The New York Times is one of the most effective tools for limiting discussion in the U.S. political system. Falsely perceived as a left-leaning outlet, it has the power to make the most reasonable proposals seem ultra-radical by placing them beyond the pale.
Take yesterday’s review by Times book critic Michiko Kakutani (1/19/10) of progressive economist Joseph Stiglitz’s Freefall: America, Free Markets and the Sinking of the World Economy. Kakutani says Stiglitz’s accurate prediction of the financial crisis ” lends credibility to his trenchant analysis of the causes of the fiscal meltdown,” though at the same time she accuses him of “an I-told-you-so sanctimoniousness about both the recession and Washingtonâ┚¬Ã¢”ž¢s response.”
It’s when it comes to policy proposals, however, that Kakutani really has problems with the book: “Some of the suggestions that Mr. Stiglitz makes in these pages for reconfiguring the American economy (and American society) stray far from the realm of practical policy recommendations that actually have a chance of winning broad public support or being enacted by Congress.” What are these way-out ideas? Well, for one thing, he suggests that “a ‘redistribution of income’ and more progressive taxation might help stabilize the economy.” He also calls for “a new global reserve system” and criticizes America’s “unrelenting pursuit of profits.” Concludes Kakutani:
Such remarks not only give ammunition to conservative critics who want to dismiss Mr. Stiglitz as a European-style liberal, but they also have the unfortunate effect of diverting the reader’s attention from the many shrewd assessments that he makes in Freefall about the causes and consequences of the great financial meltdown of 2008.
In other words, proposals like progressive taxation should be avoided because people might call you a liberal. This from the daily news outlet that was named by journalists most often when asked to name one that was “especially liberal.”
For the record, taxing the rich is not an idea that has “a chance of winning broad public support”–it already has broad public support.
In Oregon, we have a current election that addresses the issue; should we assess a higher tax on corporations and wealthy individuals to make up for shortfalls in education and social services. Big money is throwing millions of dollars into an advertising campaign to defeat the measure. Why is it that so many Americns are gullible enuf to buy the advertising of those who wish to continue robbing the common man? Is there no way to generate wide public support for financial justice in this country? – George Beres, Eugene, Oregon
Another example of how right-wing ideology leads to illogical thinking. 1) Stiglitz should be praised for explaining how the present crisis occurred. 2) Stiglitz should be criticized for using this analysis for detailing how it might be ended or at least ameliorated. Logical conclusion: honest analysis by itself is good but bad when used to correct a situation.
NYT has been a center-right paper forever. It has always been peace movement denier. It has always been an establishment supporter, no matter where the establishment stands. None of the big papers are worth a mouthful of spit.
We have totally lost the Class War. Things will only get worse until it gets so bad that violence erupts. The arrogance of the establishment will be their undoing. I shudder to think how many babies yet unborn will pay horribly for these fascists’ wet dreams of world domination.
We can still save our country, but we won’t be able to do it by sitting on our butts in front of a TV or computer. We will have to get active, get organized and take to the streets.
“You know when you’ve been Kakutanied” is a refrain often heard from book authors, and it seems as though Michiko has done it again. This isn’t the first time that she’s dipped her pen in evil ink and it won’t be the last, so just laugh at her assessment of any book. Don’t get mad…just laugh at her pathetic grab at attention.
As for the New York Times, it’s no more left-wing than my right shoe. Good luck with their future attempts to charge us for online content. How well did that go the last time?