Somewhere within the subroutines and algorithms that drive the Gray Lady is a hard-coded fear that Democrats might take the country too far left. What exactly does that mean? I don’t know and neither does The NY Times, but that doesn’t stop them from shaping the way they feed us news and opinion.
Case in point: An Unusual $1.6 Billion Donation Bolsters Conservatives — A low-profile Republican financier donated his company to a new group run by the influential operative Leonard A. Leo.
...The beneficiary is a new political group controlled by Leonard A. Leo, an activist who has used his connections to Republican donors and politicians to help engineer the conservative dominance of the Supreme Court and to finance battles over abortion rights, voting rules and climate change policy.
The donation was structured in a way that evaded taxes, and is part of the Dark Money stream that evades accountability. The story is framed as a both-sides thing.
For perspective, the $1.6 billion that the Marble trust reaped from the sale is slightly more than the total of $1.5 billion spent in 2020 by 15 of the most politically active nonprofit organizations that generally align with Democrats, according to an analysis by The Times. That spending, which Democrats embraced to aid the campaigns of Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his allies in Congress, dwarfed the roughly $900 million spent by a comparable sample of 15 of the most politically active groups aligned with the Republican Party.
...In a statement, Mr. Leo cited some of the left’s biggest donors and an advisory firm that helps manage the nonprofit groups they fund.
“It’s high time for the conservative movement to be among the ranks of George Soros, Hansjörg Wyss, Arabella Advisors and other left-wing philanthropists, going toe-to-toe in the fight to defend our constitution and its ideals,” Mr. Leo said. Mr. Seid and an associate did not respond to messages seeking comment.
Right. Both sides use money to advance their agenda — but lets not talk about what those agendas are, how they are carried out, and whom they serve. And let’s gloss over how Leo’s work with the Federalist Society enabled the court rulings that made dark money such a big deal.
Moving right along...
Let’s go to the opinion pages. Today the comedy team of Bret Stephens and Gail Collins unleash the latest edition of their long-running series, “The Conversation”. Two ‘balanced’ voices from the left and right exchange banter that is supposed to illuminate the political discourse of the day. The Lincoln-Douglas debates it ain’t; more like Dumb and Dumber.
Gail: Let’s begin with Biden. I’ll admit that the Inflation Reduction Act was perhaps not the perfect name for his bill, but what a moment for his presidency! First time the country’s ever taken a big, serious step toward combating global warming. And for once, I can imagine future generations looking back on what we’ve done and cheering.
Bret: I agree that the bill is misnamed. It probably would have been better called the West Virginia Special Perks Act, after all the goodies Joe Manchin stuffed into it for his home state, or the Elon Musk Additional Enrichment Act, given all the tax rebates for buying electric vehicles. On top of that, I doubt that history will look back on the legislation as some kind of turning point in addressing climate change, given that China emits more than twice the carbon dioxide that the United States does.
Poor Bret. Democrats getting something done gives him a sad.
The FBI visit to Mar-a-Lago to retrieve stolen documents — what’s their take on that?
Bret: On one hand, Trump continued to prevaricate and resist repeated requests to return the documents, in flagrant disregard for the rule of law. On the other, as a result of the search he’s consolidated support among Republicans who seemed to be drifting away just a few weeks ago. He’s turned the media spotlight away from Biden and back to himself. He’s created a new field of theories and conspiracies about what the government was really after.
In short, Garland gave Trump precisely what he wanted. And if the Justice Department can’t show that Trump was hiding something truly sensitive or explosive — like, proof that he was in direct personal contact with the Oath Keepers before Jan. 6 — I fear Garland’s going to emerge the loser from this encounter.
Gail: When in doubt, my all-purpose rule in understanding things Trump is to follow the stupendous Maggie Haberman, one of our great White House correspondents. Her analysis covers several possible explanations for the document-piling, all of them based on general stupidity. Maybe he wanted them as extremely high-end mementos. Maybe it’s his habit of hoarding papers. Or just his cosmic view of the world, that “everything he touches belongs to him,” as a lawyer Maggie talked to put it.
It seems to be a developing frame that places the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago as a blunder — because it helps Trump by allowing him to play the victim and rally GOP support around him. Whatever shall we do?
(It’s part of the media narrative that holding Trump and the GOP to account for anything would be too dangerous.) Also, the “Stupid Defense” for Trump? Seriously?
Collins and Stephens continue with this farther along:
Gail: DeSantis is constantly talked about as a possible Republican alternative to Trump in 2024. How would you feel about him as a presidential prospect?
Bret: There is plenty not to like about DeSantis. But the facts are that Florida is thriving, he’s a fairly conventional conservative and he’s the one primary contender who can deny Trump the G.O.P. nomination, which is my central priority. I’d personally prefer someone like Nikki Haley, but beggars can’t be choosers.
