SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
President Donald J. Trump, joined by Vice President Mike Pence and members of the Cabinet, are seen in prayer prior to the start of their Cabinet meeting, Saturday, September 9, 2017 in Laurel Lodge at Camp David near Thurmont, MD. (Photo: Shealah Craighead/White House)
While Trump Clearly Horrible President, Critics Denounce Right-Wing 'Unelected Cabal' Represented by Anonymous Op-Ed
"Trump may be a threat," notes journalist Glenn Greenwald, "but so is this covert coup" that seeks to impose its "own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
Sep 05, 2018
What's more troubling: That the grotesque liar and right-wing narcissist Donald Trump was elected by the American people to be President of the United States in 2016? Or that there is now apparently a secret cabal of unelected right-wing officials inside his White House--at least according to a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday afternoon--that is actively undermining his presidency from within and their own discretion?
"Proponents of healthy, civilian-rule democracy should not be encouraging or celebrating secret, independent military insubordination as a response to reckless/illegal executive overreach. It sets a precedent that is ripe for abuse." --Reed F. Richardson, journalist"I work for the president," the op-ed writer, controversially provided anonymity by Times, confesses, "but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."
The explosive admission detailed in the column, if true, would be historically unprecedented: someone described by the paper as a confirmed "senior official in the Trump administration" openly admitting to the American public that there is a coordinated effort afoot to sabotage the prerogatives--horrible and offensive as they might be--of the democratically-elected president they have been hired or appointed to serve.
The individual behind the op-ed is clear that the efforts of those opposing the president "is not the popular 'resistance' of the left," but rather right-wing operatives concerned that Trump's "amorality"--as they alone define it--is a threat to their perceived notions of what good governance should be.
In response to its publication, Trump called the person responsible "gutless" and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders in a statement called on the author to quit immediately.
"The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people." She added, "This coward should do the right thing and resign."
Later, in a tweet, Trump called on the Times, citing "National Security purposes", to "turn him/her over to government at once."
But while some on the progressive left were championing the anonymous author for taking a brave stance against an "unhinged" president (or the "mad king"), others expressed deep concern about the implications of the op-ed.
In his assessment--in which he called the irony of the op-ed "glaring and massive" and also described the author as a "coward"--journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out that while "Trump may be a threat" in his own right, "so is this covert coup" that seeks to impose its "own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
Progressive journalist and media critic Reed F. Richardson agreed with Greenwald's sentiments and concerns, writing on Twitter, "Proponents of healthy, civilian-rule democracy should not be encouraging or celebrating secret, independent military insubordination as a response to reckless/illegal executive overreach. It sets a precedent that is ripe for abuse."
However, another left-leaning journalist, Jordan Chariton, put it this way: "If senior officials feel the country is in peril, they need to put their name to it and invoke the 25th amendment... [the Times] allowing a senior official to do anonymous op-ed (may not even work in actual White House) is essentially gossip."
And finally, as political activist and writer Ben Spielberg explained about why so-called "Never Trump" Republicans--like the author of the op-ed appears to be-- should simply not to be trusted. "An enemy of your enemy is not always your friend," warned Spielberg. "This is something everyone who considers themselves part of the #Resistance would do well to remember."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
What's more troubling: That the grotesque liar and right-wing narcissist Donald Trump was elected by the American people to be President of the United States in 2016? Or that there is now apparently a secret cabal of unelected right-wing officials inside his White House--at least according to a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday afternoon--that is actively undermining his presidency from within and their own discretion?
"Proponents of healthy, civilian-rule democracy should not be encouraging or celebrating secret, independent military insubordination as a response to reckless/illegal executive overreach. It sets a precedent that is ripe for abuse." --Reed F. Richardson, journalist"I work for the president," the op-ed writer, controversially provided anonymity by Times, confesses, "but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."
The explosive admission detailed in the column, if true, would be historically unprecedented: someone described by the paper as a confirmed "senior official in the Trump administration" openly admitting to the American public that there is a coordinated effort afoot to sabotage the prerogatives--horrible and offensive as they might be--of the democratically-elected president they have been hired or appointed to serve.
The individual behind the op-ed is clear that the efforts of those opposing the president "is not the popular 'resistance' of the left," but rather right-wing operatives concerned that Trump's "amorality"--as they alone define it--is a threat to their perceived notions of what good governance should be.
