They chose to work with Trump. Secret subversion is as much as we’re going to get.

The Trump cabinet last March, a potential source for the Times’ op-ed writer. Source: The Boston Globe

Last week was a particularly harrowing one for the Donald Trump presidency. Tuesday saw the first excerpts from Bob Woodward’s new book, Fear, in which Trump advisers discussed their attempts to undermine Trump’s whims and shift his policies. Woodward reported shocking tales of officials stealing papers from the president’s desk and outright ignoring his orders, correctly predicting that he would soon forget about them. The next day, an op-ed in the New York Times created arguably a bigger stir. An anonymous senior official in the Trump White House discussed his efforts to create a “steady state” that would control and undermine the administration from within. “Anonymous” argued that these subversive officials were doing their best to undermine the president’s policies and to “steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.”

Two responses emerged from this blockbuster op-ed on the center and the left. One was, predictably, a race to decipher who wrote the piece in question. Different theories abounded, all based on shaky rationale. Some argued that Mike Pence or Larry Kudlow wrote the piece based on its diction, particularly the use of the word “lodestar.” William Saletan at Slate argued that the official was most likely Ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman based on words used in the piece and its overall tone. Others confined themselves to speculating that the eventual reveal would be either surprising, expected, or underwhelming.

The other common response to this op-ed was a pointed criticism of whoever the author might be. “Gutless” was the term most frequently used for this official, parroting a tweet by the president. New York Magazine’s Frank Rich wrote, “anonymity allows [the op-ed’s] author to … duck any responsibility for what is happening and retreat from any real pushback against Trump.” Isaac Chotiner of Slate saw the author, along with Bob Woodward’s sources, as disingenuous and “unequipped — intellectually, practically, and morally — for the current emergency.”

These criticisms are valid, but what good do they do? Instead of criticizing the anonymous official, liberals should be celebrating the steps that he or she and other officials have taken to curb Trump’s actions. The anonymous official is a small but vital part of the general opposition to the Trump presidency and its enablers.

Liberals who criticize the anonymous op-ed writer believe that he or she should resign immediately and speak out publicly against the president. But these writers and pundits fail to realize the significance of the “fifth column” inside the Trump administration. This group is made up of men and women who, at one point, supported the president enough to take a high-level job in his administration. They may not have stopped some of the administration’s worst excesses. But according to the anonymous author and Bob Woodward, subversive officials have stopped some of them. Officials like James Mattis have stymied the president’s attempts to destroy the United States’ trade relationship with South Korea or launch a full-scale war against Syria.

Instead of focusing on what these officials should do, liberals need to look at what Trump administration subversives have already done and compare those actions with the alternative: a cabal of lackeys who fall over themselves implementing Trump’s every whim. If we lived in that world, Hillary Clinton would be facing criminal charges, the military would enforce Trump’s demands globally, and the country’s economy would be racked by the constant imposition and revocation of tariffs. The anonymous official was clearly unable to stop the travel ban or child separation at the border, but these officials have done much more for the country in the past 18 months than an angry resignation could possibly do.

In addition, American liberals need to realize the benefits of having a group of subversives in the White House. While Trump is working full-time to identify “Anonymous,” he is distracted from winning the midterms or discrediting the Mueller investigation. The story of the anonymous official will likely retain Trump’s attention as new revelations emerge about officials sabotaging the White House from within. Every story of the President’s fecklessness and horrific leadership helps make the midterms that much more difficult for Republicans. Although the story of the anonymous op-ed writer won’t significantly shift Trump’s poll numbers, it is exactly the kind of story that will speak to the white, college-educated Republican voters in the nation’s suburban swing districts, telling them to either vote to curb the president’s power or stay at home.

The political endgame for Americans during the Donald Trump presidency is to minimize the possible damage that he causes. If that minimization comes from “gutless” anonymous officials who quietly resist the president day in and day out, then fine. The anonymous official who wrote the Times op-ed will distract the president, diminish his accomplishments, and lead to fewer Republican voters in swing districts and a greater chance of Democratic victory in the midterms. What more could you want from a Trump ally?