Stop acting like you think your beliefs are true, the New York Times advises liberals.
“Are Liberals Helping Trump?” asks the New York Times national correspondent Sabrina Tavernise (2/18/17). She seems to think they are.
“Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina [who] voted reluctantly for Donald Trump…should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice,” she writes—because “some things are making him feel uncomfortable” about Trump (e.g., the Muslim ban, Russia). But “every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate—either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles—he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority.”
Medford is emblematic, Tavernise argues, of conservative voters turned off by “a kind of moral Bolshevism—the belief that the liberal vision for the country was the only right one.” Writes Tavernise:
Liberals may feel energized by a surge in political activism, and a unified stance against a president they see as irresponsible and even dangerous. But that momentum is provoking an equal and opposite reaction on the right.
Tavernise references one Trump supporter who “has deleted all her news feeds on Facebook and…tries to watch less TV.” Withdrawing from current events may be an opposite reaction from your typical Trump opponent, but it’s certainly not equal.
The Times reporter argues:
If political action is meant to persuade people that Mr. Trump is bad for the country, then people on the fence would seem a logical place to start. Yet many seemingly persuadable conservatives say that liberals are burning bridges rather than building them.
The article mostly talks to Trump supporters; it’s another entry in the Trump-supporters-support-Trump genre, with the twist that the supporters blame opponents for the fact that they still support Trump. Tavernise does cite some polling data well into the article, noting that Trump “has high marks among moderates who lean Republican: 70 percent approve, while 20 percent disapprove.”
But she refrains from taking a broader look at polling, which is probably wise, because doing so totally undermines her argument. Here’s Gallup’s daily tracking poll for Trump’s job approval since the inauguration:
Source: Gallup Poll
Trump started out as the least popular new president in the history of polling, and since then he’s become more unpopular still, with disapproval rising 10 percentage points and approval falling 5 points. That’s approximately 25 million US adults who have started disapproving of Trump’s month-old presidency, and about 12 million who have stopped supporting it.
It’s possible that without Trump’s critics’ “moral Bolshevism,” even more people would have joined the opposition. But if liberals are helping Trump, they’re obviously not helping him very much.
Jim Naureckas is the editor of FAIR.org. You can find him on Twitter at @JNaureckas.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com, or write to public editor Liz Spayd at public@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes or @SpaydL). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Not to defend the New York Times, but this is from the bogus “Sunday Review Section” of the Sunday paper.
No one treats that as serious analysis, and frequently Times writers, including long time reporters, are simply allowed to lie about established facts in that section.
Put differently, massive problems are to be expected from that garbage section of the Sunday NY Times.
Is it a problem for the Times? Absolutely. Should people object? Yes. Is any of this new? No. Will the Times bother to fix this? Unlikely.
The Sunday Times is the paper for those who like to claim they read the NY Times, but don’t.
The idea that Liberals are arrogant and pushy is simply bizarre.
Go to almost any discussion board or Internet forum and if you
can catch it before the war starts just look how the discussion
goes. A few within average comments by Liberals, or if the
Conservatives start the insults, and provocations will begin
immediately.
There is a war against Liberals, justice, fairness, the environment
being placed virtually before our eyes. I don’t know if it is true,
but it is like a machine, any mention of anything political gets
far right-wing thugs descending immediately to kill the discussion.
Personally, I think either these people are mental, or they are
some kind of AI fakery, like they use AI to write news articles
now, or stories … they can use AI to run fake social network
accounts, and then talk back and forth to each other to make
it seem like there are more raucous Republicans than there
really are.
For example, Trump is the least popular President at every
stage or this Presidency, and yet one would think from the
number of people commenting and supporting him he was
actually popular.
There is a war going on for our minds and hearts, and it is
being won by technology owned and controlled by the
capitalists, who for the most part are Conservatives and
right wing.
I’ve rather wondered this myself at times. I’ve noticed that even non-political discussions will eventually, if controversial enough, result in someone coming in to complain about “liberals”. I can’t recall any discussion where someone would come in at random to bemoan “conservatives”.
The writer of the Times article appears to relay on a sample of three trump supporters – hardly any sort of representative sample. The balance of the article relies on hypothetical analyses by so-called experts. The three voters are misused and the experts are hypothetically misrepresented ar at least allow themselves to be.
I’m having a hard time sussing how anyone who supports Citizen KKKane, given all he’s said and done, could in any way, shape, manner or form be deemed a “moderate”
And why “moderates” would need anyone to “persuade” them to not do so.
Of course they did. And it’s articles like this that keep fanning the flames. To look smarter? To win a debate? To find a week spot? The article is true to the core. You people made the Democrats lose. I was one until I decide I wanted to have my own thoughts. Freedom to live how I choose without being judged. What the Dems used to represent. Now it’s marches, riots, bullying, and lying for money. I feel like Democrats have the same mentality as teenagers. Not sit by a girl at a fashion show then brag about her being alone?!!!! I’m out! P.s. I thought we were making progress with the NYT article then this. Why does your mother not slap the shit out of you?
