Big Picture American Politics

[Auroras In Ice]

I wonder if the phenomenon of the "honorable resignation" is puzzling anyone else? On the news channels I watch (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) people who resign in protest about what is happening to their govt departments are painted as being brave and principled. Why so, I wonder? Since when has giving up and capitulating been more admirable than standing and fighting?

I hate to praise Trump, but he has demonstrated one thing about the US justice system: the way to win is to hold your ground, lie, sue and appeal.
Why aren't these principled govt agency heads using those same tactics ? Not necessarily lying, but why aren't they fighting back against closures, dismissals, etc ? The more so because DOGE is not a government department created by Congress and (according to a recent legal filing), Musk is not in charge of DOGE.

Just plain self-interest is also an argument in favor of fighting back: if you resign, you can't then sue for wrongful dimissal, by which method you might conceivably (i) get your job back, (ii) get a big fat compensation check or (iii) expose the shoddy haste of DOGE and others to public scrutiny.

I get what you mean, but this assumes that there's still functional institutions in place for these people to use against Trump.

Trump doesn't win by boldly standing his ground, he wins because he has a mountain of wealth, power, and corruption with aligned interests on his side. He can gum everything up in litigation and dodge accountability because he has the material means to do so and a legion of loyalists in the judicial system to clear the way for him. The GOP has been stacking the courts for decades. I mean, the SCOTUS itself is completely in Trump's pocket and moved to grant him essentially total immunity while he was not even in office. He can afford to do all of this because he has money raining down from him from lobbyists, oligarchs, the RNC, and a die-hard cult. He made billions from the crypto rug pull he used to bilk his own supporters just a few weeks ago. The US justice system is blatantly two-tiered which is why Trump was never actually going to see the inside of a prison cell and unless there's some form of revolution, he never will. Ever. What you are saying assumes that there are still functional institutions left that make any of the recourse you suggest possible for the government workers being purged by DOGE. There isn't, or rather the legitimacy of those institutions are on their death bed struggling to hang on.

The government workers being purged by Trump have very few means of institutional recourse and one of the major goals of protest resignations is to signal exactly that. I don't know what exactly you mean by standing and fighting. Either they resign in protest and get replaced by some loyalist stooge, or they immediately get fired and get replaced by some loyalist stooge. Neither really stops anything. It's also the case that DOGE is eliminating a lot of these positions entirely, so there will be no job for these workers to return to because those positions no longer exist. Suing for wrongful dismissal does very little to stop this administrative coup, will probably not work because the justice system is corrupted, and puts them at risk for reprisals because the entire system is being turned against them. These resignations are intended to signal that dire situation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

This is all from the playbooks of what far-right (and neoliberal) governments do around the world, but on steroids... break the system, let people suffer the results, and then kick open the door for corporations to privatize everything for profit and "save the day". This is going on at a smaller scale in a lot of countries with universal healthcare systems that are slowly being dismantled and privatized.

It's already happening at a rapid pace in the US. Gut the FAA, let planes start crashing everywhere, and then send in the corporate clowns. Spacex is already replacing the air traffic controllers that were canned.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-spacex-air-traffic-control-b2700192.html

[Psy-Fi]

I wonder if the phenomenon of the "honorable resignation" is puzzling anyone else? On the news channels I watch (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) people who resign in protest about what is happening to their govt departments are painted as being brave and principled. Why so, I wonder? Since when has giving up and capitulating been more admirable than standing and fighting?

I hate to praise Trump, but he has demonstrated one thing about the US justice system: the way to win is to hold your ground, lie, sue and appeal. Why aren't these principled govt agency heads using those same tactics ? Not necessarily lying, but why aren't they fighting back against closures, dismissals, etc ? The more so because DOGE is not a government department created by Congress and (according to a recent legal filing), Musk is not in charge of DOGE.

Just plain self-interest is also an argument in favor of fighting back: if you resign, you can't then sue for wrongful dimissal, by which method you might conceivably (i) get your job back, (ii) get a big fat compensation check or (iii) expose the shoddy haste of DOGE and others to public scrutiny.

Sorry if I'm a bit short on specific names and departments; I don't have time this morning to do the research,and anyway I'm guessing many of you will be aware of headlines like the one below from The Washington Post:-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/15/mass-resignation-marks-new-kind-defiance-second-trump-era/

The "honorable resignations" descriptions are probably coming from those mainstream media outlets which tend to favor Democrats more than Republicans. I can guarantee you won't hear those resignations described that way on FOX or other media which tend to favor Republicans.

Given the choice of being fired or resigning, I think that most people will opt for resignation. The people resigning in these cases are well-connected enough that they most likely won't have any trouble landing an equally lucrative job in the private sector. Sticking around and waiting to possibly get fired and challenging their termination probably isn't worth the hassle to them. It certainly wouldn't be worth it to me if I was in the same position.

[Buck_Mulligan]

I wonder if the phenomenon of the "honorable resignation" is puzzling anyone else? On the news channels I watch (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) people who resign in protest about what is happening to their govt departments are painted as being brave and principled. Why so, I wonder? Since when has giving up and capitulating been more admirable than standing and fighting?

I hate to praise Trump, but he has demonstrated one thing about the US justice system: the way to win is to hold your ground, lie, sue and appeal. Why aren't these principled govt agency heads using those same tactics ? Not necessarily lying, but why aren't they fighting back against closures, dismissals, etc ? The more so because DOGE is not a government department created by Congress and (according to a recent legal filing), Musk is not in charge of DOGE.

