The Times Gets "Mean, Vacuous, Desperate," Etc.

Two days and about 20 news cycles ago, the editorial page of The New York Times issued a stern rebuke to Senator Hillary Clinton, charging her campaign with "demeaning the political process." The editorial, titled "The Low Road to Victory," described the Pennsylvania race as "even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it."

Apparently--and I hope I read it right--the Times editorial opposed this negativity. This surprised me, since the same Op-Ed pages feature a trio of columnists who seem to frequent every rest stop on the low road. And while these columnists represent themselves and not the views of the paper, they set a tone that can only be described as mean, vacuous, desperate, and pandering.

William Kristol leads the charge with his special ability to be all four at once. Here's a classic Kristol passage reducing a president, a decorated presidential nominee, and a Nobel Peace Prize-winning vice president to inane caricatures: "But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?" ("It's All About Him," February 25, 2008.)

Or consider David Brooks's attack on Senator Barack Obama for questioning Senator John McCain's credentials as an anti-special-interest crusader--something the Times had done quite spectacularly in an explosive front-page news story on February 21. Brooks wrote: "This is, of course, the gospel of the mediocre man, to ridicule somebody who tries something difficult on the grounds that the effort wasn't a total success. But any decent person who looks at the McCain record sees that while he has certainly faltered at times, he has also battled concentrated power more doggedly than any other legislator." ("The Real McCain," February 26, 2008.)

Calling someone a "mediocre man" seems pretty mean, and so does insulting one's colleagues. And yet here was Brooks essentially accusing Times executive editor Bill Keller and news managing editor Jill Abramson, who defended the front-page article, of not being "decent."

Bringing up the rear is Maureen Dowd, who sounded more than a little "desperate" Wednesday when she ended her column by channeling Dr. Seuss: "The time has come. The time is now. Just go.... I don't care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis.... You can go in an old blue shoe. Just go, go, GO!" ("Wilting Over Waffles," April 23, 2008.)

For "vacuous," it's back to Kristol. After Obama said he stopped wearing a flag pin because it "became a substitute for true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security," Kristol responded: "Obama's unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good--too patriotic!--to wear a flag pin on his chest." ("It's All About Him.")

Obama's thoughtfulness was lost on Kristol, who vacuously asserted that pinning on a piece of jewelry can infuse the wearer with "sincerity or intelligence."

For "pander-filled" pastry, Brooks is the master chef. He wrote that McCain delivered a speech on March 26 that was "as personal, nuanced and ambitious a speech as any made by a presidential candidate this year." Brooks also observed that "If Obama is elected, he will either go back on his pledge [to withdraw troops from Iraq in the next 16 months]--in which case he would destroy his credibility--or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home." ("How Obama Fell to Earth," April 18, 2008.)

So no matter what Obama does, he will fail. If he continues to back the genocide in the region, "he will risk genocide in the region." Authorizing a military pull-out would lead to "war at home." Really, it's best to just pander to the current administration's policy.

Wednesday's editorial also wagged a finger at Obama because his "relative youth and inexperience were revealed when he "mocked" Clinton, calling her "an Annie Oakley wannabe." But Dowd employs a similar mocking method and has recently described Clinton as "Scarlett O'Hara after a public humiliation," "a 'Laverne & Shirley' factory girl," Sybil," and "Lady Voldemort."

Of course, Times Op-Ed writers are not running for public office. They're trying to sell papers and are free to dwell on superficial matters. Still, there's a difference between analyzing the trivia of an election and glorifying it. And if the Times editorial board is going to criticize the candidates' "negative and vapid" tone, they should hold their own pages to that same standard. Other Times columnists manage to be barbed and remain civil.

The "Low Road to Victory" concludes with a plea for Clinton to "call off the dogs." That seems like appropriate advice for the Times, too. Until then, it's the pot texting the kettle: Ur black!

This post was originally published at vanityfair.com, where Scovell writes regularly

Comments

[JamesA1102]

You should add to that list Frank Rich who spent most of the 2000 campaign lying about Al Gore.

[NABNYC]

I'm often annoyed by the fussy upper-crust silly demeanor our Democrats adopt once they get into the Senate, in particular, always addressing even the most despicable members of the Republican party as being their "esteemed opponent," or "learned colleague." It just makes me think these politicians really do have wet dreams about bringing back the wigs and gowns, and "ladies" of the court, instead of worrying about working for the people of this country.

But those strict rules of civility do not apply when white politicians talk about black people. Hillary Clinton ridicules and demeans Obama in a nasty tone and manner that grossly exceeds any harsh words she's ever had for the Bush regime and all its wrong. She encourages her crowd of supporters to join in the ridicule and demeaning of Obama: "Oh, some people think they can just go to D.C. and make 'chaaaange,' but Evan [Bayh] and I know better." Of course they do -- they're the white people.

I've never heard the Clinton gang use any such ridiculing comments or tones about any other opponent. I've seen the same from other politicians who freely ridicule Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Oprah Winfrey, three people who have done a lot more for this country than anyone in the Senate ever has.

I'm wondering if Hillary could lighten up on the snotty tone, just a tad, because it's much too reminiscent of the "typical white person" form of racism. And it's pretty sickening.

[jukesgrrl]

I agree totally. She doesn't talk about McCain in that manner.

