Thursday, September 6, 2018

the anonymous op-ed

Thoughts I'm having as a citizen, regarding the insider op-ed published yesterday by the New York Times:

1.  The amount of work needed to feel confident in an opinion.

At first reading, I felt an immediate disgust to this paragraph:
"There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more."

The first thought was "ugh!", but then I started thinking about this being either a trigger to deliberately get that reaction from me, or it really is the belief of the writer that these are positive things, and more of an affirmation to those with similar views.

We have a foreign enemy in the system.  We have a former Russian spy with a propaganda/manipulation/spy machine right now pulling strings and fucking with everyone.  We have a compromised GOP that appears to be conforming to Russian influence due to blackmail.  Mostly because of the stolen RNC data the Russians have, but if they have worse things on Trump than just a golden shower tape, as suggested in this documentary, then you betcha there's a few others in the GOP congress and senate and further that are similarly compromised.  It ain't just their emails that they fear.

We also have corporate money in the electoral process on a scale never seen before.  While some of these democracy-damaging directives from corporate interests coincide with Putin's, we're talking Saruman and Sauron here.  Power isn't something these people like to share.

So I don't trust my first reactions anymore. I've learned to follow facts as far as I can without relying on my gut for truth.

I don't know if this op-ed was sincere.  None of us do.  I don't know if the intention really was to "sound the alarm" as some reporters put it, or if this is a nefariously planned thing intended for a specific action or actions.  I don't think, if sincere, this will have any effect on the GOP's actions against Trump.  His approval rating hasn't sunk low enough, and if they're all compromised by the stolen data Putin has on them, I doubt any will ever move directly against Trump for fear of Putin retaliation.

2.  What action(s) will this justify?

I don't think my opinion on this is very clear, either.  It does give Trump a great excuse to fire everyone within reach, but I don't know how or whom that serves. This wasn't written by Jeff Sessions or Rod Rosenstein. If everything goes back to Putin (and not every single thing does - the op-ed author triggered me specifically due to the purist libertarian ideals), then maybe this was done to clean house of anti-Putin people surrounding Trump.  

This op-ed will deepen Trump's sense of paranoia, and of isolation.  He tweeted himself this morning that he and Kim Jong Un would "get it done together".  Get what done?  The thought of the two of them doing anything together gives me goosebumps.  Unless it's just another photo-op.  These things swing that way in speculation.  This is the information era plus Trump.  You never know if it's going to be a huge nothing, or if it's going to be a huge fucking disaster.

So.  Right now, I can see this giving Trump a reason to get rid of even more staff.  If there's Putin-players ready for installment, then there's your reason.  If not, then it's not.

3.  Who the fuck's in charge?

The op-ed author claims to be working with others to "put country first."  Makes a fine showing of saying the right things about reaching across the aisle, yadda yadda.  But this means that Trump's directions are not his, and are not being heeded, and that someone else is basically in control of Trump.  Someone else has power over Trump's actions.  I mean, we knew he was figuratively out of control, but this would (if true) confirm that he really, REALLY isn't in control.

Anyone with that power over him is not necessarily acting in the interests of anyone else.  We don't fucking know.

If there are multiple persons in the administration disobeying Trump, how do they decide what to allow and what to not allow?  The author claims they are acting as a barrier to stop Trump from his own worst impulses.  But do you think that's all these people with control over Trump are doing or want to do?  I sure don't.  The praise of deregulation and tax breaks may have irked me, but those actions benefit only a tiny number of citizens, such as Charles Koch.  So are these people controlling Trump?  I didn't vote for that, either.

But I don't know.  We don't know if the writer is sincere.  We don't know if the writer is acting in the rich donor class's best interests, the country's best interest, or in Putin's best interest.  It's all speculation.  But none of it is good for the country.  This is a much bigger problem than just Trump himself.