For the New York Times (4/16/19), “mainstream Democrats” are found “from canapé-filled fund-raisers on the coasts to the cloakrooms of Washington.”
Why does the New York Times take rich liberals at their word that their concern with Bernie Sanders is that he would lose to Trump, rather than the obvious, glaring fact that his election would run counter to their interests?
The New York Times (4/16/19) profiled a network of “wealthy liberal donors” who, shockingly, are not fans of Bernie Sanders, who according to the same report has rejected their big-bundler funding and instead opted for small donations. (The Times reported the same day that 84 percent of Sanders’ donations are less than $200; by contrast, only 37 percent of Kamala Harris’ donations are.)
That a network of multi-millionaire and billionaire donors would dislike a candidate who not only rejects their funding, but is actively trying to tax them at rates not seen since 1960, would surely be enough reason to explain why these wealthy elites would want to “stop” his nomination. But not to the credulous New York Times, which takes at face value rich donors’ claim to oppose Sanders because they believe he simply can’t defeat Trump:
Mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried that their effort to defeat President Trump in 2020 could be complicated by Mr. Sanders….
“Some in the party still harbor anger over the 2016 race, when he ran against Hillary Clinton, and his ongoing resistance to becoming a Democrat. But his critics are chiefly motivated by a fear that nominating an avowed socialist would all but ensure Mr. Trump a second term.”
For the wealthy, ideology simply doesn’t exist. No, they’re just Very Concerned about fielding the Best Candidate.
Because it would be unseemly to suggest a group of super-rich hedge fund managers, Hollywood producers and CEOs would dislike a candidate who has made a career out of promising to expropriate the bulk of their wealth, we get a faux pragmatism argument. But polls show Sanders defeating Trump with numbers comparable to any other declared candidate—a fact the New York Times never bothers to mention, letting the idea go unchallenged that “socialist” (!!) Sanders is an electoral liability. The simpler, less altruistic motive is simply never entertained.
It’s a variation on the Inexplicable Republican Best Friend trope FAIR previously documented (2/26/19): Instead of assuming that lifelong conservatives may just prefer more conservative politicians, progressive-bashing GOP pundits are propped up as neutral observers simply looking out for the Democratic Party. Just the same, super-wealthy Democratic donors can’t oppose Sanders because they simply prefer more centrist, pro-Wall Street candidates; they must have a sincere, pragmatic concern he would lose the general election.
Throughout the article, the Times’ Jonathan Martin bizarrely used “mainstream Democrats” and “Democrats” to refer to what is little more than a clique of wealthy donors. “Mainstream Democrats are increasingly worried” he tells us. “Stopping Mr. Sanders,” he added, “or at least preventing a contentious convention, could prove difficult for Democrats.”
But why would “Democrats” want to “stop Mr. Sanders”? Sanders has a 78 percent favorability rating among Democrats and leads every poll among declared candidates. Martin is, of course, not talking about “Democrats” or “mainstream Democrats”; he’s talking about rich donors. But because it would be vulgar to mention their obvious class interests, they morph into simply “Democrats” without explanation.
Oddly, the New York Times article about the “stop Sanders” movement has three photos, none of which show anyone from the Stop Sanders movement. This is Rufus Gifford’s Twitter image.
The idea that the interests of millionaire film producer Rufus Gifford—who’s heavily quoted in the article as a stand-in for “Democrats”—would run counter to those of the average voter is glossed over entirely. Why would guy who made Daddy Day Care and Doctor Dolittle 2 be given a voice by the Times instead of, say, literally any random person picked off the street?
Martin then advances the curious construction that super-wealthy donors blatantly conspiring to prevent Sanders from winning the nomination––and even resorting to undemocratic superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention to do so—“plays into the hands” of Sanders:
Mr. Gifford, who has gone public in recent days with his dismay over major Democratic fundraisers remaining on the sidelines, said of Mr. Sanders, “I feel like everything we are doing is playing into his hands.”
But doing out in the open the thing Sanders says Democrats do isn’t “playing into his hands”; it’s true that it affirms his core ideological proposition, that the wealthy have too much political power, but what it mainly is is the wealthy using that power against him.
A similar gambit is used when liberal publications hand-wring that Trump and Rubio openly threatening and planning to invade Venezuela “plays into Maduro’s hands,” and that’s why it’s bad. In fact, it’s bad because the things being discussed, invasion and coup-mongering, are bad things—and they’re not “playing into Maduro’s hands,” they’re actual threats to the sovereignty and lives of those in Venezuela.
Trying to distract attention from the sinister thing happening before everyone’s eyes by commenting that it has some meta, second-order effect of increasing left-wing paranoia is an attempt to smear the left for correctly calling the sky blue.
Rich donor broker and Clinton-hatchet man David Brock, in the very last line of the article, attempts this sleight-of-hand again:
“You can see him reading the headlines now,” Mr. Brock mused: “‘Rich people don’t like me.’”
Simply drawing attention to the fact that a bunch of wealthy donors affirms Sanders primary argument for running doesn’t make it go away. It’s a writer’s trick, and one the New York Times passes off without criticism: LOL Isn’t it ironic we’re doing that bad, evil thing Sanders says rich donors do?
