It’s finally happened. “The New York Times” has come completely unglued. I’m talking about the “anonymous op-ed” blasting President Trump the paper chose to publish, apparently disregarding their own rules to do so. The result is taking the very real distrust of the national media to new lows.
It’s aggravating but mainly disappointing. This is nothing more than a classic rendition of “red meat” served up to the “never-Trump-ers” like a dying capybara to a school of starving piranha. It’s like one of those “jock jam” songs played at the opening of a basketball game to get the home team fired up before a contest. Golly, could there be a contest coming up?
It’s emotional, inflammatory, filled with opinion stated as if were fact, and lacking in evidence and teeming with misdirection. Start with the title, “I Am Part of the Resistance,” then read on, “To be clear, ours is not the popular ‘resistance’ of the left.”
Really? I’m part of the resistance, and yet, I’m not part of the resistance? I am, I’m not, I am, I’m not?
More misdirection. The op-ed states, “Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.”
Here’s the reality. The rise in the markets, the reduction in unemployment, the investment in military improvements are not deniable. They’re facts and they’ve been published. What you don’t see here are words/language like, “more robust employment,” “higher employment for everyone, including all minority groups,” “tax reductions for corporations,” “tax reductions for individuals.” The author can’t bear to say those words.
Even though this part of the op-ed appears to be complimentary of the administration, it’s complimentary only as a tool to mislead the reader into thinking, “Gee, this author surely must be real and credible! The rest of this has got to be true because he’s so happy about the ‘good’ stuff.”
As I read this, it strikes me, this has nothing to do with so-called affinity for conservatism, patriotic duty or whatever. These are simply irrefutable facts and might as well get them out on the table and render them moot and unspeakable from this point forward.
This is no sign of authenticity. It’s the opposite. It’s the deep and predatory howl of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. A wolf in a deep state of hunger trying to summon the rest of the pack.
Let’s take a further look at the language. The op-ed states, “I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.”
Take away one word. Remove “worst” and you are left with a factual description of what’s happening. What you’re left with specifically is, “I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his inclinations.”
Whether or not the author is a real person, a phantom creation spun up as a persona representing all things “anti-Trump” or an intern at the NYT, one thing is certain. The fact is, he or she was NOT elected to serve the will of the American public.
When you take away the word “worst,” the factual statement remaining appears suddenly less heroic and far more treacherous; far more subversive and egotistical. Why do we have elections at all, if “some anonymous guy” and a few friends can undermine the will of 60 million voters?
Let’s look at the evidence (and more misdirection). The article states, “Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president … until — one way or another — it’s over.”
If you’re going to make such statements, show me why the statements are true. Where’s the evidence? “Instability many witnessed”? What specific people witnessed this? What specific instabilities? Sorry, but I need examples and please don’t insert decisions you didn’t agree with. You can’t cite those as instability. What happened to good and real debate? Remember, “Team of Rivals”? In case you don’t, it was about Lincoln. It’s the sign of a healthy team.
In fact, you can’t even cite insults as evidence of instability. Sure, the insults are vulgar and most of us wish those would stop, but that’s not necessarily “instability.” Finally, the author pens, “Early whispers of the cabinet invoking the 25th Amendment?”. Come on, you can’t be serious. Dramatic and sinister prose perhaps, but evidence? Zero. Recorded minutes? None.
Which leads me to the denial of the so-called deep state. In the op-ed, you will read, “This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.” When I read this, the laughter almost sent the milk and cornflakes I happened to be eating jetting out of my mouth and nose.
Really, why don’t you just sign the op-ed, “Sincerely and with my deepest affection, The Deep State”? Sometimes you have to laugh! Just be sure you’re not eating cornflakes.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not what you’d call a die-hard Trump supporter. I voted based on the economy and national security. I don’t like the personal insults and I hate the language he uses about “the wall,” though I do think we need a process to vet people coming into the country.
So why bother to write? I am concerned that the continued organized attack by the press on this individual is damaging the institution of the presidency and the reputation of “Great Republic.”
I have to travel abroad on occasion and I hate having to answer “all the questions.” Who can take you seriously when the national press casts all of us as a people in such disarray?
The reality is we are not in the disarray portrayed and projected by the national media. We’re much more closely aligned than either side cares to admit — and we better be. Go back and re-read the Federalist papers if you’re not sure why we are and why we need to be.
Sure, we’ve got problems to address, but on the whole, you still have to ask, why are people of the world streaming towards us and not away? The world is appalled and both sides are to blame, though you can’t really escape the misrepresentations of the press.
That’s the difference. To the press: please don’t fire the cannon while we’re still in the cave. It’s dark and scary enough in here already.
Joe Yamamoto
Fayetteville, Ga.
