An op-ed appeared in the New York Times on September 5, titled “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” detailing the anonymous account of a senior advisor working in the White House. The article is prefaced with a note from the Times, explaining that they typically do not allow anonymous submissions, but because of the threat of unemployment to the person involved, they chose to make an exception. Throughout the essay, the author goes back and forth on their position on the president and the apparent “revolution” but concludes their piece with a call to action to the average American. Because of this, it is hard to be sure what the intentions of writing the op-ed are. As readers, we are also getting an exclusive perspective on the presidency, one that could be a useful tool to those fighting against Trump. Possibly the most important aspect of this piece is that it is anonymous. Had the author publicly claimed the piece, they would not be able to keep being a part of the resistance. Although the author’s motives are ambiguous, the result of the article can be perceived as an attempt to undermine the president’s authority and cause a political revolution within our country.

​

We are in divisive times as a country and every day our political climate grows more hostile. Knowing this, the author appeals to kairos in order to get their point across. In the days leading up to the release of this article, the country was suffering the loss of a man many perceived as an American hero, John McCain. Being a republican, McCain had leverage when speaking out against Donald Trump; the party saw a divide as a long-time republican politician  avidly opposed the republican president. When he passed, the country felt the grief of losing someone many view as a “true” republican. Using this vulnerability, the op-ed author released a piece suggesting that they themselves are also right-leaning, and they agree with the sentiments of the late Arizona senator, which is a device used to rally other republicans against the president and dispel the assumption that one must continuously support their party’s candidate. When referring to McCain in the article, the author wrote, “…we will always have his example – a lodestar for restoring honor to public life…Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men” (“I Am Part…”). We are also at a pivotal moment with the primaries on the horizon. If the author is able to give even the slightest inclination that the republican party is in turmoil then they could very well lose the support of voters. Or at the very least, and possibly to the benefit of the author, the candidates endorsed by Trump would lose voters. The author was working with exigence – or the concept that something “…has prompted the discourse, and why now is the right time for it to be delivered” (Grant-Davie).

​

The appeal to pathos is both for the reader and the president himself. By writing this piece the author wants to instill hope in the reader. In the last paragraph, the article states, “…the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics…” (“I Am Part…”). This call-to-action is tied directly into the kairos, simultaneously making the reader feel strong duty to act as well as appealing to time by encouraging them to act in the midterms. Parts of the article may seem like dialogue from Star Wars: A New Hope; it is almost fictitious the way the author writes as though we are in a dystopian story in need of rebel warriors. But the strong language used, such as “detrimental” and “chaotic era,” lets the reader know that there is a resistance in the works and the American people need to rise up (“I Am Part…”). In fact, it would not be surprising if the author did think we were close to a dystopian society. The author is not just letting the readers know they do not agree with Trump; they are actively resisting him, frustrating him, opposing his plans whenever they can. The author wants everyone reading to know they are part of the reason the country is surviving at all. In a sense, they seek to comfort the reader, letting us know “there are adults in the room” (“I Am Part..”). Comparably, the author has to know that releasing this article will have the greatest effect on the president. Donald Trump even went as far as to tweet that the New York Times must turn over the anonymous writer “for National Security purposes,” somehow equating an opinion piece to a threat to our country (@realDonaldTrump). The author had every intention of angering the president with their piece, knowing that the president would undoubtedly be mortified and embarrassed that his staff is conspiring against him. And it worked. After two years of Trump tweeting conspiracies about “witch hunts,” the president is finally able to execute a classic witch hunt among his own advisors.

​

The decision to leave it anonymous is possibly the most significant part of the article. As stated in the preface of the article, the choice to leave it unsigned is rooted in the fear of unemployment from the writer. But what this fear says is that whomever wrote it wants to keep their job to presumably to continue to undermine the president. But remaining anonymous also fulfills an ulterior motive. Days after the article has been published, the Trump administration continues to be in shambles as they try to figure out who the spy among them is.

Upon reading “I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration,” the motives of the author are not immediately obvious. They seem to be lamenting their government or atoning their role in history, both of which are true. But more than that, they are instilling hope in the readers, letting them know that our political climate could be worse, and they are working diligently against our president to make it better. Being written by one of Trump’s senior advisors makes this piece all the more important; we as citizens now know there are people in charge that still have the interests of Americans in mind. The writer, whomever they are, has declared in their piece the need for a political uprising of sorts, one that “reach[es] across the aisle” and makes our country strong, one that forces those in powerful positions to speak out against our ruler. This artifacts proves the importance of anonymity, showing us what can be uncovered if the fear of repercussions is nonexistent. Without the New York Times breaking their rule on anonymous writers, the rhetor who wrote this could not have given this essential information to the American citizens.

​

​

Works Cited

Grant-Davie, Keith. “Situations and Their Constituents.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 15, no. 2, Taylor & Francis, Ltd, 1997, pp 268.  

“I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration.” New York Times, 5 Sept. 2018,
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html. Accessed 6 Sept. 2018.

 

@realDonaldTrump. “Does the so-called “Senior Administration Official” really exist, or
is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source? If the GUTLESS
anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes,
turn him/her over to government at once!” Twitter, 5 Sept. 2018, 6:40 p.m.,
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1037485664433070080. Accessed 6 Sept. 2018.