Why Does the New York Times Hate the Democratic Base?
Julie Hollar /
Why Does the New York Times Hate the Democratic Base?
Scott Beale / Flickr
The New York Times Thomas Edsall has an axe to grind, and the paper loves
to let him grind it. Edsall is convinced that the Democrats need to move to
the center, in ways that will offend much of the party, in order to appeal
to the moderate white swing voters he believes are the key to a Democratic
victory in 2020.
Democrats will have to tackle issues that may alienate and even give
offense to progressives, women, Latinos and African-Americans, Edsall
preaches in his latest column (11/1/19). (Edsall repeatedly makes arguments
like this, in which only cisgender, straight white men are never to be
betrayed. See, for example, Whats a Non-Racist Way to Appeal to
Working-Class Whites? NYTs Edsall Cant Think of Any, FAIR.org, 3/30/18,
and NYT Steers Dems Away From the Obvious Formula for Defeating Trump,
FAIR.org, 8/29/19.)
Why is Edsall so convinced of this strategy? Well, in this column, he looks
at evidence that Trump won because of his aversion to political
correctness, and concludes that jumping on that train is how Democrats will
win back the swing electorate.
To help him interpret his data and figure out how to save the Democratic
Party, Edsall turns to a real spectrum of experts: A Republican lobbyist,
a Republican pollster, a Republican consultant, another Republican
consultant, a Republican Trump critic, and the editor of a site that
features many anti-Trump conservatives. Oh, and two professors to help
balance things outone of whom argues that it would be utterly foolish for
Democrats to
move the Democratic Party further leftward, the other of whom
worked for Kenneth Starrs Whitewater investigation.
At least as problematic, though, are the questions Edsall is asking. He
plies these right-wing experts with questions about why immigration,
identity politics and political correctness remain problematic for
Democrats.
The problem here is twofold. First, persuading the swing electorate is not
the onlyor clearly bestway for Democrats to win, as the left always points
out. The Times is not unaware of this, and in this instance they present
Edsalls argument as part of a package; its accompanied in part by a
column by Melanye Price (11/1/19), who makes the case for focusing on
turning out the youth vote, which is increasingly not white, and
increasingly leans heavily Democrat. (Its worth noting that, while Price
claims Elizabeth Warren and Julián Castro seem most capable of appealing
to young people, Bernie Sanders has a much higher percentage of under-30
supportersand supporters of colorthan the other leading candidates.)
The demographic future of this country does not bode well for a party built
on white supremacy, which is why the Republican Party is so intent on vote
suppressionand why a massive get-out-the-vote strategy would virtually
ensure Democratic victory. (Whether thats what the Democratic Party
establishment wants is another question.) Edsall himself actually
acknowledges the turn-out-the-base option, but dismisses it with a quote
from his anonymous Republican pollster: Democrats should focus on
persuasion, because Trump will take care of mobilizing his opponents. If
only it were so simple; ask Hillary Clinton about that one.
But secondand not countered by an accompanying column: The swing
electorate that cares only about immigration and identity politics is a
myth. Peoples political opinions vary on a range of issues, so broad-brush
labels like liberal, moderate and conservative are only so helpful in
predicting what positions they hold or which issues are most important to
them. The politics of a person who could vote in one election for Barack
Obama and the next for Donald Trump obviously cant be captured with such a
label.
Its true that Trump, more than any politician in recent US history, turns
out voters based on conservative identity politics. But he courted those
same white working-class voters by bucking GOP orthodoxy with liberal
economic positionsmost notably trade protectionism, but also
disingenuously attacking Wall Street and falsely promising to defend Social
Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, which
since the New Deal has been the party of labor, has long been shifting to
the right on economic policy, abandoning one of its core constituencies.
Never mind that a wealth tax, proposed by both Sanders and Warren, is wildly
popular among general election voters. Never mind that Medicare for All is
also very popularalthough recent polls (including one cited by Edsall)
indicate that support may be weakening under the massive coordinated attacks
on the plan from the deep-pocketed health industry and their lackeys from
both parties and the corporate media (FAIR.org, 4/29/19, 10/2/19).
Edsall wants Democratic candidates to appeal to those white working-class
voters, not by offering them real economic succor, but by throwing the rest
of the party under the bus. Of course thats what all the Inexplicable
Republican Best Friends consulted by Edsall advise (many of whom are
explicitly anti-Trump)because doing so would essentially turn those
candidates into models of the pre-Trump Republican Party.
And by balancing Edsalls column with three other columns that make no
mention of economics, class, wealth, poverty or inequality, the Times seems
to be happily going along with the centrist smoke and mirrors.
Julie Hollar /