Wait, what? No, it’s just bad, in and of itself. The piece is openly floating a conspiracy of wealthy donors seeking to undermine a democratic process, then laughing it off something that could be mistaken for the actual bad thing it is. Meanwhile, the self-evident fact that rich donors dislike Sanders because he runs counter to their interests is ignored in favor of a child-like fantasy that they oppose him simply because they’re looking out for the best interests of the party.
To the Times, the rich have no ideology, no beliefs, no self interest; this is reserved instead for Sanders “embolden[ed],” “fervent supporters,” whose desire to defeat Trump is presented as at best incidental.
You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com (Twitter:@NYTimes). Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.
Featured image: New York Times photograph of Bernie Sanders’ “fervent supporters.” (photo: Lauren Justice)
I prefer to say that they are UNPATRIOTIC for being unwilling to pay their fair share of taxes.
Rich liberal, whose ideology is not to being liberal, but “above all else” maintain their richness. Looks like “2020 game of thrones” its shaping up to be another bloody sleaze-fest.
Thanks Adam. Fair is as fair does. I’m writing a letter to the Times.
The biggest and most disgusting “oversight” in the NYT article was failing to mention (how could they fail to mention this?) that David Brock, who opined at length about the dangers posed by Sanders, in 2016 ran Clinton’s SuperPAC to attack Sanders! The dude is clearly just angling for a job, and the Times kindly published his application for him.
Excellent points. Though what is the solution? Can we ever expect the NYT to take a different stance? That is to say, won’t every publication necessarily align with the interests of some class or another in a class-based society? We should not succumb to the myth of “objective journalism” free from ideology — it is impossible to speak or write from a position entirely outside of ideology.
It’s not impossible at all. Good journalists do it every day.
I no longer read/watch CNN stories, FOX stories and now the NYT with all their DNC/RNC conspiracies designed to obstruct and distract. Birtherism… WMDs… Benghazi… Russia-Russia-Russia etc… are all REPEATED for a purpose.
Question “news” that is reported over and over and over. That’s not news, that is propaganda of, by and for the rich.
Good piece. Johnson asks: “But why would “Democrats” want to “stop Mr. Sanders”? Sanders has a 78 percent favorability rating among Democrats and leads every poll among declared candidates. Martin is, of course, not talking about “Democrats” or “mainstream Democrats”; he’s talking about rich donors.”
Of course, this is classic New York Times, which consistently speaks of the interests and viewpoints of the elite AS IF they are the interests and viewpoints of the people, consistently ignoring public opinion polls the contradict this. This is an echo of the Times’ penchant for calling struggles against US imperialism in “developing nations” “civil wars” –going all the way back to Vietnam.
Indeed, NYT is a mouthpiece of bourgeois imperialism. If only readers could realize that.
You are helping with your statement, Karl. The NYTimes is indeed a pillar of high society which would be foolish to ignore the growth of its own democratic socialist footing. It is an organic root that must be taken very seriously, because to dissuade the populus from holding to a groundswell of positive change is to pour Round-up on its own foundation. The upwellings of a change in political opinion run wide and deep. Now is not the time to attack these foundations but to nurture their solidarity. Bernie is as committed to strength as is Joe Biden. The rich have nothing to fear if the Democrats win. They can afford to pay their tax, and to schmooze with the socialists as well. The USA, and the Times, will be much stronger for their willingness to appropriate these new tenets. They are borne on the wings of hope for the future, not on the crumbling of imperialist foundations.
Sadly, the New York Times, becomes the New York Crimes—–against the People. Perhaps the NY Crimes could do a piece on where to find Freedom of the Press and of Speech in America.
Exactly right. Particularly like the “2nd Order” stuff wherein the rhetorical strategy is to layer thought in such an opaque way as to confuse the reader — “if the reader is confused, then s/he will assume the writer is amazingly insightful” — nope, it’s just a scam to get people to doubt Bernie can win. Fact is, Bernie is going to win. Let’s everyone take names on the naysayers and manipulators. They’ll turncoat at the end to try to curry favor with Sanders once they realize he’s going to win.
“It’s a variation on the Inexplicable Republican Best Friend trope FAIR previously documented (2/26/19)”
You may attribute it to FAIR, but I first heard it on Citations Needed.
Now I know why Chomsky ground his teeth every morning opening up and reading the Times.
Just another antiSanders Hatchet job from the NY Times.
Like in WWE, the Times has a tag team ready to hit Sanders over the head with a chair and baseball bat and do whatever else it takes to keep him from getting the nomination.
And the Washington Post is no better. They have also already printed a bunch of anti-Sanders pieces (just as they did in 2016.) Surprise! Jeff Bezos despises Sanders.
It’s bad enough that these yellow rags masquerading as news organizations acted as cheerleaders for the invasion and destruction of Iraq based on lies, but they also “preselect” whom Democrats can nominate for President.
I don’t believe a word they print. They are nothing more than propaganda organizations.
No self respecting journalist would work for them.