White House "Resistance" Needs to Step Up

Two new revelations have come out this week about the Trump presidency. Venerable journalist Bob Woodward is publishing a book based on multiple interviews with administration principals called "Fear: Trump in the White House," and yesterday the New York Times ran an anonymous editorial written by a high-ranking administration official. Both reinforce the perception of an amoral and mentally unstable leader in charge of the world's most powerful nation.

The Times op-ed describes a network of administration insiders who like some of Trump's policies, such as deregulation, tax cuts for business and the wealthy, and an expanded military, yet who have formed a "resistance" to protect the country. These insiders are appalled at such things as Trump's lack of principles, affinity for enemy dictators, hostility to civil liberties such as freedom of the press, going off the rails at important meetings to neglect important business and turn proceedings into extended personal tirades, and penchant for issuing dangerous and reckless orders. The author relates that this internal "resistance" has "vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses until he is out of office."

Even more remarkable, the writer discusses how administration officials even considered invoking the 25th Amendment against Trump. The 25th sets out a procedure for removing a president from office in case the person is or becomes unfit for office and incapable of carrying out the responsibilities it entails, whether from physical, or more germane to this presidency, mental reasons. They decided not to because, "no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis."

The author portrays these administration insiders as heroes, saving the country from the excesses of an imbalanced and dangerous president, but that is not an accurate assessment. They are instead enablers, complicit in the danger and insanity. It is good they recognize the 45th president for the unfit menace he is. It is also good when they step in and get in the way of his crazier impulses. But real heroes would take the next step: knowing that a madman is in office who has the power to cause lasting national and even international havoc, up to and including the power to initiate global nuclear war, they would act to use the constitutional tools at their disposal to remove this menace from any position of authority in the government of the United States. Knowing what they know, anything less is only cowardice.

Obama's Potential Ranking

Greatness occurs when preparation encounters opportunity. Reader John R. has asked me to speculate about where Barack Obama may someday rank on the list of American presidents. All I can say is that the potential for "near greatness" is there. Whether it will reach fruition is anybody's guess at this point, but the ingredients are in place.

First to consider are the stakes the incoming chief faces. Washington, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are examples of presidents who faced the most perilous conditions imaginable. They took office in the midst of existential national crises. Failure in each case could have meant the end of the republic. With stakes so high, success would almost certainly lead to a "great" reputation. Failure would be abject. Buchanan and Hoover, for instance, faced some of these same stakes. Their inabilities to surmount them have relegated them to dismal repute.

In Obama's case he faces some grave conditions. One, the financial situation is the worst since what FDR faced during the Great Depression. The economy is in the same boat. Two, we are also at war, not in an existential struggle like the Civil War or World War II, but a Vietnam-style bleeding sump that divides the nation and saps its ability to deal with its other issues. Three, we have just been through a terribly destructive brand of politics built on exacerbating the divisions within our society and using them to intentionally stoke suspicion and enmity and polarize the nation along its cultural fault lines. Carried to its logical conclusion, this Bush-Rovian model could threaten the cohesion of the nation.

Obama's campaign shows that he gets what he faces. See my previous blog for some of his priorities. He has repeatedly stated his view that partisan posturing and special interest grasping have to give way to problem solving. He places fiscal and economic recovery at the top of his issue list. His approach to the wars-decouple from the needless waste of Iraq and wrap things up in Afghanistan-are undoubtedly the best for the national interest.

Furthermore, the operation of his own campaign organization, if it betokens anything of his ability to lead an Administration, presents a tantalizingly breathtaking example of ingenuity, discipline and effectiveness. Obama's personal qualities as well have similarly appeared to be "off the charts." Alone among the major contenders, for instance, Obama went 21 months with scarcely a gaffe. It is difficult to name even a single instance of him losing his temper, equanimity or focus. Though starting with far less experience than most in the field of both parties, Obama quickly was able to master the issues and prevail in debate against people with many more years in government than he. His intellect is unquestionable. His ability to inspire the people hardly needs commenting upon. And judging from his campaign, his strategic political sense is pretty strong too.

So yes, all the potential is there for Obama to emerge as a "near-great" President of the United States. By setting the stage for fiscal restoration and economic recovery, particularly for the long term, by restoring America's international reputation and competence and doing so while returning the nation to its Constitutional principles, by inspiring the kind of national sense of purpose Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Kennedy engendered, and by driving a stake through the heart of politics by deceit, demonization and culture war, Obama could wind up high indeed in the pantheon of presidents. Maybe even to "greatness."

But does he have the right economic prescriptions? Can he pass his agenda? What unforeseen crises will arise, how will he deal with them and how badly will they derail his plans? No one can answer these questions with certainty. The problems are serious but the potential for surmounting them is there. We should all wish him well, for his success is our success. And if together we succeed he will prove his campaign invocation that we indeed are the change we have been waiting for. It ought to be a fascinating few years.