Anonymous Op-Ed Piece against Donald Trump

On September 5th, 2018, the New York Times posted an anonymous piece written by a senior official in the Trump Administration that raised concerns over the legitimacy of Donald Trump's presidency and the support he has within his own party. The short piece written by a still unnamed source called out Trump for his irrational decision making and apparent diversion from the ideals of the conservative party.  Reactions to this piece have been divided into one party praising it for its confrontation of Trump and another that believes that it was an unfair attack against the acting president.

Furthermore, the article raises two questions; why did an anonymous source write this article and what purpose did it have? This Op-Ed piece was a strong political act and was instrumental in enlightening the American people of the disarray and inefficiency of Donald Trump and his party.

Political science is defined as the study of people in power of different societal governments and the policies they execute to retain that power. Therefore, a political act is an action used by these officials to justify why they do what they do (Roskin, 2014, 5).  This Op-Ed piece was a political act because it attempted to shine a light on Donald Trump's actions and the implications they have on the legitimacy of his presidency. The anonymous writer from within Trumps party detailed their concerns on the way that he handled important situations and the nature of usually ill-informed decisions. The writer's main thesis of this article is that if Trumps power is not monitored and controlled the American people are at risk. According to the article written by the anonymous source, (New York Times, 2018, Para 12) "From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief's comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims". These concerns from Donald Trump's officials and active attempts to limit his power raise the questions as to what the actual state of the United States governing body is what they are doing internally to control it.

The author of this piece claims that the current state of Donald Trump's Administration is mixed and unorganized at best. While it does detail that some of Trump's policies are effective and align with the conservative's ideals, his actions directly disagree with the party. As the anonymous source, (New York Times,2018, Para 9) claims, "...the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright". The writer believes that this diversion from the party is undemocratic and a direct attack at the way the United States has governed itself for years. Furthermore, they conclude that an efficient and fair government must have the best interest of its people and believes the correct way to implement that is to limit the political power of Donald Trump. The Author felt that releasing an anonymous piece from within the Trump Administration was the best course of action to fix the current state of the government and a was an effective way to try and regain stability. That action was a political act because it was examining the reason for Trumps political actions and then detailed what they believe should be done to fix it. The reaction to this piece has drawn both praise and condonement from people who claim it was needed to others who feel it was a sneaky and unfair attack on the president.

When the discussion on whether this piece should've been written anonymously is discussed, people have taken to both sides in defense. The side in favor of this writing believe that is was a big first step in the control of Donald Trump. According to John Cassidy, (Cassidy, 2018, Para 6),"...the piece merely adds to what we already know about Trump's character and the struggle of people around him to control his destructive tendencies". Proponents of this piece feel much like Cassidy, in that all this piece did was shine a light on an already existent problem, Trump's disregard for anybody's actions other than himself. This appears to be the more accepted idea, however there is an argument that can be made that this article was an attack at the president and that Trump was unfairly represented. Some people claiming that this was an attack feel that this is an unjust coup of Trumps power and even question the legitimacy of these claims. As David Graham (Graham, 2018, Para 4) says, "The op-ed is so bizarre that it is tempting to dismiss it as fantasy"akin to the obviously bogus Twitter accounts that flourished early in the administration claiming to be by saboteurs inside the White House". This side attests that these are false and un-needed claims and are the work of the democratic party to regain power in the office. However, after examining the different statements and twitter posts made my Trump himself, it is evident that the anonymous writer was just in bringing these concerns to light. Trumps blatant disregard for the American people puts the country at risk and is something that needs to be monitored.

In conclusion,` While the two sides may disagree on the way this information was released, it is apparent that this Op-Ed piece was in the best interest of the American people. The Anonymous writer addressed the current state of the American government, claimed how Trumps Administration should be conducting its affairs, and detailed the solution to the problem.  Therefore, this Op-Ed piece was a strong political act and shed a light on the many issues and problems with the Trump Administration.

Did you like this example?

856

36