The Other Moderate Voice – New York Times
Andrew Rosenthal, the editorial page editor of The New York Times, answered questions from readers Sept. 24-28.
Link
Finally, there are issues that the Times editorial board considers of transcendent importance — the nation’s security and its global image; the relationship between government and the people, which includes the balance among the branches of our democracy, civil liberties, civil rights, taxation, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid and a host of other issues. We are strong believers in the First Amendment (and more faithful to the Second Amendment than our critics believe). We are strong believers in the right to privacy and the associated right to reproductive choice. We are passionate opponents of all forms of authoritarian behavior by the federal government. We believe in free trade and reasonable, progressive taxation. We believe in a robust application of American influence and power, but one that is consistent with our democratic values. And we believe in the right of Americans to cast a vote that counts, and will be accurately recorded.
Responding to the charge that the NYT is always against the President:
We supported the No Child Left Behind Act and the Medicare drug benefit. We supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Director of National Intelligence. We support the two-state approach to the Israel-Palestine dispute, and we join Mr. Bush in opposing the Iranian nuclear weapons program, as well as the North Korean program. We agree that free trade is vital to the development of the United States, as well as the rest of the world. We believe that terrorism is a dire threat to American national security and American lives. We supported the nomination of Bob Gates as secretary of defense and Henry Paulson Jr. as treasury secretary, which we called “a master stroke.”
And he acknowledges obvious bias:
It would be ludicrous for me to suggest that we’re equally sympathetic to Republican and Democratic values and platforms. We are not. We generally find more in the Democratic Party’s policies and approach to governing that we support and are particularly critical of Republican taxation and government spending philosophies. But if you look, you will find criticisms of Bill Clinton when he was president and of Congress when it was controlled by Democrats. The focus of all newsgathering tends to be on the party in power.
I feel that the NYT usually reflects my centrist inclinations and rejoice in the astonishing caliber of this moderate and widely read voice.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
25 Responses to “The Other Moderate Voice – New York Times”
What’s funny is that for all the BS that non-NYers say about the Times being too liberal, growing up in NYC, it was damned as being far too pro-business, Republican, and against the working class, which always read the tabloids.
Alot there about being inside and outside the glass house.
The New York Times has its problems, but it is the best source of reported news available.
Naturally, a centrist publication will seem to the left to someone on the right.
I am not sure if Paul intends his final words to be read ironicially or not: “rejoice in the astonishing caliber of this moderate and widely read voice.”
The animus of the NYT for the Bush administration is so profound that it puts to the lie Rosenthal’s words. Just consider one of his Times points of agreement with Bush:
“We believe that terrorism is a dire threat to American national security and American lives.”
From an organization that has repeatedly exposed highly secret and LEGAL surveillance of terrorists, this is incredible.
Yes, LEGAL. I am speaking of the finanical surveillance operation…which Rosenthal’s boss Keller conceded was both LEGAL and EFFECTIVE. Nonetheless, it was exposed. Here are Keller’s words in the NYT June25, 2006:
“The Administration case for holding the story had two parts, roughly speaking: first that the program is good — that it is legal…. And, second, that exposing this program would put its usefulness at risk….we cited considerable evidence that the program helps catch and prosecute financers of terror, and we have not identified any serious abuses of privacy so far.”
Months after the story, the NYT was unable to find a single…not one…legal critic who would go on record as implying that program was illegal. Moreover, Keller concedes it was effective against AQ. Nonetheless, they exposed this secret program on their front page (and got flack for this…hence Keller’s defensive letter in the Times).
This is a paper that agrees the terrorist threat is a danger? Really…. This is “moderate”?
Those on the right do not see a middle. They see “Us” and “Them”. My favorite line from my far right family members and their friends is that “Moderate is just another way of saying you can’t make up your mind.” Its why the GOP is fracturing, why they are turning so many possible allies into enemies, and why the Bush administration can’t come up with any real solutions to complex issues. The world doesn’t work the way conservatives think it does.