Just plain self-interest is also an argument in favor of fighting back: if you resign, you can't then sue for wrongful dimissal, by which method you might conceivably (i) get your job back, (ii) get a big fat compensation check or (iii) expose the shoddy haste of DOGE and others to public scrutiny.

Sorry if I'm a bit short on specific names and departments; I don't have time this morning to do the research,and anyway I'm guessing many of you will be aware of headlines like the one below from The Washington Post:-

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/02/15/mass-resignation-marks-new-kind-defiance-second-trump-era/

I agree with Psy-Fi, and to some extent with Auroras. This week at least one court, if not more, allowed the firings to continue, so there must be "some" sound legal basis for them. Anyone considering filing suit would have to take that into consideration.
Plus, the gubermint is usually quite happy to piss away taxpayer money to defend their position and can also raise the financial stakes for the plaintiff. I discovered this for myself 25 years ago. I successfully sued county gubermint for denial of access to public records. It took four different lawyers, 3.5 years, and $65K. I got the money back. Without the possibility of recovering my costs I would never have sued.

[Weekender]

Mitch McConnell announces he will not run for re-election

Now is his chance to completely change his legacy by rejecting Trump. He's shown he's capable of it. Man it was simpler times when McConnell was America's biggest problem.

[SGR]

Now is his chance to completely change his legacy by rejecting Trump. He's shown he's capable of it. Man it was simpler times when McConnell was America's biggest problem.

Reject him...how? He's not even senate majority leader anymore. I don't think any amount of admonishments or strongly worded letters is going to change Cocaine Mitch's legacy at this point.

[Lisnaholic]

Auroras, Psy-Fi, Buck_M : Thank you for painting in some of the detail and context behind the choice that some people are facing: resign or be fired.

That sounds like a long and very stressful road that you went down, Buck_M. Good for you for seeing it through to a resolution in your favour.

[QuantumSync]

[Lisnaholic]

My analogy for Mitch McConnell's legacy? He's the guy who could've shut off the flood valve and prevented the erosion of decency in politics, but decided not to.

In another scenario, he plays the role of Dustin Hoffman in a version of Straw Dogs that was never made. In this version of the movie, instead of a beleaguered Dustin Hoffman outwitting the bad guys who lay siege to his house, Mitch McConnell opens the door wide and says, "Come on in guys! Wreck my house and rape my wife, because that way you may let me survive." Powerful highlight of the movie would be McConnell's impassioned speech, as he stands amid the ruins of his living room and tells the leader of the thugs, "I hold you morally responsible for this destruction and I call on anyone except myself to bring you to account." 

[SGR]

My analogy for Mitch McConnell's legacy? He's the guy who could've shut off the flood valve and prevented the erosion of decency in politics, but decided not to.

In another scenario, he plays the role of Dustin Hoffman in a version of Straw Dogs that was never made. In this version of the movie, instead of a beleaguered Dustin Hoffman outwitting the bad guys who lay siege to his house, Mitch McConnell opens the door wide and says, "Come on in guys! Wreck my house and rape my wife, because that way you may let me survive." Powerful highlight of the movie would be McConnell's impassioned speech, as he stands amid the ruins of his living room and tells the leader of the thugs, "I hold you morally responsible for this destruction and I call on anyone except myself to bring you to account." 

[Lisnaholic]

^ Yeah, that was a weird moment !

[SGR]

^ Yeah, that was a weird moment !

I've never seen that movie you mentioned so the analogy is a bit lost on me. I was trying to think about old cartoon analogies, and the best I've got is that Mitch is the Muttley to Trump's Dastardly.



Which would make Pelosi what...the Wile E. Coyote to Trump's Roadrunner?



Speaking of Pelosi, here's a picture I saw recently for the first time - Pelosi meeting JFK shortly after his inauguration in 1961.



Besides the fact that she looks great in the photo, it just goes to show you how long some of the members of our gerontocracy have been around. Mitch (who's retiring soon thankfully) is practically dying at the podium, and Pelosi is even older than he is! (no doubt, she seems to be in a better state of health than Mitch) 

[Psy-Fi]

Glitch in the Mitchbot.

[Psy-Fi]

Cuts to national parks and forests met with backlash

[Lisnaholic]

I've never seen that movie you mentioned so the analogy is a bit lost on me. I was trying to think about old cartoon analogies, and the best I've got is that Mitch is the Muttley to Trump's Dastardly.

Straw Dogs (original Dustin Hoffman version) is a great movie: so good that it was remade, for no apparent reason, some years later.

Speaking of Pelosi, here's a picture I saw recently for the first time - Pelosi meeting JFK shortly after his inauguration in 1961.



Besides the fact that she looks great in the photo, it just goes to show you how long some of the members of our gerontocracy have been around. Mitch (who's retiring soon thankfully) is practically dying at the podium, and Pelosi is even older than he is! (no doubt, she seems to be in a better state of health than Mitch) 

^ Great archive pic of Pelosi ! Continuing the theme of "can't believe she was ever that young", have you seen Diana Rigg ? Not a politician, and hence the spoiler:-

Spoiler

Diana Rigg in Game of Thrones:-

^ I watched about three seasons before I realised who it was:-



The same actress who played Emma Peel of The Avengers fame, and the object of many a male fantasy.

[close]

[Psy-Fi]

How the Media Walked us into Autocracy (w/ Ralph Nader) | The Chris Hedges Report