7 ms·

A person tries to anonymously reassure the public while putting their career at risk if they are found out, and the response to their good intentions is to try

A person tries to anonymously reassure the public while putting their career at risk if they are found out, and the response to their good intentions is to try to out them and destroy their career as a result? I feel that's a little messed up, especially when NYTimes states they are aware of the identity of the person so it's not like the validity of the article is suspect. Regardless of how you might feel about everyone in the administration, it'd certainly be a clear warning to people about the risk of making such statements in the interest of transparency, and you can be sure we'd never see one ever again, from any politicians on any side of the political spectrum. For the sake of discussion, what ethical arguments do you think there are for finding out who wrote this? Let's assume you aren't in the Trump camp, since it'd be reasonable to say that if you support Trump then you might be more motivated to find out who it is, and there's nothing wrong with that I suppose.

vivekd 8y ago
Even if a person doesn't support Trump, actively interfering with and sabotaging an elected official who holds the highest executive office in the country seems like a bad thing to do. If a person doesn't like the president, the proper recourse is public criticism working to ensure he doesn't get re-elected and if possible impeachment . . . the proper recourse is never actively sabotaging the president of the United States. There may be exceptional circumstances where the president is violating the constitution, however, we still have a functional supreme court so that exception isn't raised in this circumstance.
- cam_l 8y ago
  I am not so sure about this argument. Each person is their own person. Employees are not computers. Provided they are not breaking any laws, but merely using the resources and power at their disposal. I think the truth of it is.. this is just how government functions. In fact, no one would bat an eyelid if this were for personal gain. Ideology seems to really bother people from either side of the political spectrum. But I mean, personally I would have an issue with doing something like this myself. It does seem dishonest, but then.. Trump.
  - mc32 8y ago
    Glenn Greenwald (a favorite for those who tend left) agrees with parent: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1037450113004785666 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1037450113004785666
    - harry8 8y ago
      Oooh, I like and read (and frequently disagree with) Glenn and I really don't consider myself "left." Glenn is one of the better journalists around. Especially when you disagree with his point. It's well argued and well supported. To hell with the Donald, Glenn makes a solid point here. Un-elected cabals secretly usurping democratically elected politicians aren't a good thing for democracy, left and right.
    - cam_l 8y ago
      I don't disagree with Glenn's point of view, and certainly was not suggesting I agree with the behaviour. Quite the opposite. As I pointed out, i think it is grossly unethical. I was making a couple of more subtle points. What I was getting at is that the only difference between this unelected group of people trying to usurp government and others is they think they are not doing it primarily for personal gain. And that it is the ideology (whichever political side it is on or against) and the fragility of democracy, that is actually what scares people rather than the usurping bit.. that is just business as usual. The other point is that if you allow yourself and your position to be used to do things you think are wrong, this is also unethical. You have a responsibility as a person to use what power you have to change things for the better. I don't personally believe you should compromise your ethics to do this. There is tension between these two things.
- mjevans 8y ago
  My view is that whomever authored the anonymous letter believes they are a true patriot and I agree with them at least within the motivations presented in the letter. It is better for someone to be loyal to the ideals of freedom, democracy, and making the world a better place, even if only out of purely selfish interests (that still fits an enlightened nationalist ideology, which is also plausible of whomever wrote the letter); than it is to be loyal to any single individual. Particularly one whom someone believes does NOT ascribe or live up to those ideals.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > My view is that whomever authored the anonymous letter believes they are a true patriot Very well may be. But it also very well may be somebody like Timothy McVeigh or David Duke believed they are true patriots. That does not make their actions any better - of course, their actions are very bad, and incomparable with writing an article in NYT, the point is even such bad people can claim to be "true patriots" - anybody can. Believing you yourself is a good guy is not enough, everybody is a hero in their own story. But we have certain rules to ensure that does not lead one too far out - both inside and outside the law. > It is better for someone to be loyal to the ideals of freedom, democracy, and making the world a better place There's no objective test for being loyal to the ideals, only subjective opinion. And everybody is willing to declare themselves lovers of freedom. Some terrorists could talk about their love of freedom for hours. Of course, what they mean by "freedom" is different from what you and I would mean. But allowing people to issue themselves indulgences from otherwise unacceptable behavior just because they believe it's for the best purposes is too easy road to abuse to take it as any kind of an acceptable rule.