[PioneerKing]

"the gospel of the mediocre man" lol lol rotfl

David Brooks get a grip on your self. McCain is as crooked as they come and has done nothing to stop pork.
DB you are the one who comes across as mediocre when you flack for McCain.
DB do you think that Americans are stupid or that Americans do not know about how McCain allowed all kinds of pork into bills that came out of the committees that he chaired while the republicans had the majority?
DB do you think that Americans don't know about McCain intervening with numerous agencies to get his cronies federal contracts?
DB it must pain you greatly to be supportive and have perpetuated the "maverick and straight talker" reputation of McCain.
DB it must really smart that you touted McCain as being strong on national security, foreign policy and the economy because McCain has proven that he is many things except erudite.
DB don't you just love the way McCain has those "senior moments," when Joe Lieberman or Lindsay Graham have to prop McCain up and work him like a Charlie McCarthy puppet.
Yes indeed you republicans keep deriding Obama for being intelligent or elitist perhaps you all may be able to eventually convince your selves that it’s better to have, McCain, another cerebral lightweight like Bush in the White House. lol lol

[deejsmom]

I agree that Op-Ed's from the NYT are all guilty as charged - but that does NOT excuse Hillary - because of her negative approach and lies - she has many followers. A shame, because if she had stayed off the low road, she may have been the nominee already

[marc1antony]

she lost many followers because we now know what a vile and calculating person she is.

[VosVos]

There have been a number of deaths during this election cycle:
1. Bill Clinton's legacy
2. The Times' reputation
3. Hillary's future
At this point we are just hoping Murdoch buys the thing. At least it will be funny.

[marc1antony]

good list!

[generationyes]

Right ON! Great column. NYT is a sham with a few shining exceptions like Bob Herbert and Frank Rich. Brooks, Kristol and Dowd (who I believe likes Obama, but apparently needs to stick it to him gratuitously to keep her street creds) seem to go out of their way to dip their pen tips in poison. They could certainly be charged with not only demeaning the political discourse, but insulting their readers - not to mention decency. Shame on them.

[MoMoDo]

Maureen Dowd is the desperate one? She's not the one running a campaign that has been mathematically eliminated but refuses to acknowledge or admit it.

[gayleg]

The press has been a disgrace throughout this primary.

So why haven't they been called out on it before? Oh yes, it's because most of their vitriol was and is aimed at Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, I can't feel sorry for Senator Hope now that he's feeling a bit of heat. He never spoke out against the bias and stupidity before now.

[boonagain]

Could you ever imagine that people allegedly belonging to the party of FDR and Bill Clinton (believing in a town called Hope) would use Hope as an epithet?


Utterly disgraceful and despicable

[mariemburns]

Excellent post, Nell! I'd like to elaborate, but every time I concentrate on those right-wing columnists Kristol & Brooks I make myself crazy. Thanks for saving my sanity.

[gayleg]

Thanks for proving the point I just made above.

[S1m0n]

The time has come. The time is now. Just go.... I don't care how. You can go by foot. You can go by cow. Hillary R. Clinton will you please go now! You can go on skates. You can go on skis.... You can go in an old blue shoe. Just go, go, GO!"

That's the wittiest thing I've ever seen from Mo Dowdy.

[lafrance]

I completely agreed with and cheered the New York Times editorial on Hillary. They hit it right on the mark.
Actually her behavior deserved more editorials in this vein.

[tsipos]

Great characterization of the NYT opinion page. They call Obama an "elitest" while condescendingly acting as if they speak for the public. It is meant to be a self-fullfilling. If they tells us that we are disillusioned and cynical, like themselves, it must be so. They believe in nothing, so we must be quickly coming to the realization that there is nothing or no one to believe in. Hope is an opiate for the masses to naive to no to know better, so we must be told. It doesn't matter what political idealogy they subscribe to, it's all the same. You left out Krugman. Not as bad as Kristol, but pulling up the rear.

[SamanthaJaneSalem]

The editorial board and op-ed writers are separate at the Times, as I understand. For instance, the managing editor was not responsible for the hiring of William Kristol.

But if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I hope she gives Paul Krugman the Treasury Secretary position he has worked so hard to earn with all that water carrying on her behalf.

[Stillhere29]

The MSM has been in this for themselves from the start. The more sensational a "reporter" can spin a the greater the reward will be. You cant fully blame the dealers of this Infotainment drug though. Americans love suffering. In any form, from comical to dramatic, Americans take pleasure in the suffering of themselves and others. I'm not going to pretend to know where this comes from, but it exists. From America's Funniest Home Video's, where a man can generate millions of laughs just by getting kicked in the privates,to video games where you can murder pixelated people, to movies, where young people are grusomely ripped apart for the price of a Movie ticket.
Somewhere along the road, America some how equated a connection between suffering and pleasure, and in a capitalist society, where everything and anything can be exploited for money, so has this connection been turned into a money generating monster.
The MSM is now the most wretched system that exploits the Suffering/pleasure paradigm, with a steady, neverending flow of death, agony, misery and suffering in all its forms.

[Stillhere29]

sorry! didn't mean to post this twice!

[truthbetold99]

Also, what's with the Times posting the editorial the day AFTER the primary?