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
Trump has made unique his own contributions to modern conservatism -- alliances with white nationalists, concentration camps for babies, etc. But our anonymous "adult in the room" offers no objection here either, even as down-ballot Republicans increasingly embrace those extremes. (Photo: CNN/screenshot)
Nobody in the White House is Part of 'The Resistance'
They admit Trump’s dangerous, but they’ll stick with him as long as he cuts billionaires’ taxes, deregulates corporations, and feeds the military-industrial complex
Sep 12, 2018
This week, the White House continues its furious hunt for the anonymous official who proclaimed themselves part of "The Resistance" in a New York Times op-ed. Unsurprisingly, the president is "obsessed" with it, CNN reports.
What really set Trump off -- perhaps understandably -- was the suggestion that aides were deliberately undermining orders. "We want the administration to succeed," the author said, before describing a coordinated effort to "thwart parts of [Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations."
But not all of that agenda. The author praised Trump's commitment to "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, [and] a more robust military," and even complained about "near-ceaseless negative coverage" obscuring those supposed accomplishments.
The author praised Trump's commitment to "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, [and] a more robust military," and even complained about "near-ceaseless negative coverage" obscuring those supposed accomplishments.
The president's behavior in pursuit of that agenda may be "detrimental to the health of our republic," the author admits, but assures readers: "There are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening."
This helps the rest of us understand what's happening, too: Career Republicans are riding right along with someone they themselves describe as "anti-democratic," "reckless," and "erratic." And they'll do it just as long as he cuts taxes for billionaires, deregulates the corporations they own, and keeps the spigot open to the military-industrial complex.
He's doing that.
So, what's he doing wrong? The author specifies only Trump's "preference for autocrats and dictators" like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.
Trump's admiration for those figures says a lot about his disdain for democracy. But the response the author describes sounds more like an effort to shut off diplomatic openings with nuclear-armed rivals than to curb Trump's anti-democratic impulses. Feel better?
Beyond this, the author offers few specifics on what they'd actually like to prevent.
Pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accords? Not a problem, apparently. Deregulating the banks that caused the financial crisis, and the fossil fuel companies causing climate change? Go right on ahead.
Giving corporations and billionaires a $2 trillion tax break, then trying to cut food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Trying to throw 24 million Americans off their health care? The author describes precisely no concern about any of these things, because virtually any Republican would have done them.
Giving corporations and billionaires a $2 trillion tax break, then trying to cut food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Trying to throw 24 million Americans off their health care?
The author describes precisely no concern about any of these things, because virtually any Republican would have done them.
Remarkably, the author actually complains that Trump "shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives." But it sure sounds like he's governing as one.
Sure, Trump has made unique his own contributions to modern conservatism -- alliances with white nationalists, concentration camps for babies, etc. But our anonymous "adult in the room" offers no objection here either, even as down-ballot Republicans increasingly embrace those extremes.
I can believe White House staffers really do find the president unstable and dangerous. But instead of constitutionally removing him by the 25th Amendment, they're keeping him around so they can cut billionaires' taxes, put over half of every taxpayer dollar into the military-industrial complex, and coddle corporations that loot the country and pollute the planet.
The writer pines for the late Senator John McCain, calling him "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life." McCain was surely more honorable than the president he feuded with, but even he voted with Trump 83 percent of the time. Do we really think Trump's pathologies reside entirely in the other 17 percent?
If Trump implodes, they're going to act like his personality was the problem -- not the policy agenda he's executing on their behalf. They'll say we haven't gotten enough "real conservatism."
Sorry, but I think the amazing social movements behind the real "resistance" would disagree. They're not trying to rollback 17 percent of what this White House has done. They're trying to transform it -- and much of what came before it -- 100 percent
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.
This week, the White House continues its furious hunt for the anonymous official who proclaimed themselves part of "The Resistance" in a New York Times op-ed. Unsurprisingly, the president is "obsessed" with it, CNN reports.
What really set Trump off -- perhaps understandably -- was the suggestion that aides were deliberately undermining orders. "We want the administration to succeed," the author said, before describing a coordinated effort to "thwart parts of [Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations."
But not all of that agenda. The author praised Trump's commitment to "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, [and] a more robust military," and even complained about "near-ceaseless negative coverage" obscuring those supposed accomplishments.
The author praised Trump's commitment to "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, [and] a more robust military," and even complained about "near-ceaseless negative coverage" obscuring those supposed accomplishments.
The president's behavior in pursuit of that agenda may be "detrimental to the health of our republic," the author admits, but assures readers: "There are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening."
This helps the rest of us understand what's happening, too: Career Republicans are riding right along with someone they themselves describe as "anti-democratic," "reckless," and "erratic." And they'll do it just as long as he cuts taxes for billionaires, deregulates the corporations they own, and keeps the spigot open to the military-industrial complex.
He's doing that.
So, what's he doing wrong? The author specifies only Trump's "preference for autocrats and dictators" like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.
Trump's admiration for those figures says a lot about his disdain for democracy. But the response the author describes sounds more like an effort to shut off diplomatic openings with nuclear-armed rivals than to curb Trump's anti-democratic impulses. Feel better?