- cliffordthedog 8y ago
  > the proper recourse is never actively sabotaging the president of the United States Why not? > however, we still have a functional supreme court We don't. Mitch McConnell saw to that 2 years ago.
  - travmatt 8y ago
    Are you asking why Americans shouldn’t support an unelected cabal of secret plotters who seek to impose their ideology onto America by staging a coup?
    - cliffordthedog 8y ago
      No, I'm saying "don't undermine the president" applies, at most, to the people in the executive branch of the government.
      - travmatt 8y ago
        The op-ed was written by a senior member of the executive branch, so I’m not sure how that has any bearing on what’s being discussed here.
        cliffordthedog 8y ago
        Oh I totally agree with the statement when restricted to people like the author. Even then it depends on the definition of "undermining". I think the author is cowardly, disingenuous, and dangerous.
    - fjsolwmv 8y ago
      There's no coup here. There are people upholding their sworn oath to defend the Constitution, and trying to make sense out of a logically incoherent President who hired them to do just that. The President can fire them at any time if he dislikes their work.
  - hhjinks 8y ago
    > Why not? Because that's undermining the will of the people. Like it or not, per today, Trump was legitimately and fairly elected. This very well might change in the future, but as of now, we have to assume his presidency is legitimate, no matter how vile or incompetent he is.
- kapauldo 8y ago
  Jefferson did this to Adams. It's not new.
insickness 8y ago
If you think someone should not take an action, the burden of proof is on you to prove the action is unethical, not the other way round. This is not the same as a whistle blower unearthing provable crimes. This is someone in the president's cabinet admitting to acting against a duly-elected president's will.
- jjeaff 8y ago
  > This is not the same as a whistle blower unearthing provable crimes Yet.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  > This is someone in the president's cabinet admitting to acting against a duly-elected president's will. Being duly-elected does not make your actions moral, nor above reproach.
charmides 8y ago
I found the article to be mostly self-aggrandizing. With full respect for you, I think it is naive to believe that the author wrote this out of altruism.
- dkarl 8y ago
  I do believe the motivation could be as simple as wanting the public to know that it's really as bad as they hear. However, you're probably right. The Republican presidential field is going to be crazy in 2012. I'm tempted to see this is the first step in a "re-elect Pence" campaign to position Mike Pence as a sober, safe leader who protected the United States from Donald Trump's worst tendencies and deserves to take official control of the White House. The Republicans are going to be split between those supporting their incumbent and those wanting to declare a mulligan on 2016 and say the country needs a safe "real Republican" president to restore our equilibrium. Mike Pence could go with either camp, but I bet he abandons Trump and tries to get the presidency himself. Fortune favors the bold. Imagine Donald Trump trying to campaign for the nomination while his vice president campaigns against him and calls him mentally unfit to govern. There's no reason that can't happen except that it seems too crazy to be allowed to happen.
  - TangoTrotFox 8y ago
    Here [1] is a overview of presidential approval ratings from Gallup. You'll find that nearly all republicans approve of the job that Trump is doing as well as a fair chunk of independents. What you'll also find is a single digit approval rating among democrats. During this term in Obama's presidency, his approval rating was 45%. Trump's most recent approval rating according to Gallup is 41%. More recent polls from the Economist/Rasmussen/Reuters put it at 43/44/42 respectively. Isn't it interesting how social media (and in this case the traditional media as well) has so completely distorted reality? Effectively the same approval rating as Obama yet here you are quite genuinely suggesting that perhaps his VP will start declaring the president crazy and openly run against him. This is a consequence of people surrounding themselves only with voices that they are ideologically aligned with. You tend to lose sight of what people, as a whole, actually think. This, in turn, fuels radicalism. It's not a great system. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ra...
smsm42 8y ago