One of the dumbest phrases ever uttered from human mouths (not criticizing you Sam). Family members have hit me with that also. I just say:
“Then don’t ask me to make your steak medium-rare at the family BBQ! Bloody or burnt. That’s it!”
That’ll learn ‘em.
What I’m still puzzling over is why moderate Democratic leanings (which were admitted to by the Times) are considered ‘centrist’. If you’re a moderate Democrat, or moderate liberal, or moderate progressive- fine, I have no problem with that (though an icon of journalism should also be able to put aside even an admitted bias).
But there’s an outright admission that the paper leans Democrat, and Paul says this matches his centrist tendencies (which again, if you want to say, center left, that’s your prerogative).
But who made the Democratic party the site of the center of gravity of American politics?
Being anti-this administration is not a posittion confined to flaming liberals. This argument has become so devoid of any real substance, that it realy consists only of repetitive mantras that make sense only to the self-hypnotized.
“why moderate Democratic leanings (which were admitted to by the Times) are considered ‘centrist’”
Just suppose there is a continuum in political leanings, hard as that may be to fathom. The statistically defined ‘exact center’ may actually turn out to be a category empty of members. Likewise, a numerical average may not represent any real enttity.
.
Along the ocntinuum, one could conceive of a ‘centrist’ segment going from moderately left to moderately right.
Or, one could just apply the liberal or progressive tag to everyone and everything not in line with
ultra conservatives.
Or, one could choose other criteraia to define limits and labels.
Then, we could argue ad infinitum about what’s wrong with doing it this way or doing it that way.
“But who made the Democratic party the site of the center of gravity of American politics?”
The Republicans who virtually eliminated from their party the moderate Republicans that I used to vote for and can’t be found in my state any longer. The Republican leadership that decided that people like James Dobson could for all practical purposes vet their nominee for President. The Republicans who hold real power in the party who think that there is no such thing as separation of church and state. The dittoheads who believe anything Rush tells them. Grover Norquist and his followers. Put them all together and they are the ones who moved the party so far to the right that the smaller far left fringe of the Democratic party can’t drag the Democrats as far to the left as the Republicans have moved to the right. And the Republicans who minimize all of those groups and their power in the party are quite possibly the most irritating ones of all.
“Naturally, a centrist publication will seem to the left to someone on the right.”
And naturally, a liberal publication will seem centrist to one who is liberal.
I’m not one of those “us vs them” conservatives, as we seem to always bet stereotyped by “self thinking” liberals. but i have noticed a lot of people call themselves centrists when they are more clearly on the left. i don’t blame them. i used to think i was a centrist, until i payed closer attention to what conservatives are realling saying.
“The Republicans who virtually eliminated from their party the moderate Republicans that I used to vote for and can’t be found in my state any longer.”
The irony is, the same can be said of the Democrats, though with greater force. When was the last time a pro-life democrat spoke at a national convention? why did Lieberman have to run as an independent? to be fair, you have blue dog Democrats, but with the Deans, Pelosis, and Clintons of the world, i fear they are a dying breed.
Marlowe: ‘From an organization that has repeatedly exposed highly secret and LEGAL surveillance of terrorists, this is incredible.’
Legal by the standards of a bunch of cowards who pushed thru the Patriot Act nonsense, which most now see as going way too far.
Wd a paper be wrong for exposing segregation, even though Jim Crow was legal at the time?
Silly defense, to use legality, which is often unethical.
‘When was the last time a pro-life democrat spoke at a national convention?’
Anti-abortionism is not a centrist viewpoint. When was the last time the Dems allowed an active Klansman a slot at the Convention dais?
I think it useful to frame this discussion in the context of the times………..a 5 year war that has been executed poorly and a CiC, whose 25 year old daughter is now vastly more articulate than he.
The true “national average” of sentiment has been jerked, not so much in my view to a permanent socially and fiscally non-conservative ideology as much as to an “anti-incumbent-powers” mindset.
Get rid of Bush and Iraq and retake your poll on where the “center-view” of the US population resides relative to the op-ed page of the NYT and post your findings here.
