Tucker Carlson weighed in on the controversial New York Times op-ed written by someone in the self-described resistance within the Trump administration. Carlson said the official is trying to subvert the views of the president which are also the views of voters and believes that since Trump is different from "permanent Washington," therefore his presidency is "illegitimate."
Carlson said Trump's attempts to do what he promised is a sign that the system is working.
TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: First though, the New York Times, this afternoon published a remarkable op-ed piece, was written anonymously. It's the work of someone who claims to be an official inside the Trump administration, a member of the underground resistance within the West Wing. We think we've got a pretty good idea who wrote this piece; we've called the White House for comment on it tonight. But until we confirm the identity, of course, we're not going to accuse anyone in public. We'll keep you posted on that.
The piece does make a couple of points; the first is that the President is an unpredictable and mercurial boss who was light on policy detail and given to saying outrageous things. That is true. Sorry, it is true. If you've ever seen him give a speech, you already know that.
One of the most striking things about Trump is that he's almost exactly the same in person as he is on television. Ask anyone who knows him, there was no secret persona hidden behind the public face as there was with Barack Obama, for example, and so many other Presidents and politicians. They're totally different in person.
Trump though is exactly who you think he is; you either like that or you don't. You voted for him or you didn't. But he's not trying to fool you; he's not capable of fooling you. He's governing exactly as you would imagine he would. It's not clear why everyone seems so surprised by that.
The other point that the piece makes is that Trump's views on policy differ from those of permanent Washington and therefore, his presidency is illegitimate. At one point, the author explains that Trump does not believe Russia is the central threat to the United States and resisted imposing even more crushing sanctions on Russia. But thankfully, the peace explains - this is a direct quote - his national security team knew better, such actions had to be taken.
So, let's see. Trump ran on closer relations with Russia. Voters agreed with that and so they elected him president of the United States. And yet, the tiny and incompetent Washington foreign policy establishment, the very same people, who brought you Iraq and Libya, do not agree with that. So they subvert his views which are also the views of voters, the American people. And yet, this is somehow a win for democracy and we all should celebrate it.
Well, in Washington, they are celebrating tonight and not just Democrats but also the entire Paul Ryan wing of the Republican Party, which even today is dominant. And maybe the most revealing part of the op-ed, the author drops this stunner, "President Trump's impulses are generally anti-trade." Really? Maybe the author deduced that from the hundreds of speeches Trump has given over the past 25 years attacking our trade policies. Voters knew that when they elected him; that's one of the reasons they did elect him president.
Trump's attempts to do what he promised to do on the campaign are not a travesty; they're a sign the system is working as designed. Politicians are supposed to respond to voters' concerns; that is the basic, maybe the only measure of success of a presidential administration. Did you do what voters sent you there to do? In Washington, that's considered shocking. And that's the real problem with this piece, not that some unnamed White House official is disloyal to the president. Omarosa and Anthony Scaramucci worked in the West Wing. We've seen that before.
The problem is that so many in our political class are disloyal to voters. The very people in charge of administering our democracy don't believe in democracy; they don't even hide it. That's a problem, a big problem. In fact, it's unsustainable over time.