REALITYCHEX » U.S.

Stupid Stuff* New York Times Columnists Wrote Today

September 9, 2012   ·   15 Comments

Source: NYTX

By Marie Burns:

Four of the New York Times‘ five regular Sunday columnists wrote about the Democratic convention in today’s “Sunday Review.” Nicholas Kristof, the fifth, wrote that “milk is tastier and healthier if it comes from a cow with a name.” I didn’t read his column, but there’s a good chance it is more worthwhile than his colleagues’ observations about the convention.

Maureen Dowd takes the prize. During his speech accepting the Democratic nomination, President Obama said, “So you see, the election four years ago wasn’t about me. It was about you. My fellow citizens, you were the change.” Dowd cites this passage in her column.

President Obama went on to say that American citizens are responsible for a number of the good effects of bills Obama signed into law. He concentrated on those which ordinary citizens voiced in convention speeches. For instance, “You’re the reason there’s a little girl with a heart disorder in Phoenix who’ll get the surgery she needs because an insurance company can’t limit her coverage. You did that.” President Obama does then issue a warning:

If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void: lobbyists and special interests; the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are making it harder for you to vote; Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should make for themselves. Only you can make sure that doesn’t happen. Only you have the power to move us forward. (Transcript of the full text, as prepared, is here.)

So the President begins with a tremendously positive message: American citizens, by their votes and their participation in the democratic process, made change possible. Rather than taking credit for his efforts, he gives “citizens” credit for a few of the positive changes Democrats effected during his tenure as president. He then urges Americans to continue to participate lest special interests and “Washington politicians” undo those good works.

Somehow, Dowd turns the President’s uplifting thesis into this: “Because, after all, it’s our fault.” She goes on to list things for which the President has supposedly “blamed” Americans. “We are grateful to the president for deigning to point out our flaws and giving us another chance,” she writes. “We, the People, must do the work. The buck stops with us.” Dowd has taken cynicism to a level that constitutes a running lie. She has turned the President’s speech about shared accomplishments and shared responsibility into a sociopathic effort to transfer his failures to everybody else. There is no truth to her column. I don’t mind snark. I like satire. But these devices work only if they illuminate. Dowd does not light a lamp; she puts it under a basket.

Second place goes to Ross Douthat, whose dramatic thesis is that

the Obama era … ended, to all intents and purposes, last Thursday night in Charlotte, when a weary-seeming incumbent delivered perhaps the fourth-best major address at his own convention – a plodding, hectoring speech that tacitly acknowledged that this White House is out of ideas, out of options and no longer the master of its fate…. Whatever happens in November, the president’s own words have given us fair warning: We face a continuing crisis, and the liberalism of Barack Obama is no longer equal to the task.

Unlike Dowd, Douthat does get a few things right. For instance, he writes, Obama’s “positive agenda was mostly just a laundry list of easy targets – hiring more teachers, increasing natural gas production, modest short-term deficit reduction – rather than anything remotely transformative or new.” It isn’t that “liberalism is not equal to the task”; it is rather that GOP intransigence makes laudable liberal goals unattainable. Douthat obliquely acknowledges his own party’s role in constricting Democratic goals, but weirdly, he holds the moderate Obama and “liberalism” responsible for the “vast right-wing conspiracy” aligned against Obama and – as the President highlighted in his speech – against the rest of us, too.

When a critic can view a work only through the prism of his own prejudice, he is bound to misread the meaning of the original work. Douthat (as does Dowd, for that matter), gives us a good example of how reading with a jaundiced eye results in flawed criticism. Only by ignoring the elephant in the room can Douthat arrive at the conclusion that the President has no big ideas. Worse, playing hide-the-elephant causes Douthat to miss one of the President’s central arguments: that the American people acting in concert have the power to shoo the elephant away and clean up after him.

Third prize goes to Frank Bruni. Bruni ignores the President and other convention luminaries. He thinks the Democratic convention was not about Obama but, instead, was all about Hillary Clinton – “the grand phantom of the 2012 political conventions” who even though she was “half a world away” (in East Timor, doing her day job) remains “a Democratic deity so revered that the 2016 nomination is presumed hers if she wants it.” “Will she run in 2016? I can’t tell you how many times I heard that question and how largely it loomed in Charlotte,” Bruni writes. I’ll have to take his word for it (though perhaps he can’t tell us how many times he heard the Hillary question because he didn’t hear it many times). With the exception of the God and Jerusalem nonsense, I’ve never seen such a disciplined convention – one so laser-focused on getting the presidential ticket re-elected. Even the famously undisciplined Bill Clinton mentioned his wife only as she related to President Obama. (Hillary Clinton did not attend the convention, by the way, because of tradition: a sitting Secretary of State is supposed to be “above” partisan politics.)

