Two ways of looking at anonymous op-ed

My first thought about the anonymous op-ed tell-all in the New York Times was relief that there are some adults surrounding the president who are actually mindful of the dangers he poses to the nation and who are trying to do something to contain his worst impulses.

Only later, after listening to other points of view, did I become concerned with what this actually amounts to -- unelected staff members undermining and disobeying the orders of the duly elected president.  In other words, undermining the authority of the people's choice, an anti-democracy act.

Ross Douthat, conservative op-ed columnist for the New York Times, wrote a very thoughtful piece on Sunday that takes both these points of view into consideration and comes to a thoughtful synthesis.   He writes:

"One might say that insofar as the officials resisting Trump are trying to prevent his temperamental unfitness from leading to some mass-casuality disaster or moral infamy, they are doing the country a great service.   But insofar as they are just trying to prevent him implementing possibly-misguided populist ideas, they are being presumptuously antidemocratic and should resign instead.

"The trouble is that there is obviously a gray area between these two categories.  And it's in the nature of ideology to convince people that only their preferred policy ideas stand between the country and disaster."

Douthat continues:  "So, . . . the example of [Gen.] James Mattis slow-walking a fleeting presidential desire to [assassinate Syrian president Assad] . . . strikes me as the admirable sort of internal resistance.

"But then the example of Gary Cohn stealing a letter off Trump's desk to prevent him from dissolving the U.S.-South Korea trade compact seems closer to an example of the anti-democratic vice -- because after all, Trump campaigned on renegotiating trade deals, didn't he?   And yet I'm sure Cohn justified himself on more existential grounds, imagining the unraveling of the peninsular security arrangement and, eventually, a horrifying war. . ."

Douthat then proposes that those around Trump should sustain some combination of the two points of view when deciding whether to try to thwart an action of this president.   "Yes to prudent resistance to rash behavior, no to ideological resistance to populist policy."    And he acknowledges that this "would require constant self-scrutiny among the people trying to manage this presidency from within."

He concludes that "the most troubling thing about the anonymous op-ed -- apart from the dubious judgment that inspired its writing -- is that the author doesn't seem to recognize this issue, or acknowledge any distinction between protecting America from Trump's erratic personality . . .  and frustrating the agenda that won our president the White House."

*     *     *

And I would add that settling for this compromise, rather than some more dramatic action from the inside staff that would force the Republican majority to grapple with the problem of an unfit president, simply prolongs the dysfunction we face when Congress is ignoring its constitutional duty of oversight of the Executive branch of our government.   Is the answer mass resignations?   Would that be enough to evoke some Republican action?

Apparently everyone's deciding to leave it to the voters -- 57 days from today.   So get out and vote.    And get others to go too.   Our democracy depends on it.

Ralph