In the New York Times article entitled, President Trump Is Asked to Show His Cards, the Editorial Board argues that Trump is not adhering to his promise to keep his administration free from individuals susceptible to venality. The article sites that within the first weeks of his presidency, Trump signed an executive order that required executive branch employees to adhere to rules designed to prevent misconduct. However, within this list of rules was a clause that allowed for waivers for the dismissal of ethical rules, rendering the order virtually purposeless.
The author of this article emphasizes that during the Obama administration, more stringent regulation was implemented by the department of ethics on members of government who required waivers. This contrast is used to invalidate Trump’s claims to “clean up government” and “make it more transparent for the American people”. It is clear that the author disagrees with Trump’s methodology and this is demonstrated not only by the contrast to the previous administration but the citing of possible corruption within his own cabinet. Examples of this include Ivanka Trump,a white house senior advisor, whose business ties with China and Germany predispose her to bribery.
I agree with the claims made by the author of this argument, although admittedly not because of any information present within this article. Like a lot of the American public I am predisposed to ideas about the corruption of the Trump administration because of what information I am fed by the media. That’s not to say that the claims made in the article are unfounded, but they are definitely skewed in favor of a democratic agenda. I think it’s important to take arguments in blatant favor of a particular party with a grain of salt, in order to expand one’s perspective. This author’s intended audience is most likely people who are distrustful of either government as a whole or the Trump administration in particular.
No comments:
Post a Comment