Exactly, CO. And what sheepdog said too.
I think some people will be surprised when the dust settles, to learn that their moderate Democrat positions ultimately are not the centerpoint- that the center has a right side as well but many people who reside there are just as fed up with Bush as everyone else is. That’s a temporary phenomenon, not a true shift in how people view the issues.
Liberals, even though they call themselves and their politically-slanted news sources “moderate” [sic].
I agree with the following:
“I think some people will be surprised when the dust settles,:
I think more people will be surprised than they imagine. I think most people’s idea of fiscal conservatism as a centrist view does not embrace brutal adhererence to one party’s uncomprising ‘principles’ at the cost of punishing large sectors of our society.
I think what most people miss is the era when one party pushed in one derection and the other pushed in the other, but it was commonly assumed that a compromise would be reached and it would never come down to all-or-nothing positions.
There was a time, when the result of political debates could be relied on to be one of degree, not of complete upheaval That’s the centrist view most people long to return to. They want to revivify the unity feeling of the past, that one could disagree with others passionately but could still accept living in the same country with them/ They long for the reincarnation of the principles of tolerance that applied to different political views, economic and world views. No one felt threatned by the prospect of total exclusion.if the ‘other’ paty was in the majority.
Now many do feel threatened by extreme, exlusionary political positions that cares only about theories and ideologies and nothing about those fellow citizens who are not like them.
Of course sheepdog is wrong, CS. And so are you. It is completely untrue that the Democrats have eliminated moderates. Being anti-choice is not a moderate position. It is a very conservative position. It is far more true to say that the pro-choice Republicans are sidelined.
Some will point to Giuliani as proof that I am wrong. I say we’ll discuss him if he actually gets the nomination and the religious conservatives don’t abandon the party in droves. What is said now in 2007 and what is said where it counts by votes can be two very different things. Some will point at Schwarzenneger and my response is to notice how his fellow California Republicans attacked him and his postions after his speech at a recent gathering.
Then there is health care. Most people outside of ideologue Republican circles realize that many things are broken and the markets aren’t about to fix them. Appealing to keeping the exact same system we have while just subsidizing some people’s ability to pay the insurance companies isn’t going to help our country or those individuals at all. It’ll be great for the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies though.
Jim,
And the Democrats don’t have ideologues from the far left who want to punish their moderates? Ever heard of the Bush dog campaign?
The push for purity is alive and well in both parties.
And on issues like abortion, sorry, but I don’t subscribe to the definitions according to Jim Satterfield for whether or not a position is moderate. I assume on abortion you’re talking about polling data, but some of that is often misread (because of the way the questions are posed) and more importantly, I’m not talking about how the public polls on any given issue. There is an abstract center point on ideology, when you apply a philosophy to any particular issue. For abortion, neither pure ‘prochoice’ or pure ‘prolife’ represents that ideological center, obviously. Some compromise position which would allow states (or the federal govt if a constitutional amendment were sought) to limit access to the procedure of abortion based on some acknowledgement of right to life for an unborn human at some stage of gestation. We could quibble on where that line would be drawn to make it a dead center position, but that most certainly defines a ‘moderate’ or compromise view better than your assertion that assigning any right to life is automatically a very conservative position.
Jim,
And the Democrats don’t have ideologues from the far left who want to punish their moderates? Ever heard of the Bush dog campaign?
The push for purity is alive and well in both parties.
And on issues like abortion, sorry, but I don’t subscribe to the definitions according to Jim Satterfield for whether or not a position is moderate. I assume on abortion you’re talking about polling data, but some of that is often misread (because of the way the questions are posed) and more importantly, I’m not talking about how the public polls on any given issue. There is an abstract center point on ideology, when you apply a philosophy to any particular issue. For abortion, neither pure ‘prochoice’ or pure ‘prolife’ represents that ideological center, obviously. Some compromise position which would allow states (or the federal govt if a constitutional amendment were sought) to limit access to the procedure of abortion based on some acknowledgement of right to life for an unborn human at some stage of gestation. We could quibble on where that line would be drawn to make it a dead center position, but that most certainly defines a ‘moderate’ or compromise view better than your assertion that assigning any right to life is automatically a very conservative position.