Beyond this, the author offers few specifics on what they'd actually like to prevent.
Pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accords? Not a problem, apparently. Deregulating the banks that caused the financial crisis, and the fossil fuel companies causing climate change? Go right on ahead.
Giving corporations and billionaires a $2 trillion tax break, then trying to cut food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Trying to throw 24 million Americans off their health care? The author describes precisely no concern about any of these things, because virtually any Republican would have done them.
Giving corporations and billionaires a $2 trillion tax break, then trying to cut food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Trying to throw 24 million Americans off their health care?
The author describes precisely no concern about any of these things, because virtually any Republican would have done them.
Remarkably, the author actually complains that Trump "shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives." But it sure sounds like he's governing as one.
Sure, Trump has made unique his own contributions to modern conservatism -- alliances with white nationalists, concentration camps for babies, etc. But our anonymous "adult in the room" offers no objection here either, even as down-ballot Republicans increasingly embrace those extremes.
I can believe White House staffers really do find the president unstable and dangerous. But instead of constitutionally removing him by the 25th Amendment, they're keeping him around so they can cut billionaires' taxes, put over half of every taxpayer dollar into the military-industrial complex, and coddle corporations that loot the country and pollute the planet.
The writer pines for the late Senator John McCain, calling him "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life." McCain was surely more honorable than the president he feuded with, but even he voted with Trump 83 percent of the time. Do we really think Trump's pathologies reside entirely in the other 17 percent?
If Trump implodes, they're going to act like his personality was the problem -- not the policy agenda he's executing on their behalf. They'll say we haven't gotten enough "real conservatism."
Sorry, but I think the amazing social movements behind the real "resistance" would disagree. They're not trying to rollback 17 percent of what this White House has done. They're trying to transform it -- and much of what came before it -- 100 percent
This week, the White House continues its furious hunt for the anonymous official who proclaimed themselves part of "The Resistance" in a New York Times op-ed. Unsurprisingly, the president is "obsessed" with it, CNN reports.
What really set Trump off -- perhaps understandably -- was the suggestion that aides were deliberately undermining orders. "We want the administration to succeed," the author said, before describing a coordinated effort to "thwart parts of [Trump's] agenda and his worst inclinations."
But not all of that agenda. The author praised Trump's commitment to "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, [and] a more robust military," and even complained about "near-ceaseless negative coverage" obscuring those supposed accomplishments.
The author praised Trump's commitment to "effective deregulation, historic tax reform, [and] a more robust military," and even complained about "near-ceaseless negative coverage" obscuring those supposed accomplishments.
The president's behavior in pursuit of that agenda may be "detrimental to the health of our republic," the author admits, but assures readers: "There are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening."
This helps the rest of us understand what's happening, too: Career Republicans are riding right along with someone they themselves describe as "anti-democratic," "reckless," and "erratic." And they'll do it just as long as he cuts taxes for billionaires, deregulates the corporations they own, and keeps the spigot open to the military-industrial complex.
He's doing that.
So, what's he doing wrong? The author specifies only Trump's "preference for autocrats and dictators" like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un.
Trump's admiration for those figures says a lot about his disdain for democracy. But the response the author describes sounds more like an effort to shut off diplomatic openings with nuclear-armed rivals than to curb Trump's anti-democratic impulses. Feel better?
Beyond this, the author offers few specifics on what they'd actually like to prevent.
Pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accords? Not a problem, apparently. Deregulating the banks that caused the financial crisis, and the fossil fuel companies causing climate change? Go right on ahead.
Giving corporations and billionaires a $2 trillion tax break, then trying to cut food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Trying to throw 24 million Americans off their health care? The author describes precisely no concern about any of these things, because virtually any Republican would have done them.
Giving corporations and billionaires a $2 trillion tax break, then trying to cut food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Trying to throw 24 million Americans off their health care?
The author describes precisely no concern about any of these things, because virtually any Republican would have done them.
Remarkably, the author actually complains that Trump "shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives." But it sure sounds like he's governing as one.
Sure, Trump has made unique his own contributions to modern conservatism -- alliances with white nationalists, concentration camps for babies, etc. But our anonymous "adult in the room" offers no objection here either, even as down-ballot Republicans increasingly embrace those extremes.
I can believe White House staffers really do find the president unstable and dangerous. But instead of constitutionally removing him by the 25th Amendment, they're keeping him around so they can cut billionaires' taxes, put over half of every taxpayer dollar into the military-industrial complex, and coddle corporations that loot the country and pollute the planet.
The writer pines for the late Senator John McCain, calling him "a lodestar for restoring honor to public life." McCain was surely more honorable than the president he feuded with, but even he voted with Trump 83 percent of the time. Do we really think Trump's pathologies reside entirely in the other 17 percent?
If Trump implodes, they're going to act like his personality was the problem -- not the policy agenda he's executing on their behalf. They'll say we haven't gotten enough "real conservatism."
Sorry, but I think the amazing social movements behind the real "resistance" would disagree. They're not trying to rollback 17 percent of what this White House has done. They're trying to transform it -- and much of what came before it -- 100 percent
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.