> NYTimes states they are aware of the identity of the person so it's not like the validity of the article is suspect. That requires to place 100% trust in NYT, which you may be willing to do, but it's not a law of nature. Journalists in search of a scoop have been known to confuse what they want with what really is (remember the sordid Bush memo affair that ruined Dan Rather's career?) and even if not intentionally deceitful, being easier to deceive if the information confirms their biases. > For the sake of discussion, what ethical arguments do you think there are for finding out who wrote this? Knowing who wrote this allows to adequately evaluate whether what is said there is true, what vested interests or grudges may the author have and what information may they have from the first hand, second hand and what information they couldn't have and if they claim they have it they must be lying. E.g. if somebody who doesn't have clearance says they have been on classified briefing and heard Trump say so and so, it would be clear they are either lying or relaying third-party information as first party. While for the author of the article discovery would be a negative, for a voter that wants to be informed, and wants to independently evaluate the worth of the information knowing the source may be very useful. Also, since this article does not seem to be disclosing any classified information, the worst thing that could happen is that person would be fired. People got fired from Trump administration many times, some after a very short time, and none of them suffered any heavy consequences that would make any act leading to such outcome unethical, such as death, heavy bodily or mental harm, full financial ruin, etc. So it appears to be clearly within ethical bounds to research this question, no less than any question that any politician would like to hide to promote their goals. While each such revelation inevitably would hurt somebody's interests (otherwise nobody would try to hide it!), there's nothing unethical in still trying to reveal it.
cliffordthedog 8y ago
Why should any politician get to write an anonymous "covering my ass" style article like this?
jrochkind1 8y ago
Did YOU find that op-ed reassuring??
TangoTrotFox 8y ago
The author of this paper just admitted to being part of an unelected group of individuals who are looking to forcefully impose their ideology on and against the country by active deceit, treachery, and sabotage. If you could avoid letting your views against their target cloud your judgement, you'd see how incredibly broken and dangerous this. For instance imagine this individual's cabal has an opportunity to engage in an awful act, but due to their position they believe this act will be blamed on the administration or even the president himself. Do you think they would hesitate to do so? This is one of the many reasons that, for instance, in war traitors tend to be treated much more harshly than even the enemy. There's a difference between open disagreement, even when that disagreement escalates into something beyond just words, and an individual that pretends to be an ally and instead is attempting to destroy somebody from within. The latter is already shown to have placed no value on anything except their own world view. And the purpose of publishing this letter is not to "reassure the public." You should not trust a liar just because he's saying something you want to believe. Occam's razor is highly effective in getting at the truth and in this case it's almost certain that the purpose of publishing this letter is to try to increase the paranoia of the president, and to increase the probability of his engaging in ostensibly irrational behavior. That's just a great idea, right?
- wool_gather 8y ago
  Mostly agreed. I was a bit surprised that the NYT published it. I worry a bit that they let themselves be played, given the way it will be interpreted/used vs. what (I think) was actually meant. But I suppose there's nothing abnormal in publishing an op-ed by a current official. (The anonymity aside.) And it's certainly newsworthy even if it is a sort of wolf in sheep's clothing.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  The author is employed by the President and can be fired at any time. It's not our job to second guess the duly elected President's choice of advisers.
sullyj3 8y ago
The information is out there, due to the authors indiscretion in getting it published in the first place. Someone was always going to do this analysis. The only thing an individual can affect is whether it happens sooner or later.
slededit 8y ago
I found it horrifying. Finally legitimate proof of the fifth estate fighting the elected politician. Beaurocrats always had their own aims, but the fact they feel comfortable saying so it's a huge step towards autocracy. I don't like Trump but this is even worse.
travmatt 8y ago
I find your viewpoint shortsighted and praising authoritarianism. Although I personally voted against him, I believe Donald Trump was elected by the American voters and those American voters have a right to have their policy preferences implemented by the person they’ve elected to do so. If any person with integrity can not carry out their democratically elected leaders orders to the best of their ability, the only recourse they have is to resign and give a full accounting of why they can’t to the American people, if they feel so strongly about it. What I’ll NEVER support is a secret, unaccountable cabal of plotters who have decided their opinions are more important than American democracy and rule the country according to their personal whims. To be perfectly blunt, I don’t see what the difference is between that op-ed writers actions and a coup.

