The NY Times Endorsement and the Hilariousness of Elite Mediocrities

So the NY Times has finally released its Democratic primary endorsement and…it’s good news for John McCain! Actually, they decided to go halfsies and endorse Klobuchar as a ‘pragmatist’ (KLOBUCHARGE!) and Warren as passionate. I was hoping they would be more courageous and go halfsies on Gabbard and Williamson (we make the funny!).

There is a serious point to be made about the endorsement–and keep in mind I like Warren, so I’m not angered by the endorsement, I’m genuinely amused, in a ‘look at those fucking morons’ kind of way. But before we get to the serious observation, it’s really amazing how an editorial board filled with people possessing elite educations can be so mediocre (or perhaps it’s entirely predictable?):

  1. The endorsement completely ignores the fundamental differences between the two candidates, when that’s the whole fucking point of an endorsement.
  2. The editorial board confuses centrism with ‘pragmatism’, and assumes complicated, partial policies are easier to pass and administer than more transformative ones, when transformative policies, especially in the U.S. governance and political context, are more pragmatic.
  3. Maybe now Klobuchar can pass build up some momentum and pass… Yang.
  4. The NY Times is concerned that Klobuchar treats staffers like garbage, but not enough to oppose her. Because they have learned nothing from the last three years about psychological dysfunction and fitness for office.

I could go on, but it’s sort of like picking on the slow kid, so I’ll stop.

There is an actual serious point the NY Times accidentally blundered into, even though they are unable to recognize it which is: The Democratic Party consists of two parties.

One is what used to be called liberal Democrats and is the Sanders-Warren wing of the party (I would include Sen. Sherrod Brown as a more moderate member of this wing). The other is what used to be called liberal Republicans, and is the Klobuchar-Bloomberg-Biden wing of the party. It’s worth realizing these are parties and not ‘wings’, since there is quite a bit of diversity within in each wing.

The key point, however, is that, if the Republican Party were not a cesspool of Christian white nationalist theocrats, recidivist segregationists, and batshitloonitarian Ayn Randian libertarians, what is the functional equivalent of two political parties would not have to be amalgamated into one party. Essentially, the NY Times gave an endorsement for the two different Democratic parties.

Which, to reiterate, is good news for John McCain.

This entry was posted in Democrats, Fucking Morons, News Media. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The NY Times Endorsement and the Hilariousness of Elite Mediocrities

  1. You’re right. I am an idiot not to have recognized this before.

  2. Warren is NOT a progressive. To put her into a so-called “Sanders-Warren” progressive wing of the Democratic party shows how thoroughly she’s fooled not only the NY Times but many other people as well. Remember she accused SANDERS of sexism … not BIDEN. She is playing nice with Biden but not Sanders.

    Warren is another Dem who’s really a GOP in disguise, like Biden & Cuomo & so many of them. She doesn’t want Medicare for All. She wants to protect the status quo.

Comments are closed.