideological differences.  This is about truth, about right and wrong.  The author rightfully notes that one of Trump’s biggest hindrances is his amorality; if they can recognize a lack of morality, then surely they can recognize that continuing to protect and enable him is wrong.  It’s time for all those who continue to defend him to stand up and do the right thing.  Morality and truth are not subjective.  They are absolute and immutable.  The author knows this, and that is why they wrote their editorial; not to assuage us, but to console their own conscience, which is no doubt screaming in rage.  If they truly don’t want us to worry, then they need to put aside all of their fears, abandon partisanship, and do what is right for the country.

We know exactly what Trump is, and we know that he is a threat to the fabric of democracy itself.  The facts and evidence that show his dangerous nature and inability to lead are everywhere.  In such a dire situation, the compromise suggested by the author is no better.  It is time for the author and for everyone who enables and defends this man to stop plugging their ears and closing their eyes to the truth. 

There is far too much at stake to continue living in partisan ignorance.