Assessing the "Anonymous Senior Administration Official's" NY Times Op-Ed

        Every time something about the Trump Administration astonishes us, look for something the next day that beats it all hollow.  This week's one-two punch was (1) a book by highly-respected journalist Bob Woodward portraying the Administration as a bickering entity shattered into factions insulting each other, with many of Trump's own officials trying to save us from the worst of Trump, then -- not 24 hours after Trump threatens Woodward and calls for stricter libel laws -- (2) an unprecedented anonymous column in the NY Times from "a senior administration official."
[My previous post touches on some of the silliness in Trump's reaction to the Woordward book, while an earlier one this week ("Trump Warns Very Clearly He'll Abandon Rule of Law" ) covers his public effort to obstruct justice for two Republican Congressmen.]
        The anonymous op-ed is astonishing.  The Times knows the person's identity; and no one who read the piece could disagree that the person's job would be in danger if Mr. Trump could indentify  him or her.

        The piece points out early that:

"President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.  . . . The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."

        The writer adds:

"I would know. I am one of them.

"We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.  . . .

"But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

        That is, of course, an unprecedented statement.  In the last days of the Nixon Administration, officials might be talking like that amongst themselves; but they weren't saying anything publicly.  

        The next passage in the column is almost word-for-word what many, including this columnist, have often said, something that seemed so obvious from his words, conduct, and past record that hearing Trump loyalists dispute it has always startled me: that there's no there there, in the sense that Trump has no ideological or ethical center or base, but just -- like a dinosaur -- does what seems necessary or convenient: "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."

        The entire essay makes clear, as does the following passage, that the writer is probably not someone I would agree with about most of what government should or shouldn't be doing, but someone who does see that Trumpian _________ is dangerous to all of us:

"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

"In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

"Don’t get me wrong. 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.

"But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective."

        I am obviously not a fan of deregulation that endangers consumers, nature, and the environment to help big corporations.  Nor is the "tax reform" anything more than a prescription for economic disaster.  But I sure see what the writer calls Trump's "erratic behavior."

        "From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

"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.

“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier."

        He adds, "It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.."  The phrase "cold comfort" seems exactly right.  Yeah, it's nice to know they haven't all drunk the kool aid and that someone's at least trying to protect us from the worst of Trump; but this "erratic" and "amoral" fellow remains with his finger on the proverbial button.  Further, while they are trying to civilize Trump a little, they remain in his administration -- dedicated to doing, more effectively than Trump could do, some things I consider dangerous to the republic.   I'm glad this fellow -- and there's some indication the writer is male, although the Times has mostly tried not to say -- spoke up, because maybe some folks that wouldn't believe me will believe a fellow conservative with a marvelous view of the dumpster fire; but one of the few things Trump might be right about is the writer's "gutlessness" and "disloyalty."

Of course, as usual, Trump overstates everything and confuses the nation's interest with his own.  In a one-word tweet, he commented, "Treason?"   No, Donald, not treason.  Yes, disloyalty to you; but in the service of what the writer believes is best for the nation; and at some cost, so that perhaps "gutless" is unfair.

        The writer goes on to point out some things that have become obvious, adding only the fact that some of Trump's dangerous proclivities are not just for show:

"Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

"Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

"On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable."

        Interestingly, the writer confirms what many had hinted, that the "adults in the room", including some in Trump's cabinet, gave some thought to invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the mentally and emotionally disabled president.  "But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over."

        I could hardly agree more strongly with this observation: "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."  I am no deeply committed partisan of the Democratic Party.  I'm in it; but I have my doubts that either party currently represents the average U.S. citizen.  However, the Democrats are often at least in the same zip code with sane and humanitarian policies.  I also understand some of the Republicans' ideological or theoretical arguments, and take them seriously, and respect the belief in them that some Republicans demonstrate.  But watching Republicans fawn over this clown because he has power and is useful to them has been so appalling I wonder how decent people can remain in the party without speaking up.   They are the true "gutless" ones, not the anonymous administration official.

        He urges everyone to head John McCain's farewell words and "break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation."   Of McCain, this member of the Trump administration says, "Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them."

        He closes: "There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans."

         That means us.  We are U.S. citizens.  We can and must vote to change the composition of Congress to counterbalance Trump's madness and disrespect for law, traditions, and Constitution.   But we must also extend a hand to others with whom we may disagree.  And as Trump partisans, if some do, begin to see the truth about their hero more clearly, we should take no pride or joy in that, but welcome them back to the world.

 Wednesday evening, Trump tried a new tack: demanding that the Times turn over the writer to authorities "for national security reasons."

 “Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source?” he tweeted. “If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!”

However, even Trump's closest pals in the Senate weren't buying it.