The New York Times: Scolding an Empty Chair

The great mystery (not really) of this New York Times Editorial Board column (which is labeled as a direct address to Trump-lovin' Republican voters) is...who the hell does the Editorial Board think reads and heeds the New York Times?

And, after we wade through a bit of it, I believe we can find the answer (you all already know the answer) in a Rick Perlstein series currently running in The American Prospect

To begin:

The Responsibility of Republican Voters

By The Editorial Board

Oh fuck off.  Yes, this is going to be a Stern Lecture, thundered down from high atop the pinnacle of Serious Murrican Journalism, aimed at people who not only couldn't care less what The Times has to say about anything, but firmly believe The Times plays a major part in an active Deep State communist conspiracy to something something.  

Republicans who will gather to cast the first votes of the 2024 presidential primary season have one essential responsibility: to nominate a candidate who is fit to serve as president, one who will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Donald Trump, who has proved himself unwilling to do so, is manifestly unworthy.

Yadda yadda yadda.  Orange Man Bad.  Directed at a zombie army of Republican voters who have been trained for decades to automatically ignore/attack anyone who tells them anything they don't want to hear.  Especially when it comes from the coastal media elite.  

But do please continue:

At this critical moment, it is imperative to remind voters that they still have the opportunity to nominate a different standard-bearer for the Republican Party, and all Americans should hope that they do so. This is not a partisan concern. It is good for the country when both major parties...

"Remind"  Bwahahaha!  Because, yeah, if there's one thing that, at this late date, might turn back the tide of fascist morons who threaten to swamp our democracy, it's being patronizingly reminded by the New York Times that, hey, there are other people to vote for, y'know, instead of the racist, rapist con man to whom you have sworn a blood oath.  

Then comes more yadda yadda yadda about Orange Man Bad.  Yes, we know Orange Man Bad. Everyone knows Orange Man Bad.  That's what the meatbags love about him.  What is it about that central fact that you not understand?

Mr. Trump’s construction of a cult of personality in which loyalty is the only real requirement has badly damaged the Republican Party and the health of American democracy.

No.  As usual The Times continued insistence that there must be a Reasonable Republicans Party out there somewhere (Because every Republican that they know personally is so doggone decent.  I mean, just look at David Brooks!?!) has it backwards.  Trump and his cult are a manifestation of the id of the Republican base.  They are the end-state of a road the GOP has been on for decades.  They are the base's dearest wishes fulfilled.  And aggressively ignoring the monstrous trajectory the GOP has been the hallmark of New York Times political reporting since Reagan.

Then, still more yadda yadda yadda about Orange Man Bad.  

And, sure, while "voters" might agree with his toxic policies.

...electing Mr. Trump to four more years in the White House is a unique danger.

This is the Times starting to get a little hysterical.  Panicky.  Shouting at the meatheads, I don't know if you morons realize this, but we've got this here constitutional system.  And it's really important.  Maybe you just didn't know that.  

Oh, they know.  They know.  And they want it dead.  

Mr. Trump’s record of contempt for the Constitution — and his willingness to corrupt people, systems and processes to his advantage — puts all of it at risk.

Then the Times invokes the holy name of George H.W. Bush.  Remember when George H.W. Bush lost gracefully?  Wasn't that awesome!

Dude, these people hate the Bushes.  How do you not know that?  Oh, right.  Not knowing this stuff is your business model.

It also means accepting that the power of the victors is limited.

Then the Times invokes the holy name of  John McCain.  Remember when  John McCain disagreed with the Supreme Court but bent the knee anyway?  Wasn't that awesome!

Dude, these people couldn't care less about John McCain.  And as to the Supreme Court, the reason they voted for the Bad Orange Man was so that he would pack the court with stooges and hacks who would do what they're fucking told to do.  Again, how do you not know that?  Oh, right.  Not knowing this stuff is your business model.

By contrast, as president, Mr. Trump repeatedly attacked the integrity of other government officials...

Still more yadda yadda yadda about Orange Man Bad.

Voters inclined to support Mr. Trump as an instrument of certain policy goals might learn from his presidency that changes achieved by lawless machinations can prove ephemeral.

And this is where I started laughing loud enough to scare the cats.

 "Voters inclined to support Mr. Trump...might learn"?    Learn?

I'm dyin' here!

Voters who favor Mr. Trump’s prescriptions now have other options.

The Republican Party: A Land of Contrasts.

And finally, the Times in-house delusion about the nature and history of the Republican Party comes fully into the open.  

Mr. Trump is now distinguished from the rest of the Republican candidates primarily by his contempt for the rule of law. The sooner he is rejected, the sooner the Republican Party can return to the difficult but necessary task of working within the system to achieve its goals.

The reek of privileged, clueless condescension coming off this pieces is, as they say, enough to knock the flies off a shit wagon.   

So why, after all this time, does the America Newspaper of Record continue to fail so spectacularly at the seemingly simple task of A) see what is happening in plain sight all around them, and B) writing about it?

For answers to that maddening question we turn now to Rick Perlstein's interview of Jeff Sharlet in The American Prospect.  I'll give you the gist, but it's worth your time to go and read all of it:

Part I of this essay ended with a Washington-based New York Times reporter smirking. He did so while explaining to author Jeff Sharlet, who logged thousands of reporting miles and hours of deep engagement with the best scholarship on the subject for his book The Undertow: Scenes From a Slow Civil War, why he was foolish to suggest the Times consider referring to Donald Trump and his supporters as “fascists” and “racists.”

The Times reporter asserted that journalists instead should “just [write] what’s going on,” that to “offer a label” that was “going to be debated” would just “distract from the reporting.”

And besides: “The market has spoken, and they like what we’re doing.” The Times, he repeated several times, still has ten million subscribers, even if “a lot of people have thoughts, and feel ownership over The New York Times because they have been readers and subscribers for many years.”

That claim of the market as the final arbiter of success did not make Jeff Sharlet a happy man...

Since the Times really does think that it has perfected what Perlstein mockingly calls a "perfect, unblemished window unto reality itself", not only do they see no need to change the way they do things, they do not have the institutional capacity to form the question.  

They are The New York Fucking Times.  

They have ten million subscribers. 

QED.

Which explains the existence of the Editorial Board's pompous, ridiculous castigation of the poor, misguided rubes of the Republican base.  This is purely performative.  A show put on to stroke the self-righteous egos of their ten million subscribers that says, "See!  See!  We're doing what all you cossetted souls still believe the solution to our little political problem to be.  Giving the peasants a stern talking to!  Letting the hoi polloi know what's what!  And since we are The New York Fucking Times, well, what force on Earth can stand against us?"

Meanwhile, outside the NYT bubble, this the reaction of any Republican voter who might happen to stray across the Board's column. 

And that is the end of the news.

 

I Am The Liberal Media