I suspect Bruni made up the whole Hillary ghost of 2016 thing because of his long-standing dedication to “bipartisan balance” as well as a desire to work in mention of his favorite POTUS – Dubya. (Bruni even wrote a book about Bush the Younger.) The Republican convention, in contrast to the Democrat’s Obama love-fest, really was a series of auditions for 2016. Nearly every 2016 hopeful was there, telling his story of hardship and heroism, before getting around to uttering a muted, generic endorsement of Whatzizname. Bruni never even mentions the long line of Look-at-Me! speakers at the GOP convention. Instead he zeroes in on a brief-show – Scott Brown – and the big no-show – George W. Bush. Bruni ends his column with a nod to the biggest Little Man Who Wasn’t There: “As surely as the specter of Hillary hovers over 2016, the apparition of the last president stalks 2012. And there’s no telling yet how these two great ghost stories end.”

Finally, it seems only fair to give an honorable mention to Tom Friedman (or perhaps the “Phantom Tom Friedman”), whose column begins today with the best imitation of a Tom Friedman prologue I’ve ever read: “I just arrived in Shanghai, but I’m thinking about Estonia and wondering about something Presidents Clinton and Obama have been saying.” This lede is so perfectly Friedman it seems likely Hackers Anonymous has taken over a portion of the New York Times op-ed page and inserted a computer-generated Friedman parody.

Or maybe, just maybe, the whole page is a parody, a New York Times Sunday Special Tribute to “The Onion.” Indeed, a world-class parodist would have a hard time writing a more pathetic send-up of the Times op-ed page than the columnists themselves have managed today.

Marie Burns blogs at RealityChex.com

* Yes, “I cleaned that up,” too.

By marieburns

Readers Comments (15)

1. Beelzebub says:

   I don’t read the NY Times anymore since they started charging again. But what you describe seems eminently fair in its criticism of Obama. Ms. Dowd is right. Obama wants his former supporters to take the blame for his appallingly weak showing in the past four years. He got rolled by the supposedly “opposition” Republicans so many times that he became a parody of pathetic Democrats who always know how to turn a victory into a defeat. Long after he showed his true colors by appointing right-wing bankers like Geithner and right-wing economists like Larry Summers to major posts (both party’s leaders are far right of center these days) he embarrassed himself and his supporters by negotiating relentlessly against himself to give away the farm — repeatedly. This president can’t even find the voice now to support a minimum wage increase! Rahm Emmanuel referred to the progressive wing as “f**king retards” right at the start and it went downhill from there. If Obama loses this time he has no one to blame but himself. In fact he must have planned it that way. Nothing else can explain turning massive support into a rout.

   3:23 pm on September 9, 2012

    Reply
   • marieburns says:

     @Beelzebub: first, I commend you to read Obama’s speech, which I’ve linked. You can also read all of the columns via the links, whether or not you’re a subscriber. Frankly, they have little to recommend them.

     Once you’ve read the speech & the commentary on it, please write again. It is really helpful to write opinion from a position of knowledge of the subject matter.

     Marie

     3:35 pm on September 9, 2012

      Reply
2. Beelzebub says:

   I listened to Obama’s speech on C-Span which thankfully is still free. The speech was nothing but slogans and feel-good talk. Turning over health care to the big insurance companies cannot be fairly described as an improvement on what exists now. I heard nothing about a real plan or strategy to stop jobs offshoring or a plan to stop corporations avoiding taxes by offshore tax shelters either. I heard nothing about vigorous protection of Social Security or Medicare — both of which Obama put on the table for downsizing in his quest to seem “bi-partisan”. No I’m awfully sorry but you need to go back and read the speech. It was as usual long on sympathy and utterly lacking in specifics to fight the Republican assault on the non-rich majority in this country. And after four years of milquetoast capitulation the man is just not credible. If he loses this time it is a self-imposed defeat.

   3:49 pm on September 9, 2012

    Reply
   • marieburns says:

     @Beelezebub: Nearly everything you write is misguided. C-SPAN isn’t free. You pay for it when you pay your cable/satellite bill. (Try getting C-SPAN without cable.)

