Sunday’s New York Times front-page mildness on the subject of the Ultimate Fate of Our Democracy is beyond disheartening for many reasons. Trump continues to lead an assault on democracy, with election deniers about to win important statewide positions that will adversely impact the 2024 Presidential election, while the fourth estate tries to be fair to “both-sides” of the argument between those that believe in democratic norms and those that would side with an authoritarian form of government.
The story was written by Jonathan Weisman, who draws especially sharp criticism from Dan Froomkin of Press Watch:
As usual, when a story is this skewed, this grotesque, I can’t just blame the author.
Assigning Weisman to write this story was, in itself, an extraordinary act of cynicism on the part of New York Times editors.
Weissman is not one of those reporters who can be accused of having a “view from nowhere” – the alleged detachment that journalists claim when refusing to take sides on a political issue. Rather, he has a long and well-documented track record of toxicity toward Democrats and minorities. He consistently makes elitist, clueless and simply wrong assumptions. And he is perhaps the most pompous writer at the Times, which is saying a lot.
The Times has done some strong reporting on the real, justified fears of a slide into authoritarianism. But, as I wrote in June, the “Democracy Team” is outnumbered and outgunned by the likes of Weisman, who make up Team Impunity.
In a similar vein: Is this the end of democratic debates? As local newspapers evaporate and news desertification expands its reach, debates are, increasingly, the most important way that late-deciding voters draw the necessary distinctions between the candidates in order to make their decision. Debates are a hallmark of the democratic process. And they too, alas, are in decline. “Earlier this month, the Brookings Institution found that only seven debates had been scheduled in the country’s five most competitive US Senate races to that point, down from seventeen in 2010; last week, the New York Times reported that nine competitive races for Senate and governor would feature just one debate each,” writes Jon Allsop in CJR.
Despite all we have learned from the January 6 Committee, despite at least four high-profile legal inquiries, the former President is the establishment front runner for 2024. What if Trump is the Republican candidate for the Presidency? “That will be a journalism emergency from word one,” Tweets Jay Rosen. “And a civic disaster,” he concludes.
Can journalism help America escape from this sense of impending civic doom? The candidates are, more often than not, avoiding the mainstream media — and its norms — altogether. I grow more and more skeptical as the days pass that the media is capable of providing a civic education to citizens that counteracts the proliferation of misleading ads, the sulfurous grievance culture, the election-deniers, the emboldened bigots …
I could go on.
“Polls suggest that the economy and crime are among the most important issues for voters in the midterms — and that, as a result, Republicans are surging in the home stretch,” writes Max Boot in The Washington Post. “I think a lot of voters are missing the point. These elections are actually a referendum on whether you favor the continuation of democracy in America — and Ukraine.”
But would The Fate of Democracy be a third-tier issue in polling (at best) if Community College were free? If citizens could spend time studying the Constitution with Professors, and question the Founding Fathers in the Classroom, would we be in such a civic mess?
This is why I have always supported a national free community college program. Twelve years of free education, which has led us to this point in time, is clearly not enough. It is not nearly enough to ward off viruses like Trumpist authoritarianism. President Biden, to his credit, has always touted the importance of free community college as key to our civic health and economic competitiveness in the 21st century and beyond. Unfortunately, free community college didn’t make it into the Build Back Better plan. That having been said, more than two-thirds of Americans support free community college. We are obviously not going to get it through this Congress or Presidency, but it is still something to shoot for in the long haul.
That is, of course, if we are still a democracy after 2024. Good times!
via Matt Navarra
Was the Saudi -led OPEC cartel’s announcement earlier this month of cutting two billion barrels a day made out of raw of self-interest? Or was it an alignment with Putin’s Russia? Or was it something else altogether?
I honestly don’t know, but Ken Klippenstein’s post on The Intercept has been running though my mind for a week, particularly this ominous quote:
“The Saudis are well aware that the price of gasoline at the pump has been a crucial political issue in the United States since 1973,” Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told The Intercept in an email. “They want a big increase to help the Republicans,” he added, explaining that MBS sees the GOP winning back Congress as the “first step to Trump winning in 2024 and a setback for Biden.”
This is all still speculative at this point. Still, the WSJ confirms, however, that MSB “mocks” Biden in private. If it is indeed true, it would be a further sign of democratic rot, that Russia (in 2016), and now Saudi Arabia are outright unafraid of the consequences of interfering in the US electoral process.
“There may be nuclear bombshells buried in the tapes that have been held back from the selective leaks, which have been interesting but basically just reaffirming of everything we already know about Trump’s mobster mentality.” (TNR)
David Remnick’s Unified Theory of Bob Dylan. (TNY)
—CAA cuts ties with Ye as calls for a Hollywood boycott grow. (THR)
— Herschel Walker was king of Georgia, before he tried to be its Senator. (Vox)
— Hollywood reflects on MeToo impact as new trial begins. (BBC)