What should the White House "quiet resisters" do?

[JRDelirious]

@Novelty_Bobble

And why has he been unable to harm American democracy? it certainly hasn’t been through lack of trying. This story is claiming that it is the “resisters” who have put the brakes on him. We have no clue what would actually have happened if he was given free rein to his instincts.

I think they are doing the right thing where they are. I sincerely hope that in every government around the world there are the same sort of sane heads, elected or not, that actively seek to prevent those with executive power from taking outrageous courses of action. You can guarantee that the same thing will have happened on occasions with every president or head of state. The difference with Trump is in the scope and scale.

The problem is that, as mentioned in another post, the great value in such a backstage Thin Grey Line of prudent bureaucrats saving the leaders from themselves lies in their being unseen, and now someone waved a flag…

As suggested before… why? Trying to protect themselves? Trying to assure others to not panic? All they’ve done is justify a purge.

Executives everywhere do count on alert underlings catching mistakes before they go too far, but part of the deal is we’ll pretend all the good was Leader’s brilliant idea all along and the bug-catchers will function seamlessly to protect the enterprise AND the boss. It’s part of the unwritten code by which complex organizations work. And now it’s blown.

[MikeF]

I’ve seen it posited that the letter could push Trump even further over the edge and make things worse. Has anyone considered that that is the intent of the writer? Drive Trump to the point where, in his outrage, he screws up to the point that enough of his backers turn on him to tip the scales of public/congressional opinion?

[Jonathan_Chance]

Resign and go public.

Look, I think Trump is a dumbass and not up to the job. And I read the opinion piece with a certain amount of glee.

But an internal coup against a duly elected official is dangerous as all hell. Establish the precedent that there actually IS a ‘deep state’ that disregards the will of the people - as established by the election - and both the legitimacy of the government is undermined AND the odds of a nationalistic dictator is made much higher. It’s fairly predictable that a response to the opinion piece will be for the more authoritarian of our fellow citizens will begin to move that power should be held with one person and not distributed because clearly the people can’t trust the rest of them to get the job done.

[kayaker]

Call themselves The Quiet Ohms.

[Ashtura]

At this point, resign. If he. Is in fact, a do-gooder, this op ed was the absolute stupidest thing he could do and will probably result in mass purges in the white house. Great job, idiot.

[wonky]

@Ashtura

At this point, resign. If he. Is in fact, a do-gooder, this op ed was the absolute stupidest thing he could do and will probably result in mass purges in the white house. Great job, idiot.

It’s interesting to ponder the timing of this. It certainly echoes points in the Woodward book (specifically Gary Cohn’s alleged actions). So did the author reach out to the Times once those excerpts became public, or was this already in the works and just felicitous timing for the Times to set off more explosions?

Whichever way it was meant, it supports the Woodward stories. (I found it interesting that in an article about the Jeff Sessions “retarded” story, Republican senators assume Trump actually said it.)

[Jophiel]

I don’t know if I agree with the methods, and I certainly agree that going public with “We’re the Deep State!” was stupid, but the people pretending that there’s a chance in hell of the Republicans in Congress removing Trump via impeachment or the 25th Amendment are being either disingenuous or delusional. That will never happen. The people engaged in this realize that the system isn’t working and there’s zero chance of Congress fulfilling its Constitutional duty as a check on the executive. If the brakes stop working, the answer isn’t to say “Tut, tut… the proper thing to do is push the brakes”

@wonky

It’s interesting to ponder the timing of this. It certainly echoes points in the Woodward book (specifically Gary Cohn’s alleged actions). So did the author reach out to the Times once those excerpts became public, or was this already in the works and just felicitous timing for the Times to set off more explosions?

I assume it was written and published in response to the book. There’s been plenty of buzz about it and excerpts over the past few days.

[Ravenman]

@wonky

So these people helped him put together a just-as-racist but more likely to pass muster travel ban while also subverting democracy, and I’m supposed to view that as an improvement?

This person is working not to stop Trump from harming the country, but to make his harm more subtle and more palatable.

So in your estimation, if Woodward’s book is accurate, do you view Mattis sandbagging Trump’s order to kill Assad as an improvement or not?

[squidfood]

So, whomever this particular “deep state” is, they are deeply conservative. Now: In Trump’s erratic state, there are times he did try (competently or not) to reach across the aisle: “Chuck and Nancy” budget deals, and the very brief suggestion that he would support some gun control measures are two examples. These quickly got shut down - hard. So how much of this “thwarting the president’s will” is about keeping the conservative agenda on track in spite of Trump? To me, it is far more disturbing to have them in place - not an honorable resistance, but more like the dark Cheney lurking behind the scenes in W’s White House turned up to 11.

[xenophon41]

“That will never happen.”

No, won’t doesn’t mean can’t or will never, it just means other motivating factors have to change. A Republican controlled HoR won’t vote to impeach, and a Republican heavy Senate won’t convict a President their base believes should stay in office. The size and fervor of that base in favor of their demagogic hero won’t stay constant in the face of a groundswell of opposition from the rest of the country and visible impotence from Trump. Their confidence in Big Daddy can be eroded, and when that happens the Congress can be moved towards appropriate action.

[Jophiel]

@xenophon41

A Republican controlled HoR won’t vote to impeach, and a Republican heavy Senate won’t convict a President their base believes should stay in office. The size and fervor of that base in favor of their demagogic hero won’t stay constant in the face of a groundswell of opposition from the rest of the country and visible impotence from Trump. Their confidence in Big Daddy can be eroded, and when that happens the Congress can be moved towards appropriate action.

