After nearly a week of the national media echo chamber surrounding an anonymous op-ed supposedly written by a senior official of the Trump administration, let’s consider some of what was said.
“[M]any of the senior officials in his own administration,” the writer said in The New York Times, “are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.”
All those who believed the Trump White House was going to work from Day 1 like the well-oiled machine put together by a career politician with congressional and Washington bureaucracy experience – say a President George H.W. Bush – take one step back. You evidently misunderstood who Trump is and what he wanted to do.
The president is unlike perhaps every president before him, at least every president in recent memory. He is not a politician, not a person used to hearing “no,” not a person willing to run on a D.C. schedule, and not a person to withhold his thoughts.
If the truth were known, there are individuals inside every White House working to frustrate parts of a president’s agenda and his worst inclinations. Some things can’t be done or, despite their soundness, won’t ever get done because of political considerations.
Indeed, many presidents have welcomed sounding boards, people who would voice opinions opposite his, opinions that would help forge a consensus or help see an issue more broadly.
If we would infer one thing about Trump from the op-ed, it is that he probably does not take as well to sounding boards as many of his predecessors.
“The root of the problem is the president’s amorality,” the op-ed letter writer also said. “Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
“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.”
Again, most of us knew all that during the campaign and, in sum, is one of the reasons many traditional Republicans and conservatives, including this page, opposed his candidacy.
He’s been a Democrat; he’s been a Republican. He’s been pro-choice; he’s been pro-life. He’s given money to Democrats; he’s given money to Republicans. He’s been not unlike many big business people who want and need to curry favors on all sides.
Traditional Republicans and conservatives wanted one of their own, a true believer. However, that’s not what the American people wanted. Tired of a two-term president who governed against their will, Republicans, Democrats and independents wanted somebody who espoused what they believed, regardless of party. Trump fit from the right; Bernie Sanders fit from the left. They were completely unalike, but both were individuals who weren’t going to play ball the way it always had been played.
So, like it or not, the president is somewhat politically unmoored. But it’s what people – including surprising numbers of blacks and Hispanics – wanted.
The op-ed goes on to call Trump’s leadership style “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.” It says staffers “privately admit their daily disbelief at [his] comments and actions.” It says meetings “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.”
Had this op-ed writer seen the president’s early-morning tweets before writing the op-ed? Had the writer seen his campaign and rally speeches? He’s neither focused, nor an orator. But it’s results that count, and the writer admits the administration’s “bright spots” have included “effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.”
The writer goes on to say, magnanimously, “there are adults in the room,” and the work of the “steady state” of individuals like the writer keep the administration afloat. The writer then says the invoking of the 25th Amendment, which spells out procedures for the removal of a president, was briefly considered early in the administration. “But,” the writer said, patting himself or herself on the back, “no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.”
Sir or madam, thank you so much for saving our country. Now that you’ve done that, please go back to your job as a “senior official” – in a city where everyone in government refers to themselves as a “senior official” – and help the president attempt to accomplish good things for the American people. With a president willing to take action unlike those in previous years and a person like you brushing aside his worst instincts and saving the best ones, just like in the administrations of many previous presidents, much good can be done.