The New York Times Op-Ed is a net positive for Trump.
If Trump didn't plant the letter himself, he should have.
The Op-Ed is evidence for a dark conspiracy: the deep state swamp full of conspirators. It takes a swashbuckling, rule-breaking hero to defeat them.
 |
| In Montana, calling the Op-Ed "treason." |
It is not intuitive to think it actually helps Trump to have a letter published saying he is amoral, dangerous, bad at his job, and that he needs "adults in the room" to confound his bad impulses. But it does.
It gives him--and his base--an excuse to use extraordinary and non-democratic methods to govern. After all, it is war, against a covert enemy, and the normal rules don't apply.
It gives him--and his base--an excuse to use extraordinary and non-democratic methods to govern. After all, it is war, against a covert enemy, and the normal rules don't apply.
We already knew that Trump was impulsive, volatile, narcissistic, amoral and childish. There are multiple books, former employees, and day-to-day reporters saying this and citing examples. We have seen the reports that senior White House people had needed to talk Trump out of dangerous, impulsive decisions. The "adult in the room" idea was already there.
This doesn't hurt Trump much. It keeps him in the center of attention. Besides, Trump makes a virtue out of being unpredictable and volatile. It is a negotiating strategy.
What is new is that a person close to Trump announces he or she is consciously deceiving Trump, is proud of it, is continuing to do it, and is anonymous. The Op-Ed is a confession of an un-democratic, covert conspiracy.
This is exactly what Trump has been saying all along.
 |
| Trump tweets |
This buttresses the Trump argument that things are not what they seem. Facts are fake, appearances deceive, so don't believe your eyes.
Evidence of a covert conspiracy against him tends to justify suspicion of established institutions supposedly carrying out the serious, non-political work of honest government. This is Trump's claim: the supposedly honest and honorable people of the FBI and the Justice Department aren't just "doing their jobs." The Republicans are really Democrats, and they are infiltrated by traitors and Trump-haters. You may not see it, but the corruption is there, Trump says.
The public should act on what it "knows", not on what the supposed facts are.
Evidence of a covert conspiracy against him tends to justify suspicion of established institutions supposedly carrying out the serious, non-political work of honest government. This is Trump's claim: the supposedly honest and honorable people of the FBI and the Justice Department aren't just "doing their jobs." The Republicans are really Democrats, and they are infiltrated by traitors and Trump-haters. You may not see it, but the corruption is there, Trump says.
The public should act on what it "knows", not on what the supposed facts are.
Trump openly called for the Justice Department to ignore crimes done by partisan allies, i.e. two GOP Congressmen. In tweets he scolded Jeff Sessions for allowing the FBI to investigate crimes by "two very popular Republican congressmen," Duncan Hunter of California who was indicted for using campaign money for personal use and then falsifying documents to cover it up, and Chris Collins of New York, indicted on insider stock trading. Trump said "two easy wins now in doubt." Carrying out--or abandoning--criminal prosecutions for partisan advantage completely changes the nature of Justice Department. He was advocating making it a weapon of partisan campaigns, not an administrator of equal, blind justice. It is a shocking attitude for a president to have, and more shocking to have been put into writing.
The NY Times Op-Ed provides evidence Donald Trump can cite. He can claim he isn't corrupting an honest system. The game is rigged, against him. See, it is right there in the Op-Ed.
In fact, the covert activity is so pervasive that it goes beyond secret Democrats in the civil service, who need to be removed. The conspiracy has even reached into the Republican party, and anti-Trump conspirators have finagled their way into the highest reaches of the Administration. The situation is as bad or worse than he said.
Trump's argument is that he is a counterpuncher and that he is not corrupting the system, he is balancing the scales.
This is not supposed to happen.
The check on this system was supposed to be the officeholders in his own party whose ambitions and the prerogatives of their own offices in a separate branch of government were intended to block an out of control executive. It isn't happening. Trump is scolding Jeff Sessions for obeying the rule of law. GOP senators are quiet. All it would take is one or two of them to dig in their heels, and refuse to vote with their caucus until Trump behaves, but even the ones soon to retire--Corker, Flake, and Hatch--are quiet. Lindsey Graham has given in, and said Sessions is on his way out. He says it as matter of fact, not indignation.
This is not supposed to happen.
The check on this system was supposed to be the officeholders in his own party whose ambitions and the prerogatives of their own offices in a separate branch of government were intended to block an out of control executive. It isn't happening. Trump is scolding Jeff Sessions for obeying the rule of law. GOP senators are quiet. All it would take is one or two of them to dig in their heels, and refuse to vote with their caucus until Trump behaves, but even the ones soon to retire--Corker, Flake, and Hatch--are quiet. Lindsey Graham has given in, and said Sessions is on his way out. He says it as matter of fact, not indignation.
4 comments:
Trump may get some points for the existence of the op-ed, but it's abrogated by the contents.
Let's not forget what it is saying. Republicans close to Trump now think he needs to be removed from office via the 25th. While most of the country is abhorrent already, now even Republicans can't live with the monster they created. Graham is a great example. He is pretending normalcy in a vain attempt to stave off the now seemingly inevitable end. His and others queasy hand-holding with Trump after his earlier statements has damaged his already questionable credibility beyond repair. He will turn again as events unfold; "I NEVER liked the guy"...
This is what happens when principles are abandoned for raw power.
I can't begin to describe how sad your post makes me, Peter.
We are seemingly in a one step forward (President Obama at Univ. of Illinois) and two steps back mode of existence. Very difficult to maintain a positive attitude these days.
Like most other things his supporters would miss about your premise is that these people who are supposedly subverting him were- in theory at least- recruited by him. The revolving door of cabinet members as well as ‘close’ advisors who end up being turn-coats, convicted felons or both, is breath-taking in scale and speed by any executive benchmark. It would be a fine study on organizational theory if the stakes weren’t so high.
Too bad that you waste so much energy trashing Trump daily. You're stuck with Trump for at least 2 more years.
ALL of your local democrat candidates, except for Jeff Golden, are going to lose in November, and you could be spending this time trying to promote them instead. 75% of all voters don't even know who Jamie Skinner, Lanita Witt, Amy Thuren, or Michelle Atkinson are.
Post a Comment