Vanity, Thy Name is Anonymous

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

13 Responses

  1. Doctor Jay says:

    So, someone at Hachette thought this book would sell. It certainly made headlines. Who will buy it, though? I can’t see anyone on the left, or the never-Trump camp buying it, because it has what they already know. I mean, hate-read is a thing, I guess. But it would have so much more potential with this demographic if it had a name attached.

    Meanwhile, would the Trumpists buy it? I can see plenty of hate clicking on excerpts as long as it doesn’t cost anything, but there is a bubble in right-wing media that says that many might not even hear about this book.

    I frequently remind myself that people who work on things every day are likely to be better informed in their decisions than I, who have spent maybe 10 seconds thinking about it, am. So, maybe this will sell. But maybe the book publishers, who must know who Anonymous is, could only consider the decision in that light?

    But who knows, this might become a bestseller.Report

  2. InMD says:

    Good piece. Anonymity has become so abused that I think the grain of salt we used to take it with needs to be increased to a sack full.Report

  3. Chip Daniels says:

    Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel.
    After every awful cluster of a government there are a spate of memoirs where all the central players try to write a history that exonerates their own actions.

    This is sort of a pre-emptive version that tale where we are treated to furrow brows of concern and whispered gossip but ultimately without effect or action.Report

  4. JS says:

    It’s a nice little grift. Get in on the ground floor of a President that is — at best — impulsive and uncaring of a lot of normal Washington priorities, and manipulate him to do what you want. If this makes him unpopular, then you simply explain you were the hero, trying to mitigate a impulsive President’s worst impulses, and really you should be applauded for sticking with the Administration rather than resigning on principle or speaking up.

    If it works, you get four years of getting to pull levers of power that most President’s wouldn’t let you near, and if it crashes down you walk away claiming all the bad stuff was stuff “you were against” and all the good stuff was “stuff you were for”.

    Effectively, this is someone who went happily wallowing with the pigs and hopes a shiny piece of paper keeps the mud off.

    Honestly, this seems like someone who isn’t sure which direction the GOP is going to go on Trump’s legacy, and wants a sheet anchor.

    Hmm. My money is on…the Conways. Probably both of them together. They set up a neat inside/outside approach to Trump, making sure at least one of them is poised to continue forward in the lucrative conservative pundit and staffer circles.Report

    • North in reply to JS says:

      I endorse this interpretation. Not everyone who says mean things about Trump is on the side of the angels. Far from it. This character is just another grifting parasite that would be ejected almost automatically from the body of any even vaguely normal administration.Report

  5. As fa as I can tell, it was written by John Barron, John Miller, or David Dennison. Or maybe Seth Rich’s real killer.Report

  6. George Turner says:

    What if it was written by someone in the administration who can’t come out publicly against the President because he’s her father? That would be hilarious, and future historians would ascribe it to “daddy issues”. ^_^

    However, it’s probably some boring, faceless bureaucrat with delusions of adequacy.Report

  7. I have two cautions about where I see things differently, but only a little differently, from the OP and from most of the commenters here.

    Caution #1: I hesitate to call anyone a coward because I’m a coward, too. I write anonymously/pseudonymously and take “controversial” positions. I admit that I don’t claim insider status to much of anything, and rarely (almost never) comment on things specific to my job, etc.

    Caution #2: we need to decide if we (i.e., the polity, the Republic, etc.) are better off for the book having been written. From the summaries the OP cites, that seems like an unlikely prospect, especially because the author “does not re-create many specific episodes in vivid detail.” But on balance, is the book’s having been written good or bad for the cause (or indifferent, which I guess is the same thing as bad)? If it is on balance good, and the author’s having to give up anonymity means we wouldn’t have this good thing, then I caution against criticizing them.

    ETA: To be clear: I’m not saying Anonymous is some great hero for the ages.Report

  8. Jaybird says:

    For the record:

    Report

    • George Turner in reply to Jaybird says:

      From me, above:

      However, it’s probably some boring, faceless bureaucrat with delusions of adequacy.

      Called it. Woohoo! What do I win?

      Mollie Hemingway made an important observation about this earlier today, noting that for almost two years the New York Times claimed “Anonymous” was a senior high-level official in the Trump Administration, implying that it could be a cabinet secretary or someone very tight in his inner circle. Mike Pence and Pompeo had to come out and deny that they were this “Anonymous” character.

      Yet all the while, the New York Times knew “Anonymous” was some junior nobody, and willfully misled the entire nation, perhaps even putting US national security at risk by sowing mistrust among the cabinet officials tasked with carrying out essential business. Has the New York Times done anything but flat out lie these last four years? And as Mollie asked, if this is their best “Anonymous” source, how bad must the rest be? They’re just printing garbage.Report

  9. Jaybird says:

    I’ll quote Slate again:

    Here’s what “Senior” meant back in 2005 according to Slate:

    Since there are no hard and fast rules on attribution, reporters can punch up their stories by ascribing “senior” status to just about anyone. The only people who can’t be senior administration officials, the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank told the Explainer, are the interns.

    Several Washington reporters said that “senior” officials in the White House must at the very least have “commissioned status.” Commissioned staffers include those from the top three ranks of the White House hierarchy. In descending order of importance, these are: assistants to the president, deputy assistants to the president, and special assistants to the president. The 80 or so commissioned staffers in the White House get special dining-room and parking privileges. In general, they also get higher salaries.

    In practice, reporters rarely use the term “senior” for anyone below assistant level. (Special assistant Blake Gottesman, who sits right next to the Oval Office and serves as the president’s personal aide, isn’t likely to get the title.) There are almost 20 assistants to the president, including familiar figures like Stephen Hadley, senior adviser Karl Rove, chief of staff Andrew Card, and press secretary Scott McClellan. The vice president is, of course, also a senior administration official. The most senior official of all—the president—rarely speaks on background. Bill Clinton’s press secretary tried (and failed) to work out a suitable attribution for presidential background briefings. Reporters deemed phrases like “someone close to the president” too misleading.

    Senior administration officials don’t have to come from the White House. Cabinet secretaries are undoubtedly senior, and some reporters extend the title to their deputies and undersecretaries. Even a few officials at the assistant secretary level might merit “senior” designation. Given these possibilities, the population of senior officials in the administration could number well over 100.

    (emphasis added)Report