vivekd 8y ago

Even if a person doesn't support Trump, actively interfering with and sabotaging an elected official who holds the highest executive office in the country seems like a bad thing to do. If a person doesn't like the president, the proper recourse is public criticism working to ensure he doesn't get re-elected and if possible impeachment . . . the proper recourse is never actively sabotaging the president of the United States. There may be exceptional circumstances where the president is violating the constitution, however, we still have a functional supreme court so that exception isn't raised in this circumstance.

cam_l 8y ago
I am not so sure about this argument. Each person is their own person. Employees are not computers. Provided they are not breaking any laws, but merely using the resources and power at their disposal. I think the truth of it is.. this is just how government functions. In fact, no one would bat an eyelid if this were for personal gain. Ideology seems to really bother people from either side of the political spectrum. But I mean, personally I would have an issue with doing something like this myself. It does seem dishonest, but then.. Trump.
- mc32 8y ago
  Glenn Greenwald (a favorite for those who tend left) agrees with parent: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1037450113004785666 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1037450113004785666
  - harry8 8y ago
    Oooh, I like and read (and frequently disagree with) Glenn and I really don't consider myself "left." Glenn is one of the better journalists around. Especially when you disagree with his point. It's well argued and well supported. To hell with the Donald, Glenn makes a solid point here. Un-elected cabals secretly usurping democratically elected politicians aren't a good thing for democracy, left and right.
  - cam_l 8y ago
    I don't disagree with Glenn's point of view, and certainly was not suggesting I agree with the behaviour. Quite the opposite. As I pointed out, i think it is grossly unethical. I was making a couple of more subtle points. What I was getting at is that the only difference between this unelected group of people trying to usurp government and others is they think they are not doing it primarily for personal gain. And that it is the ideology (whichever political side it is on or against) and the fragility of democracy, that is actually what scares people rather than the usurping bit.. that is just business as usual. The other point is that if you allow yourself and your position to be used to do things you think are wrong, this is also unethical. You have a responsibility as a person to use what power you have to change things for the better. I don't personally believe you should compromise your ethics to do this. There is tension between these two things.
mjevans 8y ago
My view is that whomever authored the anonymous letter believes they are a true patriot and I agree with them at least within the motivations presented in the letter. It is better for someone to be loyal to the ideals of freedom, democracy, and making the world a better place, even if only out of purely selfish interests (that still fits an enlightened nationalist ideology, which is also plausible of whomever wrote the letter); than it is to be loyal to any single individual. Particularly one whom someone believes does NOT ascribe or live up to those ideals.
- smsm42 8y ago
  > My view is that whomever authored the anonymous letter believes they are a true patriot Very well may be. But it also very well may be somebody like Timothy McVeigh or David Duke believed they are true patriots. That does not make their actions any better - of course, their actions are very bad, and incomparable with writing an article in NYT, the point is even such bad people can claim to be "true patriots" - anybody can. Believing you yourself is a good guy is not enough, everybody is a hero in their own story. But we have certain rules to ensure that does not lead one too far out - both inside and outside the law. > It is better for someone to be loyal to the ideals of freedom, democracy, and making the world a better place There's no objective test for being loyal to the ideals, only subjective opinion. And everybody is willing to declare themselves lovers of freedom. Some terrorists could talk about their love of freedom for hours. Of course, what they mean by "freedom" is different from what you and I would mean. But allowing people to issue themselves indulgences from otherwise unacceptable behavior just because they believe it's for the best purposes is too easy road to abuse to take it as any kind of an acceptable rule.
cliffordthedog 8y ago
> the proper recourse is never actively sabotaging the president of the United States Why not? > however, we still have a functional supreme court We don't. Mitch McConnell saw to that 2 years ago.
- travmatt 8y ago
  Are you asking why Americans shouldn’t support an unelected cabal of secret plotters who seek to impose their ideology onto America by staging a coup?
  - cliffordthedog 8y ago
    No, I'm saying "don't undermine the president" applies, at most, to the people in the executive branch of the government.
    - travmatt 8y ago
      The op-ed was written by a senior member of the executive branch, so I’m not sure how that has any bearing on what’s being discussed here.
      - cliffordthedog 8y ago
        Oh I totally agree with the statement when restricted to people like the author. Even then it depends on the definition of "undermining". I think the author is cowardly, disingenuous, and dangerous.
  - fjsolwmv 8y ago
    There's no coup here. There are people upholding their sworn oath to defend the Constitution, and trying to make sense out of a logically incoherent President who hired them to do just that. The President can fire them at any time if he dislikes their work.
- hhjinks 8y ago
  > Why not? Because that's undermining the will of the people. Like it or not, per today, Trump was legitimately and fairly elected. This very well might change in the future, but as of now, we have to assume his presidency is legitimate, no matter how vile or incompetent he is.
kapauldo 8y ago
Jefferson did this to Adams. It's not new.

