This all sounds eerily familiar.
From Paul Krugman in the NYT.
Budgets, Bad Faith and ‘Balance’...
Looking at all of this should make you very angry; it certainly infuriates me. But my anger isn’t mostly directed at Republicans; it’s directed at their enablers, the professional centrists, both-sides pundits, and news organizations that spent years refusing to acknowledge that the modern G.O.P. is what it so clearly is....
Why have Republicans become so overwhelmingly the party of bad faith? (And not just about budgets, of course; remember when Republicans cared deeply about a president’s sexual morality?) The main answer is probably that the party’s true agenda, dictated by the interests of a handful of super-wealthy donors, would be very unpopular if the public understood it. So the party must consistently lie about its priorities and intentions.
Whatever the reasons for G.O.P. bad faith, however, its reality has been apparent for a long time...
Yet the gatekeepers of our public discourse spent years being willfully blind to this reality.
Meanwhile, many news organizations — which, by the way, gave Ryan years of adoring coverage — treat recent G.O.P. actions as if they are some kind of aberration, a departure from previous principles. They aren’t. Republicans are what they always were...
Now, there’s no mystery about why many people won’t face up to the reality of Republican bad faith. Washington is full of professional centrists, whose public personas are built around a carefully cultivated image of standing above the partisan fray, which means that they can’t admit that while there are dishonest politicians everywhere, one party basically lies about everything. News organizations are intimidated by accusations of liberal bias, which means that they try desperately to show “balance” by blaming both parties equally for all problems...
You might very well say that.
I could not possibly comment.
Behold, a Tip Jar!
3 comments:
I think Dr. Krugman did a very nice job of translating an agglomeration of any number of your posts into "NY Times approved language". I've been reading Krugman for decades and Drifglass for years and it's nice to see you two finally collabrating on a column. Congrats!
There is not a robust debate to be made in support of retaining Brooks at the NYT to provide him with such a vast exposure.
For me, it is not necessarily if Brooks should get moved on to FOX or INFOWARS or team up with Bloody Bill.
The concern I hold is the NYT has that column space reserved as a quota for wayward conservatives.
It is what would replace Brooks which gives me brain indigestion.
"You merely adopted the WOKE - I was born in it ..."
Post a Comment