7 points on the anonymous New York Times 'resistance' op-ed washex.am/2Q7IXeE
1) It concedes Trump's accomplishments are big. Early in the piece, the author admits that the Trump administration has had significant success on the issues most important to American voters.
2) Its complaints are small. Why does the author object to Trump? The president is not a true philosophical conservative. The author may view that as a devastating critique, but to others it will seem like style points and inside baseball.
And compared to his admission that Trump has made the country "safer and more prosperous," the article's gripes are relatively minor.
3) It suggests there is a government conspiracy to thwart the President. Certainly Trump has long believed that a "deep state" was out to get him. And now the Times op-ed serves as "a confession that there is a deep state conspiracy to subvert" Trump.
4) A "senior official" could be a lot of people. The Times identified the author only as "a senior official in the Trump administration." That could be anyone from officials we all have heard of to an official in one of the departments whom no one has heard of.
"There are hundreds of people at the White House who think they're 'senior' officials," former Bush White House spokesman Ari Fleischer tweeted Wednesday.
5) Anonymity is good marketing. What if the author had simply identified himself? Not only would everyone be able to evaluate his position, they would also look into his background and try to draw connections between his past and his role as self-appointed Trump resister.
Instead, by remaining anonymous, the author — and the Times — have not only avoided scrutiny but have added an irresistible element of mystery and suspense to the story. That means more attention.
6) It looks like a Woodward tie-in. Perhaps the author has been planning the piece for months. Perhaps the similarity between the article's theme and the book's theme — a small group of good-guy grown-ups protecting the country from Trump — is just a coincidence.
But the article appears to be an effort to draft on the publicity around the Woodward effort.
7) We'll know more soon enough. NYT granted the author anonymity because his "job would be jeopardized" by disclosure of his name. It seems hard to believe the author truly thinks he can remain anonymous — and keep his job —
One way or the other, his identity will come out, probably sooner rather than later. And then the story could become even more interesting.
