Suddenly, ‘coup’ concerns do not seem so far-fetched
For most of the last three years, Donald Trump’s critics have scoffed at supposed “conspiracy theories” that claimed a “deep state” of bureaucrats were aborting the Trump presidency. We have been told the word “coup” is hyperbole that reveals the paranoid minds of Trump supporters.
Yet many people brag they’re proud members of a deep state and occasionally boast about the idea of a coup.
Recently, former acting CIA chief John McLaughlin proclaimed in a public forum, “Thank God for the deep state.” Former CIA director John Brennan agreed and praised the “deep state people” for their opposition to Trump.
Far from denying the danger of an unelected careerist bureaucracy seeking to overturn presidential policies, New York Times columnists have praised its efforts to nullify the Trump agenda.
On the first day of the impeachment inquiry, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff called his initial two witnesses, career State Department diplomats William Taylor Jr. and George Kent. Oddly, both had little clue that their demeanor and thinly disguised self-importance were a perfect example of why Trump got elected — to come up with new ideas antithetical to the conventional wisdom of unelected career bureaucrats.
Taylor and Kent announced they’re simply high-minded civil servants who serve the presidential administrations of both parties without bias.
Taylor and Kent cited their anguish with Trump’s foreign policy toward Ukraine — namely that it didn’t go through official channels and was too unsympathetic to Ukraine and too friendly to Russia. If so, why didn’t the anguished bureaucrats similarly go public during the Obama administration?
After all, Vice President Joe Biden took over the Obama administration’s Ukrainian policy at a time when his son Hunter was a consultant for a Ukrainian natural gas company, making a reported $80,000 a month without expertise in either the energy business or Ukraine.
Also, Trump’s policies have been more anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian than those of the Obama administration. Trump armed the Ukrainians; Obama did not. Trump imposed new sanctions against Russia, used force against Russian mercenaries in Syria, beefed up NATO defenses, pulled the U.S. out an asymmetrical missile treaty with Russia and pumped more oil and gas to lower world prices — much to the chagrin of oil- exporting Russia.
In contrast, Obama was the architect of “reset” with Russia that reached its nadir in a hot mic exchange in which Obama offered a quid pro quo, vowing more flexibility on issues such as U.S.-sponsored missile defense in Eastern Europe in exchange for Russia giving Obama “space” to concentrate on his reelection.
Retired Adm. William H. McRaven recently wrote an op- ed for The New York Times all but calling for Trump’s ouster — “the sooner the better.”
No sooner had Trump been elected than Rosa Brooks, a former Defense Department official during the Obama administration, wrote an essay for Foreign Policy magazine discussing theoretical ways to remove Trump before the 2020 election, among them a scenario involving a military coup.
In September 2018, The New York Times published an op- ed from an anonymous White House official who boasted of supposedly widescale efforts inside the Trump administration to nullify its operations and subvert presidential directives.
Trump’s opponents often have praised the deep state precisely because unelected career officials are seen as the most effective way to sabotage and stymie his agenda.
A “coup” is no longer proof of rightwing paranoia, but increasingly a part of the general progressive discourse of resistance to Trump.
In these upside- down times, patriotism is being redefined as removing a president before a constitutionally mandated election.