insickness 8y ago

If you think someone should not take an action, the burden of proof is on you to prove the action is unethical, not the other way round. This is not the same as a whistle blower unearthing provable crimes. This is someone in the president's cabinet admitting to acting against a duly-elected president's will.

jjeaff 8y ago
> This is not the same as a whistle blower unearthing provable crimes Yet.
toomuchtodo 8y ago
> This is someone in the president's cabinet admitting to acting against a duly-elected president's will. Being duly-elected does not make your actions moral, nor above reproach.

charmides 8y ago

I found the article to be mostly self-aggrandizing. With full respect for you, I think it is naive to believe that the author wrote this out of altruism.

dkarl 8y ago
I do believe the motivation could be as simple as wanting the public to know that it's really as bad as they hear. However, you're probably right. The Republican presidential field is going to be crazy in 2012. I'm tempted to see this is the first step in a "re-elect Pence" campaign to position Mike Pence as a sober, safe leader who protected the United States from Donald Trump's worst tendencies and deserves to take official control of the White House. The Republicans are going to be split between those supporting their incumbent and those wanting to declare a mulligan on 2016 and say the country needs a safe "real Republican" president to restore our equilibrium. Mike Pence could go with either camp, but I bet he abandons Trump and tries to get the presidency himself. Fortune favors the bold. Imagine Donald Trump trying to campaign for the nomination while his vice president campaigns against him and calls him mentally unfit to govern. There's no reason that can't happen except that it seems too crazy to be allowed to happen.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  Here [1] is a overview of presidential approval ratings from Gallup. You'll find that nearly all republicans approve of the job that Trump is doing as well as a fair chunk of independents. What you'll also find is a single digit approval rating among democrats. During this term in Obama's presidency, his approval rating was 45%. Trump's most recent approval rating according to Gallup is 41%. More recent polls from the Economist/Rasmussen/Reuters put it at 43/44/42 respectively. Isn't it interesting how social media (and in this case the traditional media as well) has so completely distorted reality? Effectively the same approval rating as Obama yet here you are quite genuinely suggesting that perhaps his VP will start declaring the president crazy and openly run against him. This is a consequence of people surrounding themselves only with voices that they are ideologically aligned with. You tend to lose sight of what people, as a whole, actually think. This, in turn, fuels radicalism. It's not a great system. [1] - https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ra...

