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.
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.
Why not?
> however, we still have a functional supreme court
We don't. Mitch McConnell saw to that 2 years ago.
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.
I think the author is cowardly, disingenuous, and dangerous.
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.
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.
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.