Of course they did. And it’s articles like this that keep fanning the flames. To look smarter? To win a debate? To find a week spot? The article is true to the core. You people made the Democrats lose. I was one until I decide I wanted to have my own thoughts. Freedom to live how I choose. What the Dems used to represent. Now it’s marches, riots, bullying, and lying for money. I feel like Democrats have the same mentality as teenagers. Not sit by a girl at a fashion show then brag about her being alone? I’m out! P.s. I thought we were making progress with the NYT article then this. Why does your mother not slap the shit out of you?
Marcie:
“Now it’s marches, riots, bullying, and lying for money.”
What’s wrong with marches?
Do you think that say Trump doesn’t lie for money? Did Trump supporters not bully anyone?
“You people made the Democrats lose.” I’m not sure at whom this is directed?
I have yet to see any salient difference between Trump and his predecessors. Except it be Trump is preferable. The Muslim ban is execrable. But compared with Obama leveling Libya, attacking Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, in short taking the reins of The Project for the New American Century from Bush before him, is relatively innocuous. And which leaves room for we who oppose such a ban room to as FDR might have instructed, make me do the right thing. Trump has the temerity to drop a truth bomb every once and a while. Which would never have happened with Clinton in 4 or 8 years. With her it would have been thorough political expediency and the military imperium full speed ahead. The deep state is trying to depose Trump in a soft coup so the arms manufacturers have their Russia quasi-super power to cash weapons checks against. It’s the Rachel Maddow Dims leading the charge, under the banner of CIA fake news, risking nuclear war with Russia. Trump wants to play nice with Russia. I asked Senator Phil Gramm 30 years ago to do that at a town hall meeting and he barked at me. Set aside the ulterior motive for a moment. I would suggest that if anyone were interested in the reason why the Dims oppose Trump on principle to inquire of them why, except that there simply isn’t a reasonable answer for it. In the same way the Dims would have rather lost with Clinton in 2016 than won with Sanders, they’d rather have nuclear war with Russia than support those initiatives of Trump’s worth supporting. A conundrum for Aesop. The president wants peace and talks with Russia, but the party of the people refuses.
I can’t believe anyone any more—-and where is the democratic republic in that?
Things I’d like to know:
If the Hillary never had a secure blackberry when she was Secty of State for 4 years—-how many 16 year olds from Macedonia and beyond— hacked her?
If the Clapper NSA person said he lied to Congress and no one did anything, including Congress, who does the NSA work for?
If America is warring in at least 7 other nations, who did not attack us…WHY are we doing that?
If the army lost millions of dollars in Iraq–why are we stilll giving them money if they can’t explain where the missing money went?
If Congress has not declared war—-what do we call bombing all those civilian people? Target practice?
If the spy people say they knew Russia was affecting the election—–why didn’t they say anything? Why did the AP declare Hillary won before many states had voted in the primary? Isn’t this like Hearst telling America ‘To remember the Maine?” Isn’t that FAKE news?
WHY are Russia and China supposed to be so awful, but its America and France and Israel and England and Saudi Arabia who are bombing the nations?
The Donald and the “pussy:” speak is horrible, but, why is it so wonderful for that SNL guy to play Trump? Have you ave you ever heard that Baldwin guy’s screaming at his pre=teen daughter about the same number of years ago?
It’s on TMZ….so why does NBC celebrate 2 guys that have the same anger management issues? The Baldwin man goes on forever screamimg at his little girl…..why is his insanity o.k.? it’s worse than the Donald’s. : (
Are the ICE prisons private or government, because that MONEY makes a big difference in reasoning.
If corporations are people, why can they donate more political money than a Human person? Isn’t the fact that corPorations do not die in any human way—–doesn’t that make corporations NOT humans?
If Congress can now keep all of its communications private, do we still have a functioniing republic?
WHY are dead civilians called insurgents?
If Muslim women can’t wear their religious head pieces, can orthodox Jewish men wear their hats?
Has there ever been ONE treaty that America kept with the Native Americans?
If the OGLALA aquifer is negatively impacted—will America have to buy its water from Nestle?
WHY is a wall o,k. for Palestine, but screamed about for Mexico? I actually think ALL walls are awful and dehumanizing though. Wasn’t the Berlin Wall a good enoough example of awfulness?
I WONDER about wars—in the ancient past, Kings and royals went to war…If Congress refuses to declare war, and we are attacking nations—- isn’t that war?
I would like any war to require the Congress people who voted for war to actually be more than boots on the ground; I think Ass on the Line would be more productive for Peace. Vote for war? Go to War and you can take your family too. Perhaps PEACE efforts would be more thoughtful.
Can WONDERING ever bring acton? How many wonderers does it take to make the”machiine’ work for humanity?
This piece of course begs the question, What is a liberal? So let me help. A liberal is someone who views him- or herself as an individual, not as a member of an exploited class, and because of that is stuck in viewing the world from the same bourgeois framework of thinking as conservatives. Being generally better educated and better paid than most truck drivers and coal miners (but not plumbers), the liberal does not see himself as a member of the working class even though he/she does not own or control the means of production. Their appeals to society and the distribution of wealth are moralistic. in the end they come across as condescending because they think they know more than everyone else. Ultimately, a liberal is someone who has full faith in capitalism, albeit regulated capitalism. After all capitalism is the worst system possible but the only possible system–right?