     Listening to a speech once & studying its content by rereading & analyzing the text are not the same thing. You listened to the speech. I did both.

     A remark like “the speech was nothing but slogans and feel-good talk” demonstrates the writer isn’t familiar with the content of that particular speech. It’s sort of embarrassing to write and even to read stuff like that.

     While I favored “Medicare for All,” the ACA is a huge improvement over NOTHING, & again, it is discouraging to read that Americans capable of writing in full sentences are unaware of that. One reason I favor Obama over his opponent is that he would enhance public education, while his opponent wishes to privatize it. Perhaps if Obama had been president while you were a student, you would be better at critical thinking. Nonetheless, this is something you can learn on your own.

     The President did not specifically mentioned offshoring, though he did make generic statements like “We can choose a future where we export more products and outsource fewer jobs,” and “I’ve worked with business leaders who are bringing jobs back to America.” A nomination acceptance speech is not a summary of a policy workshop. Whining about what someone didn’t say in a political speech is fairly silly.

     Had you read the speech, as I I did, you would be able to extrapolate one of its central points: if Obama loses this time, it will be partly because self-righteous progressives choose no loaf instead of half-a-loaf. Obama certainly does deserve criticism, & I have been among his critics. But in the grand scheme of things, this is a piss-poor time to be concentrating on criticisms of the President. There is time for that when he is re-elected.

     I asked you to write back after you’d done your homework. You didn’t do it, and that’s why your response is generic nonsense. In the future, please don’t bother challenging my remarks when you haven’t bothered to study the material. It shows deep disrespect for the deliberative process.

     6:24 pm on September 9, 2012

      Reply
   • marieburns says:

     A friend of mine, Kate M., had trouble with the CAPCHA. She asked me to post her comment. Here it is:

     Ummm…Beekzebub: Your post is bitter and, I must say, offers no facts–something for which you roundly criticize our Prez. Doncha realize than a Presidential convention acceptance speech is NOT for the purpose of elaborating policy and program details; it is instead a partisan celebration of a presidential nomination–a bringing together the party faithful. I think you give too much credit to MoDo–who specializes in snark! And you are unfair to Obama, though there is admittedly much to criticize. Would you rather see MittWitt and AynRyan in the White House? How ’bout the Supremes? Gives me chills!

     I thank you, Marie, for once again reading my mind and writing my thoughts. I so appreciate your thoughful, well-researched, intelligent columns. I, as many others, rarely read NYT op-eds anymore, because they are mostly pablum and self-parody. Except, of course, Krugman. But he is shining his light into an impenetrable tunnel, and preaching to the choir.

     I do have a bone to pick with you, however. Nick Kristof’s piece today about “naming cows” is in truth an excellent piece on humane farming practices. He grew up as an Oregon farm boy, and writes in detail about a farmer in his county who believes in decency and humane treatment of animals. That is music to my ears in this era of cynical, narcissistic, rich (or waiting to be) rogues!

     6:28 pm on September 9, 2012

      Reply
     • marieburns says:

       @Kate M. I said Kristof’s piece was probably more worthwhile than the others. Thanks for proving me right.

       Marie

       6:30 pm on September 9, 2012

        Reply
3. Mushiba says:

   @Beelzebub, President Obama is one person who has been given a Congress filled with Republicans who are so extreme that they have fallen off the Earth (and, many who probably believe the Earth is flat) and, Democrats who historically want to play nicey nice with those who oppose them. Add a citizenry that has reneged on its own responsibilities as the crux of democracy and, a Supreme Court that said corporations are people ~ and, you end up with a solid paralysis.

   While I respect your opinions, you are like many Progressives who expected one person, President Obama, to be our Savior-in-Chief and not the human that he is ~ someone who would have magically made the Republicans bow to his wishes and his own party leaders grow a backbone.

   What would you have written if you were the person responsible for our President’s acceptance speech? A speech, that no matter what he said, would be criticized by Republicans, spineless Democrats and disappointed Progressives

   I believe in what LBJ said when announcing that he would not be running for a second term: that the presidency should be one 6 year term so that the real work of the country could be done and there would be no need to think about being reelected. Yet, here we are.

