Merlin
The Times' Nameless Author: A Man for No Seasons
Thu Sep 6, 2018 10:20am
24.228.93.156

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/06/the_times_nameless_author_a_man_for_no_seasons_138000.html

EXCERPT

The play “A Man for All Seasons” depicts the heroic virtue of Sir Thomas More, the lord high chancellor who, despite his loyalty to the British crown, gave his life rather than violate his conscience regarding King Henry VIII’s usurpation of ecclesiastical authority. The Academy Award-winning 1966 film version of the play and a later adaptation with Charlton Heston as More reinforced for generations the sacrifices of a singularly brave statesman.

The “Anonymous” author of the sketchy New York Times op-ed attacking President Trump from within the White House represents the polar antithesis of Thomas More. In fact, he (or she) could rightly be called “A Man for No Seasons.”

Why? Chiefly because this coward hides behind the veil of secrecy. Assuming the Times is telling the truth – a big assumption – when it states this person indeed holds a senior position of public trust in the Trump administration and believes this president actually endangers our republic, then the author is honor-bound to follow the esteemed tradition of Thomas More. He should immediately resign and publicly explicate his reasons. Instead, he acts as a sniveling sneak who should never be given the once-august platform of the New York Times editorial pages.

I fear that in my twilight years which are seemingly more like Twilight Zone years I have grown skeptical and even cynical. When I read a term such as honor-bound used in the above context I feel downright curmudgeonous. Honor bound by what, his oath of loyalty not to the POTUS but to Donald Trump. The NDA that Trump forces everyone to sign?

There is no need for Anonymous to resign to explicate his reasons. He or she have already done so quite nicely without resigning.

Coward hiding behind a veil of secrecy?

Rather a brave,courageous and pragmatic person.

After all, though the author only glancingly refers to Thomas Moore's sacrifice, he fails to make clear that it was not his job Moore sacrificed but his head.