Battle Specter Opines: Anonymity in Politics

It seems everyone is talking about the recent book that came out that supposedly goes behind the scenes in The Don’s Whitehouse, and it paints a- we’ll just say- unflattering picture of what’s going on. This book’s release coincided with an “anonymous” op-ed in the New York Times detailing a very similar picture. One might be pressed to automatically jump to conclusions that these pieces show the reality of The Don’s administration, and I would agree. The reporter in question is known for having broke the story of Nixon's scandal, and has good cred. Yet, I find myself torn as to what is really going on, and I say this not because I’m an Uuge fan of The Don, but rather that the media has a rather open disdain for the man, and has, from day one, been working toward de-legitimizing his tenure as president in every possible way.

Is this to say that the Op-ed and book aren’t telling the truth (or a part of the truth)? No. I will allow that perhaps they are 100% true in the picture they are painting, but I’m not going to jump at it and hold it as gospel for a few reasons. First, the anonymity of the sources. This has me questioning the validity of the claims instantly, as we have no idea WHO is recalling the events in question. Is it a low level flunky saying they’re a high level flunky, or a plant from the opposing party? Maybe it’s a complete fabrication hiding behind the veil of anonymity. I’m not sure, but given the charges leveled- being an anonymous voice isn’t an option. Whoever is testifying (via the op-ed and the book) needs to come forward and testify- perhaps even level the 25th Amendment at the president if he really is off his rocker and endangering our nation. Creating an unstable and poisonous working environment for the man isn’t helping, and it isn’t going to make the jobs of these people easier- only more difficult. And by extension, it will isolate The Don even further making the very idea of negotiating with him untenable.

Second, How can we trust the voracity of the claims made when the people putting it forward have an obvious bias AGAINST the man in question? Maybe the reporter behind the book is unbiased- but I doubt he voted for the current administration. In fact, I’d be willing to put up money that he was a Hillary supporter. And given the amount of butthurt we saw after the election (and even now) I am going to withhold my willingness to believe what he has penned until his sources come forward to testify openly. It’s not that he’s a liar- it’s that his bias is in question. Even if you HATE The Don, you have to take a step back, and do your due diligence, and demand evidence outside of the written words of a reporter who more than likely isn’t a fan of the man he is investigating. Bias matters- a lot.

You wouldn’t trust me if I told you that The Don is being set up by a left wing conspiracy to have him unseated would you? You’d fact check everything I said- demand solid evidence. And if I couldn’t (or wouldn’t) provide evidence, you’d write me off as yet another hater. And to be sure, I wouldn’t blame you. Even when people were saying that Obama wasn’t a citizen, I withheld judgement- and I’m not a fan of the man by any stretch. But I believe that accusations demeaning a man’s character demand solid evidence. I’ll admit that The Don is a crass jock- we have ample evidence of that. I’ll also admit that The Don is a bull headed negotiator- again, we have ample evidence. I will not, however, just openly believe that he is an unhinged lunatic until we have AMPLE EVIDENCE. I will believe that he is impulsive and prone to making snap decisions. I mean, just look at his Tweets.

But I think the more important thing to consider is what it means if people are going BEHIND his back and undermining him. Seriously, think on that a minute. The people who are calling the shots (even if I agree with them) aren’t elected- they’re appointed. And they’re enacting foreign policy without the consent of the people. Even if they are doing the right thing, they’re doing an illegal thing, and that alone is grounds for charges. That alone is a stain on their honor, and the only way they can cleanse that stain is to come out of the shadows, and bring forward EVIDENCE to remove The Don, and replace him with the next man in line- Mike Pence. If The Don is an unhinged lunatic, and a danger to our nation, he should be replaced by the next person in line- PERIOD. Not undermined and guided along by conservative voices loyal to the nation. That’s not what the American people want. Never has been, never will be. For no other reason than that, the people (if they are real) who are doing this MUST come forward. And if they’re worried about their professional lives within government, they shouldn’t be, as they have obviously obviated any reason that they should be allowed to continue on within government circles.

To govern, one must govern openly, and with honor. To work behind the scenes, and undermine the elected leaders of this nation isn’t honorable, regardless of the reasons, it’s criminal.