   5:17 pm on September 9, 2012

    Reply
4. Beelzebub says:

   Some reading for you all:

   1. The Betrayal of the American Dream
   2. The Monster
   3. Bailout

   This list is a very short list of books by progressive authors who have no illusions about Obama or the Democrats. Both parties have locked arms to destroy workers and the middle class. It is amusing to hear critics who accuse me of “bitterness”. Just look at the majority of the U.S. population — it is bitter for being assaulted and ignored by both parties. Don’t confuse factual statements with negativity or bitterness. This confuses facts with emotions. You folks need to do your homework before supporting fraudulent actors running for office. Reading and studying helps. Fawning over smiling politicians like Obama does not help.

   9:29 am on September 10, 2012

    Reply
   • marieburns says:

     You want an emotional response? I’ll give you one. If Mitt Romney & Paul Ryan are elected & get their programs thru, it will cost me personally thousands of dollars a year for fewer services. I don’t mind people making foolish decisions as long as they make them for themselves. But I strongly resent self-righteous purists telling me all the stuff that’s wrong with the better candidate without conceding that they’ll hold their noses & vote for him, when that candidate will do more not just for me, but for the vast majority of Americans.

     Sometimes a foolish decision in the voting booth doesn’t matter, but I lived in Florida in 2000, when thousands of fools voted for Ralph Nader knowing the presidential race was close in this state. Nader & his supporters in swing states behaved inexcusably. Thousands of Americans & tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead because of them. They may not have “blood on their hands,” but they bear some responsibility for 8 years of George Bush.

     So, really, cut it out, and quit telling us “folks” what we need to do. We already know.

     Marie

     11:19 am on September 10, 2012

      Reply
     • Beelzebub says:

       For decades now Democrats have been scurrying to the right, not because they have been pushed there by their supporters, but because they have been bought off by the corporations and banks. To believe Democrats care about the workers and regular, non-rich Americans is to die a slow death by torture. Obama is the worst so far of the faux-progressives. You “folks” that still believe in the Democratic Party are enabling the death of FDR’s legacy. I’m voting Green anyway.

       9:46 am on September 12, 2012

        Reply
5. PD Pepe says:

   What a terrific exchange between those that speak with a sense of clarity and truth with someone who speaks with forked tongue. Milton had much fun with the latter, naming him chief of the lost angels ranking next to Satan. Words and names matter.

   11:45 am on September 11, 2012

    Reply
   • Beelzebub says:

     Pepe you might try broadening your reading list. Start with Beelzebub’s Tales To His Grandson. You are clearly locked into your narrow literary world of good and evil.

     10:01 am on September 12, 2012

      Reply
6. Kellie says:

   Sometimes a foolish decision in the voting booth doesn’t matter, but I lived in Florida in 2000, when thousands of fools voted for Ralph Nader knowing the presidential race was close in this state. Nader & his supporters in swing states behaved inexcusably. Thousands of Americans & tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead because of them. They may not have “blood on their hands,” but they bear some responsibility for 8 years of George Bush.
   
   The tone of your replies went from condescending and schoolmarmish to just outright nasty.
   Do you blame all the Democrats that voted to authorize war in Iraq? No, you do not– I believe this is due to your strongly authoritarian streak that is so apparent in your replies to commenters.
   Time for my dressing down! Please, do share with me how misguided I am.

   1:24 pm on September 11, 2012

    Reply
   • marieburns says:

     @Kellie: actually, I do blame the Democratic Senators who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. That’s one of the main reasons Barack Obama got my primary vote in 2008 instead of Hillary Clinton.

     BTW, Kerry & Edwards voted for the use of force, too, but I held my nose & voted for them in 2004. I could have sat home & pouted or voted for some leftist loser whose policies were closer to my own preferences, but I’m a big girl & know that the perfect is often the enemy of the good.

     And thanks for calling me “authoritarian.” That’s a new one.

     Marie

     2:01 pm on September 11, 2012

      Reply
     • Beelzebub says:

       Marie’s reply is emblematic of what is wrong and why the Democratic Party is dead as a progressive force. It’s candidates know all the lies to tell during their campaigns and then have no problem at all doing the exact opposite of what they promise. We all accept the fact that the system is a rigged one — with the two nominal “parties” pretending to represent radically different views of society. The truth is they are controlled by the same forces of money and corporate power. Marie is an able defender of the delusion that they are in opposition.

       9:52 am on September 12, 2012

        Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name

Email Address

Website (optional)

Enter Code *