It should be clear that some of his legal (or possibly legitimate) policies should also be opposed by liberals, moderates and conservatives. He has damaged the United States' position in the world, especially through his chaotic tariffs. He made it easier for China and Russia to monitor the United States. He expressed doubts about the independence of the U.S. dollar and the Fed. He has given up important research on medical treatment. In each of these areas, he ignored public opinion.
Harvard leaders offer a principled opposition model to maximize their chances of success. When Mr. Trump began threatening the university with cancelled funds this spring, many Harvard professors and students urged executives to go directly to the walls and condemn him. Harvard President Alan Garber took a smarter attitude. He acknowledged that some of Trump’s criticisms were worth it. Harvard, like many elite higher education, has actually been the culprit of anti-Semitism, and it often prioritizes progressive ideology over independent search for truth.
By acknowledging, Mr. Garber strengthened Harvard's political status. He spoke about the beliefs of many Americans. But Harvard fought back when the government released a ridiculous list of demands. It filed the lawsuit with the help of a legal team, including conservative litigants, and became a national symbol of boycotting his violations. Mr. Garber makes Harvard seem reasonable, Mr. Trump is unreasonable.
Many federal judges, including most Supreme Court judges, responded wisely. They didn't fight him or surpass him. They issued a narrow, firm ruling directing him to comply with the law. They only escalate after he ignored these rulings. A command from seven Supreme Court judges (with the exception of Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas) issued late at night two weeks ago was particularly important. It prevented the Trump administration from expelling a group of detained people under the Foreign Enemy Act. The speed and breadth of the order suggests that Chief Justice John Roberts and most of his colleagues seem to recognize the threat posed by Mr. Trump’s malicious intentions.
The order puts Mr. Trump in trouble. It leaves him without any obvious way to violate the spirit of the ruling while obeying its words. If he is to violate the judiciary now, he will need to do so in an obvious way, which could further damage his status with the American public. Every attempt to defend American democracy should be equally thoughtful.
This country has been injured in the last 100 days and there is no guarantee that we will fully recover. But no one should give up. American democracy in the post-reconstruction era, Jim Crow, Red Scar, Watergate and other time retreats. It recovers from these periods not because its survival is inevitable, but because Americans (including many who disagree with each other on other subjects) fight bravely and wisely for the ideals of this country. That is our duty today.
Wirestock source photo, via Getty image.
Times are committed to publishing Variety of letters To the editor. We want to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. These are some Tip. Here is our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times' opinion section Facebook,,,,, Instagram,,,,, Tiktok,,,,, Bruceky,,,,, WhatsApp and Thread.
