In its endorsement of Hillary, the New York Times editorial board did such a sloppy job I can’t help but think it may have done permanent damage to its brand. Upon reading it, my initial conclusion was that the editorial board was either suffering from Stockholm syndrome or merely concerned about losing advertising revenues should they endorse Sanders. Then I thought some more and I realized my initial conclusions were wrong. Something else is going on here, something far more subtle, subconscious and illuminating. The New York Times is defending the establishment candidate simply because the New York Times is the establishment.
One of the biggest trends of the post financial crisis period has been a plunge in the American public’s perception of the country’s powerful institutions. The establishment often admits this reality with a mixture of bewilderment and erroneous conclusions, ultimately settling on the idea people are upset because “Washington can’t get anything done.” However, nothing could be further from the truth. When it comes to corruption and serving big monied interests, both Congress and the President are very, very good at getting things done. Yes it’s true Congress doesn’t get anything done on behalf of the people, but this is no accident. The government doesn’t work for the people.
With its dishonest and shifty endorsement of Hillary Clinton, I believe the New York Times has finally come out of the closet as an unabashed gatekeeper of the status quo. I suppose this makes sense since the paper has become the ultimate status quo journalistic publication. The sad truth is the publication has been living on borrowed time and a borrowed reputation for a long time. Long on prestige, it remains very short on substance when it comes to fighting difficult battles in the public interest. Content with its position of power and influence within the current paradigm, the paper doesn’t want to rock the boat. What the New York Times is actually telling its readers with the Hillary Clinton endorsement is that it likes things just the way they are, and will fight hard to keep them that way. It is as much a part of the American establishment as any government institution.
This might be it. The moment that finally drives home the point regarding how incredibly low the Clintons, and the establishment that supports them, are willing to go to win the Presidency.
We’ve all seen Hillary’s shadiness on display time and time again throughout the campaign, but one thing that hasn’t been said enough is that with the Clintons, you don’t just get the Clintons. You end up electing a cadre of some of the most villainous and corrupt corporate criminals, manipulators and unethical political mercenaries America has to offer.
With Hillary in the White House, the American people are also signing up for an all-star roster of associated cronies who have spent much of the last few decades raping and pillaging both Americans at home, and innocents abroad.
As a prime example of how low some of these characters are willing to go, this is what former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, had to say today on the campaign trail in New Hampshire.
According to NBC News:
“Just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” Albright — who was the first-ever female secretary of state — told the audience.
I don’t have to explain to you how desperate and pathetic this statement is. The key point to understand is that this is all they’ve got. They can’t win on the issues, so they have to appeal to emotion and superficiality, i.e., hoping people vote for someone based on gender. Even worse, the entire argument is garbage. To prove the point, I want to turn you to an excellent article I read earlier today at Naked Capitalism, titled The Pressure on Warren to Support Hillary Clinton…
Which raises real questions, I think, about the reason many (but not all) establishment Democratic women are endorsing Clinton over Sanders. It’s certainly true that many think it is time for the first woman president and that Clinton should be that woman, in spite of her ties to Money.
But it also has to be said that some (I have a few names in mind) think Clinton should be that woman because of her ties to Money and the mainstream establishment that feeds from (and feeds) the same troughs, the establishment from which they draw their own daily cup. For these women, endorsing Clinton achieves two goals with one stroke of the pen, both of which are desirable.
I wonder … if there were only a way we could test those commitments to “first woman president” and factor the ties to Money out of the choice. Perhaps if Warren were also running … or thought to be thinking about running … with Clinton not yet declared as as candidate … would these women support Warren because “first woman president”?
In 2014, Zephyr Teachout asked me [the writer of the piece] whether she should run against powerful incumbent Governor Andrew Cuomo. I told her that the only reason not to do it would be fear?—?fear that his machine would belittle her, discredit her, turn her into a joke. She stared at me, and said, “Now I have to do it, because you just dared me to.” That’s a bad ass lady, the kind of lady who is gonna take a hammer to the glass ceiling, smash it, and pull everybody up with her.
We fought that race with almost zero institutional support. Hillary Clinton supported Cuomo. Imagine an alternate universe where Hillary was the champion of progressive women in her own state. She would have been on our rickety bus, sweating the broken air conditioning, letting people know that the era of “three men in a room” making all the decisions was over. We would have elected our first female governor in New York.
After Zephyr lost her campaign, I teamed up with some other awesome ladies who wanted to see Elizabeth Warren run for president. We were inspired not just by her passion for financial reform, but also by her biography. Once again, institutional support was thin. And the supposedly feminist argument from a lot of Hillary fans was that it wasn’t Elizabeth’s turn. Another woman would dilute Hillary’s chances, which would be bad for the cause of electing Hillary as the first female president. Hillary-only Feminism.
Why did Ms. Clinton not support Ms. Teachout, also a “progressive,” as “first woman governor” of New York? Seems appropriate for someone asking for support on the basis of “first woman president.” Perhaps Clinton thought Teachout was the wrong woman to be the first woman governor of NY.
I think that article really nails it. It’s not actually about a female being President when it comes to many of her supporters, it’s about rallying behind the status quo. The fact she’s a female just gives certain people who want to feed from the trough of her corrupt connections when she’s in power a clever and manipulative marketing slogan. If this truth is ever exposed, she’s finished.