[ad_1]
One of the consequences of the presence of such a polarizing and imperfect president is the extent to which his opponents justify their own destructive reaction. Cory Booker, for example, consciously violates the rules of the Senate on Thursday in an attempt to deny Brett Kavanaugh a seat on the Supreme Court. (See nearby.) Another is the decision by a "senior official" to publish an article in the New York Times describing the "resistance" of the internal government to Donald Trump.
Let's say that publishing an article with an anonymous signature is sometimes worth it, and we did it ourselves. In 1991, we protected the name of a woman raped during the debate on the publication of the names of victims. We published editorials protecting the identity of writers who might be arrested or worse off at the hands of dictators or terrorists, while informing readers that the author was using a pseudonym.
We do not remember to have offered anonymity to a member of the government or US policy, even though we may have one, and we can not say we would never do it. It would depend on the circumstances. The publisher of this publication does not meet these standards, especially because it is not news. The fact that senior administration officials tried to block Mr. Trump's ill-informed political impulses and stifle his self-destructive anger and narcissism was reported hundreds of times.
Recall that Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and others rushed to persuade Mr. Trump not to withdraw from Nafta on a whim in early 2017. Or how the Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and others have persuaded him that or how the White House lawyer, Don McGahn, advised Trump to dismiss Special Counsel Robert Mueller. In these and many other cases, colder heads have prevailed for the benefit of the country.
This week's edition does not seem to have such a precise or noble purpose. The motivation of an anonymous writer is impossible to know, but opinion already has the opposite effect of its self-proclaimed virtue.
The writer surely knew that such insider critics in the New York Times anti-Trump would be like shaking a red cloak in front of a raging bull. As expected, Mr. Trump storms Twitter and goes on a mole hunt. Cabinet officers and senior intelligence officials deny that they are the perpetrators, and journalists try to make anyone important. The United States seems stupid in front of the world, which leads us to wonder whether the real purpose of the writer is to help the imminent impeachment campaign. This is definitely the New York Times program.
Mr. Trump will do the opposite of what the writer wants if his identity is discovered. The most honorable and effective way for the author to achieve his stated purpose would have been to continue to work quietly within the Administration or to resign and speak.
The irony is that the same people praising Anonymous have denounced for months all those who work for Mr. Trump as moral morons who will be condemned by history. Anti-trumpers call for purges and ostracism. Yet, Anonymous is now a saint for denigrating his objections without a sign on the display board of anti-Trump resistance. Brave guy.
***
As we wrote before the election, voting for Donald Trump meant taking a big risk on his obvious character flaws to get better policies. Given the binary choice of Mr. Trump or Hillary Clinton, 63 million Americans took a flyer on Mr. Trump without illusion.
Politically, Mr. Trump has been better than expected and the economy has reached a new plateau of growth (even in a misguided trade war). That's probably why many voters continue to approve of Trump's performance despite his crises. His judicial choices are excellent and his foreign policy actions have been largely judicious, not to mention his rhetorical speeches about dictators.
The tragedy of this presidency is that his insults and insults, even to those who work for him, threaten to exceed his political achievements. They set fire to their loyalists but repel millions of people who expect better from a president. Mr. Trump is now determined against good advice to make this fall's election a referendum on himself, and if the Republicans lose the House, the path to its destruction will accelerate.
As in the 2016 election, millions of people argue that the fury and vindictiveness of his opponents is an argument. The real heroes of this difficult time are the Mattises and the McMasters, the Kudlows and Cohns, McConnells and Ryans, who worked for the good of the country amidst the tumultuous personality of the oval office and the feverish resistance.
Source link
