World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Internal resistance: bad or noble?
date
newest »
newest »
Soldiers and police officers, at least in free, democratic societies can and do have to disobey orders that are unlawful. In dictatorships and autocracies, that line is however blurred, if not non-existent, meaning that those soldiers and policemen will obey any order they will get (like SS troops and KGB/NKVD officers did).
In politics, at least in free, democratic countries, the assistants/employees of a top political leader who strongly disagree with their bosses and are getting alarmed by the possible damage their boss could be doing to the country have essentially three options: oppose your boss openly and tell it to his face and quit; do nothing, obey the boss and resign yourself to the future consequences of his policies; or sabotage his actions by leaking sensitive information and hiding some things from him, like in the present case signaled by the NYT. The first option is by far the most honest and honorable one and is totally legal. The second option exposes you to any backlash/counter-reaction (political or legal) that may result from the application of your boss' policies (like those who did the dirty work for Nixon in the Watergate affair); the third option will most often be characterized by many as being cowardly and being a betrayal of the confidence you got from your boss and is usually frowned upon. However, in a dictatorship or autocracy (like in Iran, the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany), the third option was often the only one that would stop some very wrong things from being done by your boss. The first option would probably land you in jail or, at the best, in the street with no prospects to get another job to support your family, while the second option would make you as criminally responsible to crimes as your boss (note that the typical defense by Nazi minions of 'I was just following orders' did not save them from the rope).
Whether you would use one of those three options in the case of White House staffers working for Trump, the main question to ask then would be: how much damage, if any, Trump's orders and directives could really inflict on the United States, its liberties and rights, its national security and its global reputation and links with allies?
In politics, at least in free, democratic countries, the assistants/employees of a top political leader who strongly disagree with their bosses and are getting alarmed by the possible damage their boss could be doing to the country have essentially three options: oppose your boss openly and tell it to his face and quit; do nothing, obey the boss and resign yourself to the future consequences of his policies; or sabotage his actions by leaking sensitive information and hiding some things from him, like in the present case signaled by the NYT. The first option is by far the most honest and honorable one and is totally legal. The second option exposes you to any backlash/counter-reaction (political or legal) that may result from the application of your boss' policies (like those who did the dirty work for Nixon in the Watergate affair); the third option will most often be characterized by many as being cowardly and being a betrayal of the confidence you got from your boss and is usually frowned upon. However, in a dictatorship or autocracy (like in Iran, the old Soviet Union or Nazi Germany), the third option was often the only one that would stop some very wrong things from being done by your boss. The first option would probably land you in jail or, at the best, in the street with no prospects to get another job to support your family, while the second option would make you as criminally responsible to crimes as your boss (note that the typical defense by Nazi minions of 'I was just following orders' did not save them from the rope).
Whether you would use one of those three options in the case of White House staffers working for Trump, the main question to ask then would be: how much damage, if any, Trump's orders and directives could really inflict on the United States, its liberties and rights, its national security and its global reputation and links with allies?
The other aspect of the 3rd option is that you can continue to prevent the "bad" actions whilst you are still in post. That is as far as that individual can block actions. In hiding papers sooner or later the leader will want to see something and then be angrier if policy papers for example have been blocked. Whereas options 1 and 2 both allow the "Bad" actions to continue. Option 1 does bring external pressure but only to a leader that listens to external pressure - i.e. the resign option does not have any impact on current President as he does not appear to care about the fallout, politically, morally or for his reputation.
Ok, an anonymous source states an opinion in a character assassination piece, and it's published in the NYT, not exactly an objective publication when it comes to Trump. No factual backup, no prosecutable crimes revealed. Read the article and notice that it's published as an opinion, not as fact: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/op...
Why is that Scout, because Trump has declared them to be a personal enemy? You'd be hard-pressed to find a media outlet that Trump doesn't claim to be "fake news", and even FoxNews, once a bastion of pro-Trump sentiment, is now openly voicing disdain for his actions and statements.
You didn't respond to my points - anonymous source, opinion, no verifiable facts, yet published in NYT as an op/ed piece. You do know that anyone could say anything about you without revealing their identity or backing it up with verified facts, and if it were published in the NYT, people would take it as fact. Think about it.
The bottom line is that a subordinant is only allowed to disobey an illegal order.If they disagree with a political program that has been voted in by the people, then resign and work the political process to bring in a different program.
That's what civilized people do.
Graeme wrote: "The bottom line is that a subordinant is only allowed to disobey an illegal order.If they disagree with a political program that has been voted in by the people, then resign and work the politica..."
If we had civilised leaders....
Philip wrote: "If we had civilised leaders.... ..."Indeed.
Leaving aside working in dictatorships, where exercising some actions come at a great cost, my view is in a country that is run by law and order, if you take pay for doing a job, you should do that job in accord with the way whoever is paying you wants, or quit. An intermediate option might be to discuss with your employer the issue and recommend something else, but if that doesn't work, you are back to obey or quit.There are no grounds for leaking or sabotage, other than if the actions of the employer are clearly illegal, in which case you should complain to the relevant law enforcement agency. There are no grounds for internal subversion because you don't like your employer.
Ian wrote: "There are no grounds for internal subversion because you don't like your employer. ..."That's just playing out a personal agenda.
Scout wrote: "You didn't respond to my points - anonymous source, opinion, no verifiable facts, yet published in NYT as an op/ed piece. You do know that anyone could say anything about you without revealing thei..."Not if they understand that it's an op/ed piece. These are published all the time by journalistic sources, and its well known fact that they are not about verifiable facts, they are opinion. And you said that the NYT was not an objective source, which was what I was addressing. Asking for objectivity in an op/ed piece completely misses the point of an op/ed piece.
