I still think this NYT op-ed is being widely misunderstood. It doesn't describe "resistance" - it describes Republicans taking extreme, potentially illegal measures to avoid relinquishing any power
The op-ed describes White House appointees facing a decision: Option A, allowing Trump to tear down the country, and Option B, removing him through constitutional mechanisms, shredding their own party in the process.
Instead they choose Option C: shadow government.
Instead they choose Option C: shadow government.
The author stuffs this into a heroic narrative of a "steady state" that's thwarting Trump to protect democracy. But it's not democracy that would suffer if Trump was simply removed. It's the GOP agenda.
In this op-ed, an unelected Republican allocates himself the privilege of leading the country, and defends that privilege, all while serving a leader he ADMITS has no business being in charge of anything.
Nor does the piece describe ordinary bureaucratic infighting. Bureaucracy is different from active subversion, and it certainly doesn't take to nation's leading media outlet to anonymously reassure the populace.
We knew some of this was happening, but I don't think we knew the full extent of the lines Republicans have had to cross to protect Trump, and thereby protect themselves. Taking it public - casting in doubt who is even running the country - represents yet another line crossed.
We also don't know why one of these people has decided to announce his or her presence. Maybe it's an attempt at self-preservation, or maybe it's a dagger in Trump's back. I'm not sure "why" is the important question right now, though.
The important thing is how much of this account is true, if any. Because it describes a world in which we have genuinely NO IDEA who is making life-or-death decisions for the country, in which Republicans get to lead with no clear accountability.
Oh, and knowledge of the "steady state" might more widespread on the right than anyone is letting on. There certainly seem to be a lot of Republicans who are nominally alarmed by Trump, and also curiously unhurried about restraining him.