The fact that someone can refer to DeSantis as “a fairly conventional conservative” is alarming in several dimensions. One is that someone can consider DeSantis a “conventional conservative” without having any qualms. Talk about defining deviancy down! The other is that the statement may be an accurate description of what is now ‘conventional’ among conservatives.
And Biden?
Bret: I’d vote for it, [a Cheney-centrist Democrat 3rd party ticket] though its likeliest effect would be to elect the Democratic nominee, whoever that may be. Do you think Biden’s legislative accomplishments make it more or less likely that he’ll seek the nomination?
Gail: I worry that any positive news will further encourage Biden to run again. As you know, I think that’s a bad idea. I’m not a supporter of ageism, God knows, but starting a presidential term at 82 doesn’t really seem like a great plan.
I could continue with these two, but it’s typical of what seems to be dominating the groupthink at the Gray Lady.
And what’s the deal with headlines? The web edition labels their act “With Trump, the Line Between the Shambolic and the Sinister is Often Blurred” while the actual commentary is headlined “The Political Warheads Just Keep Exploding”. Someone must have had a hissy fit, because now the digital front page headline is: “The Biden Comeback. The Mar-a-Lago Blowback. The Cheney Takedown. Where Do We Start?”
Between just skimming the headlines versus doing a deep dive to discover the lede that is too often buried at the bottom of articles, it’s as though someone at the Times is trying to play Jedi mind tricks.
If that wasn't enough, today The NY Times gives National Review editor Rich Lowry space to proclaim “A Defense of G.O.P. Paranoia”. Lowry warns that pursuing any action against Trump is nothing but partisanship, and makes a clear threat in his conclusion:
...If it is too difficult now for Democrats to imagine how they might react to such a prosecution of one of their own, they might have a clearer sense soon enough. An indictment of Mr. Trump would invite retaliation, and if Republicans retake the White House, a motivated G.O.P.-controlled Justice Department could be expected to aggressively pursue a reason to indict Joe Biden over his son Hunter’s business dealings.
In the tumult over a Trump indictment, both sides will accuse the other of violating the country’s norms and traditions. But there’s no doubt that a fierce Republican response, deeply distrustful of the authorities and openly defiant, would be profoundly American.
emphasis added
“...deeply distrustful of the authorities and openly defiant” — of any authorities that aren’t them, that is. The context that should not be forgotten is that this is coming from the side that sent an armed mob to the Capitol to overthrow an election. There is no equivalence here between parties.
This follows another guest commentary by Damon Linker which argued “There Is No Happy Ending to America’s Trump Problem.” He begins with this:
Debate about the search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence has settled into well-worn grooves. Mr. Trump and many Republicans have denounced the act as illegitimate. Attorney General Merrick Garland is staying mostly mum. And Democrats are struggling to contain their enthusiasm.
Liberal excitement is understandable. Mr. Trump faces potential legal jeopardy from the Jan. 6 investigation in Congress and the Mar-a-Lago search. They anticipate fulfilling a dream going back to the earliest days of the Trump administration: to see him frog-marched to jail before the country and the world.
Linker is framing this in purely partisan terms. He dismisses the rule of law in a way that is breathtakingly fatuous.
That seems to point to the need to push forward with a case, despite the risk of turning it into a regular occurrence.
Translation: It will be dangerous because Republicans will pursue legal vengeance against Democrats forever after with this as an excuse — as if they needed one.
As many of Mr. Trump’s detractors argue, the rule of law demands it — and failing to fulfill that demand could end up being extremely dangerous.
But we’ve been through a version of the turbulent Trump experience before. During the Trump years, the system passed its stress test. We have reason to think it would do so again, especially with reforms to the Electoral Count Act likely to pass during the lame duck session following the upcoming midterm elections, if not before. Having to combat an emboldened Mr. Trump or another bad actor would certainly be unnerving and risky. But the alternatives would be too.
“During the Trump years, the system passed its stress test.”
“Trump detractors”?!?!! What’s up with that? If someone is robbing a bank, assaulting a woman, or littering, does that make someone who thinks they should face consequences a ‘detractor’ for calling it out?
And seriously? Passed a stress test? Two impeachments that failed along partisan lines. Numerous indictments and convictions, overturned by Presidential pardons. Missing documents. Missing text messages. Open nepotism and open corruption, constant lies and chaos, with no consequences — yet.
And if Linker has his way, there never will be.
That’s why it’s imperative we set aside the Plan A of prosecuting Mr. Trump. In its place, we should embrace a Plan B that defers the dream of a post-presidential perp walk in favor of allowing the political process to run its course. If Mr. Trump is the G.O.P. nominee again in 2024, Democrats will have no choice but to defeat him yet again, hopefully by an even larger margin than they did last time.
About Plan B. Mr. Linker is apparently unaware of GOP efforts to undermine faith in elections with the Big Lie, GOP gerrymandering on steroids, GOP voter suppression, and GOP actions that place control of elections in GOP hands.