smsm42 8y ago

> NYTimes states they are aware of the identity of the person so it's not like the validity of the article is suspect. That requires to place 100% trust in NYT, which you may be willing to do, but it's not a law of nature. Journalists in search of a scoop have been known to confuse what they want with what really is (remember the sordid Bush memo affair that ruined Dan Rather's career?) and even if not intentionally deceitful, being easier to deceive if the information confirms their biases. > For the sake of discussion, what ethical arguments do you think there are for finding out who wrote this? Knowing who wrote this allows to adequately evaluate whether what is said there is true, what vested interests or grudges may the author have and what information may they have from the first hand, second hand and what information they couldn't have and if they claim they have it they must be lying. E.g. if somebody who doesn't have clearance says they have been on classified briefing and heard Trump say so and so, it would be clear they are either lying or relaying third-party information as first party. While for the author of the article discovery would be a negative, for a voter that wants to be informed, and wants to independently evaluate the worth of the information knowing the source may be very useful. Also, since this article does not seem to be disclosing any classified information, the worst thing that could happen is that person would be fired. People got fired from Trump administration many times, some after a very short time, and none of them suffered any heavy consequences that would make any act leading to such outcome unethical, such as death, heavy bodily or mental harm, full financial ruin, etc. So it appears to be clearly within ethical bounds to research this question, no less than any question that any politician would like to hide to promote their goals. While each such revelation inevitably would hurt somebody's interests (otherwise nobody would try to hide it!), there's nothing unethical in still trying to reveal it.

cliffordthedog 8y ago

Why should any politician get to write an anonymous "covering my ass" style article like this?

jrochkind1 8y ago

Did YOU find that op-ed reassuring??

TangoTrotFox 8y ago

The author of this paper just admitted to being part of an unelected group of individuals who are looking to forcefully impose their ideology on and against the country by active deceit, treachery, and sabotage. If you could avoid letting your views against their target cloud your judgement, you'd see how incredibly broken and dangerous this. For instance imagine this individual's cabal has an opportunity to engage in an awful act, but due to their position they believe this act will be blamed on the administration or even the president himself. Do you think they would hesitate to do so? This is one of the many reasons that, for instance, in war traitors tend to be treated much more harshly than even the enemy. There's a difference between open disagreement, even when that disagreement escalates into something beyond just words, and an individual that pretends to be an ally and instead is attempting to destroy somebody from within. The latter is already shown to have placed no value on anything except their own world view. And the purpose of publishing this letter is not to "reassure the public." You should not trust a liar just because he's saying something you want to believe. Occam's razor is highly effective in getting at the truth and in this case it's almost certain that the purpose of publishing this letter is to try to increase the paranoia of the president, and to increase the probability of his engaging in ostensibly irrational behavior. That's just a great idea, right?

wool_gather 8y ago
Mostly agreed. I was a bit surprised that the NYT published it. I worry a bit that they let themselves be played, given the way it will be interpreted/used vs. what (I think) was actually meant. But I suppose there's nothing abnormal in publishing an op-ed by a current official. (The anonymity aside.) And it's certainly newsworthy even if it is a sort of wolf in sheep's clothing.
fjsolwmv 8y ago
The author is employed by the President and can be fired at any time. It's not our job to second guess the duly elected President's choice of advisers.

sullyj3 8y ago

The information is out there, due to the authors indiscretion in getting it published in the first place. Someone was always going to do this analysis. The only thing an individual can affect is whether it happens sooner or later.

slededit 8y ago

I found it horrifying. Finally legitimate proof of the fifth estate fighting the elected politician. Beaurocrats always had their own aims, but the fact they feel comfortable saying so it's a huge step towards autocracy. I don't like Trump but this is even worse.

travmatt 8y ago

I find your viewpoint shortsighted and praising authoritarianism. Although I personally voted against him, I believe Donald Trump was elected by the American voters and those American voters have a right to have their policy preferences implemented by the person they’ve elected to do so. If any person with integrity can not carry out their democratically elected leaders orders to the best of their ability, the only recourse they have is to resign and give a full accounting of why they can’t to the American people, if they feel so strongly about it. What I’ll NEVER support is a secret, unaccountable cabal of plotters who have decided their opinions are more important than American democracy and rule the country according to their personal whims. To be perfectly blunt, I don’t see what the difference is between that op-ed writers actions and a coup.