There is zero evidence that this is occurring. If anything, it’s the opposite with the few dissenting voices in Congress either retiring or turning into supporters with only the rare milquetoast complaint.

It’s more likely that the moon will hurtle into the White House between now and 2020 than it is that the GOP will cooperate with removing the guy their primary base goes crazy over.

[E-DUB]

I kind of like what Trevor Noah said on the subject: “You mean all this time we’ve been getting DIET Trump???”

I mean, aside from stopping him from randomly nuking places, is this a good idea? Probably not, because tempering is excesses is prolonging his tenure, not shortening it.

[xenophon41]

I disagree that there’s “zero evidence” of weakening support for -and growing opposition toward- Trump. Recent polls have shown lower approvals and higher disapprovals. May be blips that’ll “correct” back into 40% approval territory, maybe not. But it’s at least evidence that the fearsome Trumpist ‘base’ in not strictly immovable. And even if once-a-Trumpist-always-a-Trumpist holds, some of them can be scared back under their rocks, IMO.

[madmonk28]

They should identify themselves, resign and cooperate with investigators or they should pursue removing him by the 25th amendment. Any other course is undemocratic and corrosive to our institutions.

[Eonwe]

Just repeating myself from the Trump CF thread:

I concur [with Benjamin Wittes’ tweet: “I have no respect for someone who would say these things—of whose truth I have no doubt—in an anonymous oped, rather than in a public resignation letter copied to the House Judiciary Committee.”] and all other like-minded perspectives . . .

. . . and yet, I also empathize with the politician who, finding themselves in the middle of the swamp, feels that they are left with two choices: speak up and quit or be fired, and be replaced by a dangerous, anti-Democracy Trump-selected know-nothing, or stay and try to preserve the Republic through this crisis.

What would I do? If I felt that I was an important part of keeping America from falling into chaos, but the only way to do so was by playing a basically supporting and supportive role in all sorts of distasteful and dangerous shit? And then what, ultimately, is the difference between myself and a true acolyte?

It’s a truly complicated moral calculus, and not one with a straightforward hero/villain dichotomy.

What is worse for America in the long run; two (or shudder six) more years of a Trump presidency, or an impeachment? Or a flight of those Republicans who feel like they’re keeping the wolves at bay (to be replaced with more enthusiastic wolves), with no impeachment?

Again, I agree that the author of this letter is no hero, and is in fact engaging in some heinous action that threatens our very idea of a Democracy. However, I can also understand the conclusion that this is the lesser evil.

=====

What should they do? I don’t know. But it sucks to be them because there is, at this point, no way to come out a hero. Every choice the “quiet resisters” make is still a choice to support, in varying degrees, actions that are tearing down Democracy before our very eyes.

[Jophiel]

@xenophon41

I disagree that there’s “zero evidence” of weakening support for -and growing opposition toward- Trump. Recent polls have shown lower approvals and higher disapprovals.

I mean opposition from Congress. That 30% who thinks Trump is doing a great job? Those are the primary voters who pick Congressmen. The Congressmen who are unwilling to stand up to Trump because Republicans who were labeled with “anti-Trump” are either retiring or losing their primary battles and staying in power matters more to them than Constitutional responsibility.

[xenophon41]

@Jophiel

I mean opposition from Congress. That 30% who thinks Trump is doing a great job? Those are the primary voters who pick Congressmen. The Congressmen who are unwilling to stand up to Trump because Republicans who were labeled with “anti-Trump” are either retiring or losing their primary battles and staying in power matters more to them than Constitutional responsibility.

Well now, we’re just saying the same things to each other. We both agree that Congress has not yet been motivated to do anything about Trump, and will continue to do nothing unless convinced it’s in their better interest to act.

When I write the things about which we appear to agree, I’m mentally using a high squeaky voice (like a Monty Pythoner playing a housewife). What voice are you using?

Seriously, I get that you are not optimistic that the dynamic can change enough that the impeachment process becomes realistic. And I can’t really disagree about the probability; your prediction has better odds than mine. I just think public opinion is fickle and Congressional fecklessness can turn into reflexive action in response to backlash. Particularly after a mid term election.

[wonky]

@Ravenman

So in your estimation, if Woodward’s book is accurate, do you view Mattis sandbagging Trump’s order to kill Assad as an improvement or not?

To me, this is like asking if I want a comfy pillow for my head during my lethal injection. Of course a comfy pillow is better than not having a comfy pillow. That doesn’t mean the comfy pillow makes up for the lethal injection in any real way.

[Jophiel]

Yeah, but when the train is headed for the busted bridge, the engineer is gleeful about it and the assistant engineer is unwilling to do anything about it, the porter might see himself left with a few options: (a) file a grievance and wait 18 months for a reply, (b) hope that magic angels carry them safely over, © yell “I quit!” and see how that helps or (d) try and slow the train using some other means. Even if the official Train Porter Handbook says the correct course of action is (a)

Again, I’m not really defending it and I’m not comfortable with it but I see where it’s coming from and have to give an eye-roll to people acting as though the Constitutional options are actually options. Realistically it’s not “Quit in protest and work for impeachment/removal” but “Quit in protest and just sort of hope we’re not irredeemably fucked in another couple of years”

[Bullitt]

@BobLibDem

Set their cell phones on record and catch the son of a bitch using crude and abusive language. Bait him into revealing his true reaction to child separation. He’s the easiest fish on the planet to bait, it wouldn’t take more than a week to get enough recordings to piss off everybody.

That’s been done and he still got elected.