If you're concerned about the content, then that is something worth investigating further. Bob Woodward's book, for example, indicates the same patterns at work in the Trump White House, as does the many hirings and firings that have taken place in just over a year, not to mention the statements and recordings made by several former staffers. And I'm not even including the sheer number of former team members who have been indicted for crimes relating to the 2016 election.
This is, regardless of whom you trust, the most dysfunctional administration in the history of the US.
Scout wrote: "Ok, an anonymous source states an opinion in a character assassination piece, and it's published in the NYT, not exactly an objective publication when it comes to Trump. No factual backup, no prose..."From what I've heard on the news, it sounded like it was submitted by a troll...the part of the 25th amendment is something I've been hearing from left-leaning people as part of a remove-Trump fantasy, so having it show up in a piece supposedly by an "insider," sounds a little too convenient.
Since Nik linked it, I decided to read the piece, and I'm not so sure now....
"Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright."
Republican voters have voiced their frustration over the party since the 2010 elections, and the establishment seems to keep ignoring it, hoping it goes away. Whatever you think of Trump himself, his selection in the primaries was largely a cry to transform the Party...whether he's the change those voters want or not is a matter for debate, but they want change. The statement above indicates to me the piece was written by someone from the "establishment," bitter over the changes that are coming to the party...the writer claims he's subverting the President because he doesn't espouse "his" principles or "ideals."
You did criticize the NYT for bias, but at least they printed House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's response...and he put his name to it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/op...
Now it's supposedly announced, however we can't be sure it doesn't happen all the times that unhappy staff torpedoes what they don't like openly, covertly, defiantly, and in other possible ways. They think 'they know better'. As far as I remember there were reports for example that Pentagon under Obama refused to perform Kerry's truce agreement with Russia on Syria, because is required sharing intel with Russia a couple of years ago..
Nik wrote: "Now it's supposedly announced, however we can't be sure it doesn't happen all the times that unhappy staff torpedoes what they don't like openly, covertly, defiantly, and in other possible ways. Th..."Well, the good news is, John Kerry just released a new book, so now you can find out how much he's blaming Obama for not listening to him on Syria...
Can't wait to hear about internal resistance to Obama and his lack of action, which amounted to nothing. Obama wasn't criticized by the media, even when he backed away from his red line in Syria. Just a do-nothing kind of guy regarding foreign and domestic policy. At least Trump takes a stand and takes it on the chin.
He's not attacking Obama, he's trying to play both sides...On one hand, he's playing the "Obama didn't listen to me" card, but when asked if he was calling him out, he said it was Obama's decision as the President, so he won't directly criticize his former boss.This guy's name is now being tossed around as a potential 2020 candidate, so he's doing the same thing Clinton did in the early days of her run...trying to distance himself from some of the messes that will come out without blaming Obama for those messes...
Kerry the politician. Nothing new there. Obama wasn't criticized by the media, even when he backed away from his red line in Syria. Just a do-nothing kind of guy regarding foreign and domestic policy. At least Trump takes a stand and takes it on the chin.
I can respect Obama's decision not to get involved in Syria, but he needed to make it clear the US was staying out. The problem I saw with how he handled it was that he established a threshold for US involvement (the red line) then backtracked when that threshold was reached. Not only did it make him look weak on foreign policy, but it hurt US credibility in not standing by his pronouncements to the world.You really do have to remember at the time, we were all tired from years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. With everything else going on in 2008, voters wanted someone that was going to get us disentangled from these foreign conflicts. Sort of how Trump is only doing what he promised the voters, Obama's move not to get involved was exactly what the voters wanted from him when they went to the polls in 2008.
Well said, J.J. Presidents make decisions based on the wishes of their constituents. Obama understood that his constituents wanted nothing to do with another war, so he backed down, despite the appearance of weakness. Trump understands that his constituents want America to be strong regarding trade and immigration. And that's what he's pushing for. Of course, there's resistance. No one likes change, but fair is fair, and Trump wants what's fair for America.
That's the internal dichotomy of politics - it's always 'change' vs 'stability'. No matter how the situ ever is for a newcomer to win it's necessary to convince the sufficiently large number of people that how it is is not good and s/he can make things better
The real trick is to actually follow through and make things better. Talk is cheap, and unfortunately politicians do too much talking. Of course better for some may be worse for others, and the second trick is to make it better for more and the right ones.
How to determine the "right ones"? That's also tricky.
Indeed it is, Scout. Of course, right for some gets me back to my second point.
And back to the topic, here is one example, as being revealed by the media:https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/06/po...
Should the adviser advise or decide? An investment banker deciding on matters of security?
Can't know for sure of course, but my own opinion that even if the letter were issued (assuming it was indeed removed from Trump's table), a security arrangement would not have been affected, but formalized otherwise, as S. Korea is interested in it hardly less than the US. Besides, half a year to introduce changes doesn't sound like an impossibility.
My view is that if an advisor steals a letter from the President's desk so the President cannot act on it, the advisor is taking over the President's job, to which he is not qualified, and the advisor should be fired on the spot, and probably prosecuted.
The letter would indicate Trump wants to use the same strategy he's used on other trade deals - threaten to pull out in order to bring about renegotiation. It's exactly what he's done with NAFTA, and he got Mexico to agree to a new deal, and that new deal prompted Canada's representative to come back to the table so as not to be left out.If these allegations are true, and these officials are going rogue, they run the risk of coming out on the wrong side of history should Trump's strategies prove right and yield the results he's been promising. And not for nothing, but if someone is trying to sabotage the President, no matter who that President is, that could be seen as treasonous.
Even if it were not the President, stealing is still theft, and that is a crime. As J.J. points out, trying to undermine the President that way is treason
As far as I know soldiers must (or may) disobey illegal orders.
But is here the same situ, if some indeed try to thwart their superior's act? What do you think?