Sept. 6 (UPI) -- One of Donald
Trump's senior White House staff has made a truly unprecedented move against
their ultimate boss. The staffer anonymously published an opinion piece in the
New York Times, in which the individual described a dilemma: Should the White House's
employees stand by and watch a president who they see as "a threat to the
health of our republic," or should they quietly work to resist what they
see as Trump's "amoralism" and "misguided impulses"? Trump reacted
to the piece in his usual style, accusing the author of "treason" and
demanding the New York Times hand over their name.
It is easy to see the op-ed and ensuing
furor as just one more indicator of the abject state of the Trump presidency.
But the incident also poses a much more profound dilemma: When the elected
politician they serve is a liability to the public, should staffers speak out
and challenge them publicly, or remain loyal and do their boss' bidding?
Among commentators, researchers and
staffers themselves, there are two major schools of thought. On one side are
the loyalists, who take the view that staffers should be unquestioning
servants. According to loyalists, since politicians are elected officials with
popular mandates, their orders must be carried out. A staffer's role, then, is
to find the most effective and efficient way to do that.
When News Breaks Out, We Break In. (The 2014 Bloggies Finalist)
No comments:
Post a Comment