In response to its publication, Trump called the person responsible "gutless" and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders in a statement called on the author to quit immediately.
"The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people." She added, "This coward should do the right thing and resign."
Later, in a tweet, Trump called on the Times, citing "National Security purposes", to "turn him/her over to government at once."
But while some on the progressive left were championing the anonymous author for taking a brave stance against an "unhinged" president (or the "mad king"), others expressed deep concern about the implications of the op-ed.
In his assessment--in which he called the irony of the op-ed "glaring and massive" and also described the author as a "coward"--journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out that while "Trump may be a threat" in his own right, "so is this covert coup" that seeks to impose its "own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
Progressive journalist and media critic Reed F. Richardson agreed with Greenwald's sentiments and concerns, writing on Twitter, "Proponents of healthy, civilian-rule democracy should not be encouraging or celebrating secret, independent military insubordination as a response to reckless/illegal executive overreach. It sets a precedent that is ripe for abuse."
However, another left-leaning journalist, Jordan Chariton, put it this way: "If senior officials feel the country is in peril, they need to put their name to it and invoke the 25th amendment... [the Times] allowing a senior official to do anonymous op-ed (may not even work in actual White House) is essentially gossip."
And finally, as political activist and writer Ben Spielberg explained about why so-called "Never Trump" Republicans--like the author of the op-ed appears to be-- should simply not to be trusted. "An enemy of your enemy is not always your friend," warned Spielberg. "This is something everyone who considers themselves part of the #Resistance would do well to remember."
What's more troubling: That the grotesque liar and right-wing narcissist Donald Trump was elected by the American people to be President of the United States in 2016? Or that there is now apparently a secret cabal of unelected right-wing officials inside his White House--at least according to a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday afternoon--that is actively undermining his presidency from within and their own discretion?
"Proponents of healthy, civilian-rule democracy should not be encouraging or celebrating secret, independent military insubordination as a response to reckless/illegal executive overreach. It sets a precedent that is ripe for abuse." --Reed F. Richardson, journalist"I work for the president," the op-ed writer, controversially provided anonymity by Times, confesses, "but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations."
The explosive admission detailed in the column, if true, would be historically unprecedented: someone described by the paper as a confirmed "senior official in the Trump administration" openly admitting to the American public that there is a coordinated effort afoot to sabotage the prerogatives--horrible and offensive as they might be--of the democratically-elected president they have been hired or appointed to serve.
The individual behind the op-ed is clear that the efforts of those opposing the president "is not the popular 'resistance' of the left," but rather right-wing operatives concerned that Trump's "amorality"--as they alone define it--is a threat to their perceived notions of what good governance should be.
In response to its publication, Trump called the person responsible "gutless" and White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders in a statement called on the author to quit immediately.
"The individual behind this piece has chosen to deceive, rather than support, the duly elected President of the United States," she said in a statement. "He is not putting country first, but putting himself and his ego ahead of the will of the American people." She added, "This coward should do the right thing and resign."
Later, in a tweet, Trump called on the Times, citing "National Security purposes", to "turn him/her over to government at once."
But while some on the progressive left were championing the anonymous author for taking a brave stance against an "unhinged" president (or the "mad king"), others expressed deep concern about the implications of the op-ed.
In his assessment--in which he called the irony of the op-ed "glaring and massive" and also described the author as a "coward"--journalist Glenn Greenwald pointed out that while "Trump may be a threat" in his own right, "so is this covert coup" that seeks to impose its "own ideology with zero democratic accountability, mandate or transparency."
Progressive journalist and media critic Reed F. Richardson agreed with Greenwald's sentiments and concerns, writing on Twitter, "Proponents of healthy, civilian-rule democracy should not be encouraging or celebrating secret, independent military insubordination as a response to reckless/illegal executive overreach. It sets a precedent that is ripe for abuse."
However, another left-leaning journalist, Jordan Chariton, put it this way: "If senior officials feel the country is in peril, they need to put their name to it and invoke the 25th amendment... [the Times] allowing a senior official to do anonymous op-ed (may not even work in actual White House) is essentially gossip."
And finally, as political activist and writer Ben Spielberg explained about why so-called "Never Trump" Republicans--like the author of the op-ed appears to be-- should simply not to be trusted. "An enemy of your enemy is not always your friend," warned Spielberg. "This is something everyone who considers themselves part of the #Resistance would do well to remember."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.