CS,
The ideologues exist in the Democratic party. But they run the Republican party. Here is the official Republican Party Platform statement on abortion.
How many Republicans who run the party and determine its future path have to endorse this? How long has it been in the platform? And here’s a classic, part of the actual text of Roe V. Wade.
In other words, a properly crafted law that did not attempt to overreach in the name of being “pro-life” should be perfectly capable of being moderate and limiting access to abortion in accordance with the court’s decision. But that isn’t what the Republican party has endorsed, is it? So no, I do not consider the position of the people running the Republican party to be moderate on this issue. And neither does anyone else outside of the anti-choice camp.
Jim,
I didn’t say that the Republican party is centered on the centrist position on abortion. You give the platform recitation as evidence that there’s no room for people who aren’t strictly pro-life in the GOP? Well, let’s look at the Democratic platform, and how it’s ‘progressed’ over the past few years:
http://www.nysrighttolife.org/news/07222004/Democratic%20Party%20Platform%20Would%20Continue%20to%20Back%20Unlimited%20Abortion.htm
And you named Giuliani as though he were some kind of outlier- but I can also name Christie Todd Whitman, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mary Bono, Michael Castle and Chris Shays (and there are others currently in office, as well as some who lost their seats like Lincoln Chaffee).
I imagine some or all of them aren’t happy with the current GOP platform statement on this issue, and there are groups pushing for it to be changed to be more inclusive. However, on the Dem side, obviously those who wanted the platform to be inclusive of the pro-life side have lost out to those who decided to strike the inclusive language for the ’04 platform.
And who on the Dem side has the courage to differ with the NARAL position- other than offering meaningless sayings like “abortion should be legal but rare”? Harry Reid is the only prolife Dem I can think of. If there are others, feel free to inform me.
Oh, and Jim, you don’t have to take my word for it that the Dems aren’t very tolerant of prolifers in their party. Here’re some links to the words of the prolife Dems themselves, expressing their frustration at the way they’re increasingly being shut out of the party:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0406&article=040651
and this one (yes, it’s from a conservative publication but written by Kristin Day, the ED of Democrats for Life):
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/day200412020833.asp
CS,
I said that no one in the Republican party who has any real influence and power had anything but anti-choice views. Your list only proves my point. Everyone you listed are technically Republicans, but in reality are treated like pariahs and constantly have the rest of the party trying to replace them with more orthodox candidates. They are not accepted by the rest of the party and respected for their principles. And it’s also interesting that the articles you cite both go back to 2004. In case you haven’t noticed I was correct about my comments about Schwarzenneger in fact not being popular with the other Republicans in California. You say that you imagine that they aren’t happy with the party platform. Why do you have to imagine? Because these token moderates keep very, very quiet on the issue. It’s the only way they survive in the party. By not standing up for what they believe. So I think that the parties are pretty equal in that regard, don’t you?
Jim,
I’m not the one who was arguing that the parties aren’t equal in that regard. It seemed that you started out this discussion saying that the GOP is intolerant of dissenters (using the platform as evidence) and I responded by saying yes, the platform position isn’t a centrist one but there are a fair number of Republicans (in office and out) who dissent- and I don’t agree that they’re being treated as pariahs. There is the usual push for ideological purity on this and other issues, but these folks are not being asked to change their position in order to run as Republicans.
I think the numbers of Dems who can comfortably run as prolifers is diminishing and the number of Republicans who can run as prochoice is increasing. I see the people who are in the minority of each party complaining about different things; on the GOP side, the complaint is that the platform isn’t inclusive but those who disagree still have a place at the table, at least when it comes to representing more moderate districts. It’s on the Democratic side that I see people saying that the platform is becoming more restrictive and that litmus tests are being applied to keep individuals from expressing views that differ from the platform.