Mr. Trump himself and his most devoted supporters will be no more likely to accept that outcome than they were after the 2020 election. The bigger the margin of his loss, the harder it will be for Mr. Trump to avoid looking like a loser, which is the outcome he dreads more than anything — and one that would be most likely to loosen his grip on his party.
The bigger the margin of loss for any GOP presidential candidate, not just Trump, the greater their conviction that the election will have been rigged, and the greater the grievance they will use to justify the violence that will ensue. Trump may lose his grip on the party — but the party will still be pursuing Trumpism behind whoever can pick up Trump’s mantle and run with it. The only thing the GOP base will accept is total domination.
And let’s not even bother with Ross Douthat’s latest: “With Trump, Merrick Garland Can’t Afford to Miss.” Brother Ross spends the whole piece concern trolling the Attorney General, passive-aggessively daring him to pursue any indictments. He details a number of transgressions Garland might pursue — while putting a pro-Trump spin on all of them, and completely fails to mention January 6.
(Bret Stephens does acknowledge it, while raising the bar: “And if the Justice Department can’t show that Trump was hiding something truly sensitive or explosive — like, proof that he was in direct personal contact with the Oath Keepers before Jan. 6 — I fear Garland’s going to emerge the loser from this encounter.” )
David Brooks has retreated into the metaphysical realms with his most recent piece, but only after one breathlessly asking the question: “Did the FBI Just Re-Elect Donald Trump?”
America absolutely needs to punish those who commit crimes. On the other hand, America absolutely needs to make sure that Trump does not get another term as president. What do we do if the former makes the latter more likely? I have no clue how to get out of this potential conflict between our legal and political realities.
We’re living in a crisis of legitimacy, during which distrust of established power is so virulent that actions by elite actors tend to backfire, no matter how well founded they are.
emphasis added
Damned if we don’t, damned if we do, eh Mr. Brooks?
And what is this thing about ‘elite actors’ ? Is someone a member of the elite because of ability or responsibility, or are they someone in a position of power on the basis of undeserved entitlement? If the cops show up to arrest me for some crime, can I tell them to kiss off because they are ‘elites’? Funny how that word ‘elite’ has become a pejorative among those famously populist conservatives. /s
Look, I get it. The New York Times employs a stable of opinion writers and guest editorials across the spectrum, from A to B. They have reporters who do excellent work at times. It’s not like they are a dedicated right wing propaganda outlet like Fox News.
But they also have a documented both-sides false equivalence problem and the mainstream media habit of following established narratives to the point of absurdity. (Cases in point — their difficulty on how to frame Democrats not in disarray suddenly racking up some achievements. The withdrawal from Afghanistan that was portrayed as a fiasco — one that had been set up by Trump and the total collapse of the Afghan government.)
They pick up right wing narratives and mainstream them, like all the ‘concern’ about Biden’s age for example, or anything to do with Hunter Biden.
“But her emails!!!”
There is a refusal to grasp the true nature of the Republican Party, as detailed by Edward Luce, the associate editor of the Financial Times who tweeted:
“I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close,” Luce wrote.
“I agree. And I was the CIA director,” [Michael] Hayden tweeted in response.
Trump incited an insurrection; the Republican Party has embraced it and the Big Lie. They have thoroughly politicized the Supreme Court, have made homophobia the party line, and have declared war on women. They show no signs of stopping there as they plunge farther into authoritarian extremism.
The idea that if Trump is indicted for anything will cause Republicans to use the Justice Department and every other avenue to unleash judicial havoc on Democrats is hopelessly naive.
They don’t need an excuse — they are already planning to do it if they regain power. (Has everyone forgotten the Great Clinton Penis Hunt, and how that grew out of Whitewater and the GOP obsession to find something, anything to use against him, and how much of it was revenge for Nixon’s impeachment?
The idea that it would set an unfortunate precedent to indict a former president establishes a far more destructive precedent: that Presidents are above the law. (It’s a precedent that will only cover Republicans.)
Nixon tried to claim it — “It’s not a crime when the President does it.” Remember the Unitary Executive theory — that George W. Bush had authority over the executive branch that superseded the other two branches of government? It's one more thing Republicans have grasped at to avoid accountability.
What would have happened if Nixon had actually been removed from office? What would have happened if Reagan (and George H.W. Bush) had been held accountable for Iran-Contra? What if George W. Bush and the Neo-Cons had been held accountable for lying us into invading Iraq?
And where will we end up if Trump walks yet again? That’s what should really terrify the Gray Lady, given the trends in the GOP that have brought us to this point. How much farther will they go? Lowry speaks like a mob boss making threats; paranoia is considered a mental health problem — but he’s defending it.
The question that the Gray Lady should be asking itself at this point is how much longer they and everyone else in the media are going to keep treating the Republican Party like a legitimate political party, and not as the threat it has become?