Publisher's Note — November 20, 2014, 7:25 pm

The New York Times tries to marginalize the left

“Nowhere did the Times define ‘the left’ or what might excite its opposition to Clinton. Our imaginations are allowed to run wild: Is ‘the left’ a terrorist organization? A part of the outfield? Or is it just not worth mentioning?”

This column originally ran in the Providence Journal on November 20, 2014.


mong the several depressing outcomes of the midterm elections, perhaps the saddest has been the media establishment’s refusal to draw conclusions that run counter to the ones promoted by self-interested politicians.

A typical media “analysis” was provided by The New York Times, which almost immediately started promoting the inevitability of Hillary Clinton’s nomination as the next Democratic candidate for president. “Midterms, for Clinton Team, Aren’t All Gloom” declared its front-page headline on Nov. 7. According to the paper’s reporter, Amy Chozick, the misfortune of President Obama and Senate Majority (soon-to-be-Minority) Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) equaled good news for Mrs. Clinton and her “advisers,” among whom “a consensus formed … that it is time to accelerate her schedule.” This move toward a more rapid coronation was due to “pressure” on the former First Lady “to resurrect the Democratic Party,” since Mrs. Clinton is “already being scrutinized as the party’s presumptive nominee.”

Some, if not all, of the assumptions underlying the Times story can easily be challenged. With a Democrat still in the White House and only a narrow Republican majority in the Senate, the word “resurrect” seems a bit hyperbolic. And couldn’t one reasonably conclude that the abysmally low voter turnout was a sign of bipartisan dissatisfaction? Up to this point, Chozick and her editors were basing their thesis on the statements of “several advisers” who “insisted on anonymity,” and quoting even anonymous advisers at least suggests an effort by the journalist to do some interviews.

Two paragraphs later, however, the Times dropped any pretense of fair and balanced reporting by presenting the institutional voice of people who have very little interest in journalism, or, for that matter, democracy: “In many ways,” quoth the Times, “Tuesday’s election results clear a path for Mrs. Clinton. The lopsided outcome and conservative tilt makes it less likely she would face an insurgent challenger from the left.”

On what information was this opinion based? We might conclude that Chozick is just lazy. Or we can speculate that it reflects the preference of Chozick’s editors for a Clinton candidacy. But whatever the motivation, the assertion that Hillary’s path is clear was pulled out of the air.

Chozick evidently couldn’t be bothered to call anyone identified with “the left.” She did mention an additional “silver lining” for the Clinton campaign: the “diminished … likelihood that former Gov. Martin O’Malley, another Democrat, would emerge as a serious primary challenge to Mrs. Clinton.” But, again, it doesn’t appear that Chozick tried to call O’Malley or his “advisers.” Nor, apparently, did she attempt to contact former Sen. Jim Webb (D., Va.), or Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), both of whom are contemplating challenges to Clinton from this mysterious region that sits to the west when one is facing north. Mysterious because nowhere did the Times define “the left” or what might excite its opposition to Clinton. Our imaginations are allowed to run wild: Is “the left” a terrorist organization? A part of the outfield? Or is it just not worth mentioning?

I favor the latter explanation, since the Times so often exhibits contempt for leftists and their insistence on alternative narratives to the one the paper likes to peddle. Given that the voice of the left in America is rarely heard in the corridors of power, the Times doesn’t feel it’s important to report on it.

The Times only pays lip service to the left, mostly through its star columnist Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize–winning economist who often sounds like a leftist compared with the other Times editorial and op-ed writers. But Krugman appears to be a highly reluctant leftist—so reluctant that before the midterm elections he wrote a cover story for Rolling Stone defending Barack Obama against leftist critics who think the President’s agenda has favored the rich and the powerful: “They’re outraged that Wall Street hasn’t been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that ‘neoliberal’ economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have constrained even his much more modest efforts. It’s hard to take such claims seriously.”

Is Krugman serious? Obama’s efforts were so modest that he failed to propose even a small increase in the minimum wage during his first term, the initial two years of which were presided over by big Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Nor did he back restoration of the Glass–Steagall Act—a relatively tame New Deal law whose reinstitution now has the tripartisan support of senators John McCain (R., Ariz.), Angus King (I., Maine), Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), and Maria Cantwell (D., Wash.)—or price controls on prescription drugs, or a reform of job-killing, Clinton-sponsored North American Free Trade Agreement (as he pledged during the 2008 campaign). He did manage to push through Obamacare, the Romneycare knockoff that has reinforced the power of rapacious health-insurance companies and caused many employers to cut full-time workers to part-time.

Had a couple of modestly popular “left” initiatives passed the 111th Congress, the House might not have changed hands in 2010, or the Senate in 2014. Tens of millions of financially beleaguered people—right, center and left—could have expressed their gratitude by voting Democrat. As for Roosevelt in 1940, they might even be clamoring for an Obama third term. And we wouldn’t have to swallow The New York Times/Paul Krugman claptrap take on politics.

Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

Publisher's Note August 7, 2019, 3:14 pm


“Nor would I leave to Emmanuel Macron and Mark Zuckerberg, both of them politicians first and foremost, the job of regulating anything that has to do with words or language.”

Publisher's Note July 12, 2019, 10:47 am

American Greatness

Publisher's Note June 10, 2019, 12:05 pm

My French Side

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada



October 2019


Secrets and Lies·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1973, when Barry Singer was a fifteen-year-old student at New York’s Yeshiva University High School for Boys, the vice principal, Rabbi George Finkelstein, stopped him in a stairwell. Claiming he wanted to check his tzitzit—the strings attached to Singer’s prayer shawl—Finkelstein, Singer says, pushed the boy over the third-floor banister, in full view of his classmates, and reached down his pants. “If he’s not wearing tzitzit,” Finkelstein told the surrounding children, “he’s going over the stairs!”

“He played it as a joke, but I was completely at his mercy,” Singer recalled. For the rest of his time at Yeshiva, Singer would often wear his tzitzit on the outside of his shirt—though this was regarded as rebellious—for fear that Finkelstein might find an excuse to assault him again.

Seeking Asylum·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Out of sight on Leros, the island of the damned

Poem for Harm·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Reflections on harm in language and the trouble with Whitman

Good Bad Bad Good·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

About fifteen years ago, my roommate and I developed a classification system for TV and movies. Each title was slotted into one of four categories: Good-Good; Bad-Good; Good-Bad; Bad-Bad. The first qualifier was qualitative, while the second represented a high-low binary, the title’s aspiration toward capital-A Art or lack thereof.

Some taxonomies were inarguable. The O.C., a Fox series about California rich kids and their beautiful swimming pools, was delightfully Good-Bad. Paul Haggis’s heavy-handed morality play, Crash, which won the Oscar for Best Picture, was gallingly Bad-Good. The films of Francois Truffaut, Good-Good; the CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men, Bad-Bad.

Life after Life·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

For time ylost, this know ye,
By no way may recovered be.

I spent thirty-eight years in prison and have been a free man for just under two. After killing a man named Thomas Allen Fellowes in a drunken, drugged-up fistfight in 1980, when I was nineteen years old, I was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Former California governor Jerry Brown commuted my sentence and I was released in 2017, five days before Christmas. The law in California, like in most states, grants the governor the right to alter sentences. After many years of advocating for the reformation of the prison system into one that encourages rehabilitation, I had my life restored to me.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:


A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

A solid-gold toilet named “America” was stolen from Blenheim Palace, the birthplace of Winston Churchill, in Oxfordshire, England.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!


Happiness Is a Worn Gun


“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today