By now, you’ve likely heard something about the New York Times Op-Ed by an anonymous senior White House official, alleging a secret “resistance” among Trump’s advisors and general staff “working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”
If you have no idea what I’m talking about and are utterly confused, give this a quick read.
To be fair, the author does point out up front that they are “not the popular ‘resistance’ of the left”, a point hammered home quite clearly when they go on to claim that many of the administration’s policies “have already made America safer and more prosperous”, and point to several “bright spots” such as “effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military, and more.” That the administration’s staff contains Republicans, and that they stick to the kleptocratic party platform, isn’t terribly shocking by itself. What is far more surprising is that they seem to expect some sort of praise for trying to play puppet master to a mad dictator so they can continue robbing everyone blind.
The author admits that Trump is so bad that invoking the 25th amendment was seriously considered. No reason is given why this idea was dismissed other than “not wanting to precipitate a constitutional crisis”. How following the constitutionally prescribed remedy for exactly this situation is more of a ‘constitutional crisis’ than forming a shadow junta to subvert the directives of a sitting president in a soft coup, is left as an exercise for the reader. The author admits that there is widespread agreement among the staff that Trump is unfit to be president, but instead of working to remove him as their oaths require, they have instead decided to “manage” him in order to continue pursuing their own agenda. Many would call that treason (likely for different reasons depending on where you fall on the political spectrum), but the author calls it “putting country first”.
I’ve been trying and failing to grasp the reasoning at work here. As far as I can work out, it’s a half-assed attempt to start distancing Republicans from Trump, but I’m still baffled by the assertion that being an anonymous string puller working to shield a corrupt and evil administration from the consequences of its own incompetent leadership so it can continue pursuing corrupt and evil goals somehow equates to “resistance”. I keep imagining a Nazi general captured by the French Resistance and claiming to have been an inside man all along because he sometimes subverted disastrous orders from superiors, and the whole occupation might have fallen apart months ago without him basically running things.
Or a noble on the way to the guillotine vehemently denying claims that he’s a royalist. He’s merely the one who has been controlling the king like a puppet, and you’re all welcome by the way.
Or Tarkin credited as a rebel agent because, yeah maybe he blew up Alderaan, but he often gave Vader the wrong time and location for staff meetings so he would stop choking officers and they could get some actual work done.
Of course, the real explanation for why this makes no sense is that the message isn’t directed at you, me, or any of the common people. This is aimed at those who already reflexively vote for Republican policy, but are made uncomfortable by Trump’s embarrassing antics. It’s a message to the aristocrats and corporate financiers, a reassurance to those concerned that things had gotten out of hand that the oligarchy still has a handle on things, despite a few temporary hiccups. They can continue to fund the party without fear of a nuclear war. Their mad dog will be, if not leashed, at least properly fenced in, and the status quo of looting public coffers to stuff their pockets will remain intact. That this message, instead of being whispered in the back room of a fundraising dinner, was broadcast openly via the New York Times…well, make of that what you will.
Science, Politics, and Ponies 