The New York Times Opinion piece recalls for us the stories of Robin Hood's resistance to King John, or Princes Leia's resistance to the Empire. Pitting good against evil; an unequivocal story of right and wrong. But this narrative is not about a fictionalized King John or Emperor, it's about the real Donald Trump.
The man who has his finger on the button.
The romantic portrayal of the author's role, coupled with anonymity, is cause for reservation. Romanticising the role as the resistance suggests a naiveté on the part of the writer(s); anonymity forces us to accept the judgment of the publisher, preventing us from making our own. More troubling however is the constitutional implications and whether this is a "soft" coup d'etat. By positioning themselves as arbiters of right or wrong, those participating in the resistance have situated themselves within the system of checks and balances. These responsibilities are typically reserved for elected officials.
There is now speculation as to who were the authors of this opinion piece. Republican Senator from Tennessee, Bob Corker asked "who wouldn't have written it?" Corker's assessment exposes that this state of dysfunction is widely known within Congress. But more than dysfunction, the opinion piece states there is active resistance to executing certain orders of the President. This makes it appear the constitution is being violated by people who swore to uphold it. It is not an unelected administrator's responsibility to implement checks-and-balances; Congress should investigate to confirm or reject these assertions.
If it is true that the Commander-in-Chief is as incompetent as purported in this opinion piece, then this is no longer a U.S. issue. This is a global issue. This man can do significant damage. I would like my government to express their concerns in the strongest possible terms.