The Times & Trump Unpacked
The New York Times has published an opinion from an anonymous “senior” White House official, who depicts a house divided at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Regardless of one's political leaning, this is a seminal bit of journalism that illustrates where we are as a constitutional republic. There are four revelations to the intellectually honest amongst the nation.
An influential news organization - with an undeniable history of anti-Trump editorials - published a hack-saw opinion from a disgruntled "senior White House official" who insisted on anonymity. It was not breaking and earth-shaking news for we the people because Trump's behavior has been thoroughly documented since the Republican primaries. Who doesn’t know he is unpredictable and incorrigible and lacks politesse?
An appointed employee of the executive branch claims to be a member of a quiet resistance within the White House that is responsible for almost every good decision and policy - even secretly removing documents from the President's desk. According to the writer, the un-elected shadow White House is virtuous and committed to truth, justice and the American way.
This president is either a bad boss, who cannot manage as the most powerful man in the world, or he has not sufficiently replaced non-believers (perhaps Obama-era holdovers) with honest and loyal co-workers. Whatever, Trump’s reaction suggest the Times op-ed hit home. Every man has a breaking point; so 62 million Trump voters must wonder if Trump has the stomach to weather foxes in his henhouse.
The anonymous editorial re-confirms the existence of snitch-state apparatchiks, who are willing to undermine a fairly-elected president. The writer proves the resistance are neo-totalitarians that believe their experience and worldview supersedes the experience and worldview of the electorate. After the Green Party vote challenge in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Hollywood's attempt to sway electors, and Democrat motions to impeach, it is clear 2016-election deniers are now part and parcel of our government.
Let’s get some real-world vision here. The Washington Post claims democracy dies in darkness, which is good advice to the Times. If Trump is truly impaired, then we the people deserve transparency, and Congress deserves an opportunity to question the alleged senior White House official. The paper’s track record and writer’s anonymity invite skepticism of the op-ed's real motive. As to the credibility of the writer: do not trust any appointed official, who proclaims his (or her) wisdom and virtue while complaining about the the boss’s flaws from the safety of the bleachers.
In the spirit of full disclosure, everything written to this point is mumbo-jumbo political science. To thoroughly understand this political battle, follow the money. It is the best way to determine the wisdom and/or motive of every party involved.
I question the business judgment of the NYT's business leader, publisher A. G. Sulzberger, because the Trump presidency has been a financial windfall for the Times. In the twelve months leading up to Trump's election, NYT annual revenues had sunk to near-record lows ($1.56 billion). By July 2018, NYT revenues had climbed to $1.7 billion - and market valuations had climbed from $1.76 billion (October 2016) to $4.43 billion (June 2018). When a transparent op-ed would have provided the same information, Mr. Sulzberger made a partisan decision that might lead to the ouster of his revenue rainmaker (President Trump).
I question the character of the anonymous snitch, whose patriotism remained subordinate to his desire to remain gainfully in the employment of President Trump. Who sells his (or her) soul at such a petty price? This is no brave patriot in the mold of Nathan Hale, who regretted that he had "but one life to lose for his country." Rather, the writer's arrogance and disloyalty invoke the stench of Benedict Arnold. The writer takes responsibility for the booming economy, but anonymity prevents a proper rebuttal (what if the writer is John Huntsman, an ambassador with no role in governance?) - - and claims to be supremely principled, but won’t resign and let we the people decide his level of greatness and patriotism.
I question the patriotism of the anti-Trump coalition, which will not complement or credit this un-presidential outsider for any positive developments at home or abroad. Even though GDP is growing at over 3 percent, unemployment is at 50-year lows and retirement plans have grown 27 percent in value, the coalition is willing to wager Trump is not responsible (and assume Obama’s policies created the boom). The coalition and shadow White House are obvious threats to the constitution and our economy. They are cause-effect deniers in spite of the legacy miracles of a Trump presidency:
Regulatory reform is responsible for soaring business confidence reaching record levels.
His bully pulpit has invited the highest consumer confidence in 18 years (source: CNBC).
Corporate-tax cuts and de-regulation have propelled corporate profits to near record levels.
Rural banks (share prices up 25%) and rural communities are rebounding because of tweaks to Dodd-Frank.
Benefits and people are drifting back to rural areas because small-business owners are getting tax relief (source: CNBC).
Maxine Waters might read my words and accuse me of being all about the money. What else is there, sister, after eight years of Obama redistributive economics that killed investment and gainful employment opportunities? The Times op-ed is a wake-up call to every American that values liberty over the nanny state, and economic opportunity over redistributive equality. Mr. Anonymous was tapped to give a mighty yawp on behalf of the coalition and shadow White House cabal. Maybe they are just terrified we the people might learn we can thrive without an activist and intrusive government, the DC metro area might shrink to the size of Raleigh, and they will have to join the unwashed masses in fending for themselves in the private sector where results matter. And that's the real story.