By Jim Geraghty
Monday, January 20, 2020
The New York Times editorial board announced that
it is endorsing both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar in the Democratic
primary. Their decision — and inability to endorse just one candidate — is
receiving some mockery on Twitter, and it’s fair to wonder just what message
the editorial board is trying to send. Board member Mara Gay said on Morning
Joe today, “an endorsement isn’t about supporting a candidate necessarily.”
Perhaps the most important paragraph in the endorsement,
and one that explains the division, is this one:
The history of the editorial board
would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more
traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a
constitutional framework and a multiparty country. But the events of the past
few years have shaken the confidence of even the most committed
institutionalists. We are not veering away from the values we espouse, but we
are rattled by the weakness of the institutions that we trusted to undergird
those values… Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious
consideration.
The Times is not confident that electing a
standard-issue Democrat — presumably Klobuchar — is sufficient to fix what they
see as broken. They concur with Warren’s contention that the country’s systems
are “rigged” and endorse her in part because she offers a “sweeping expansion
of government support for Americans at every stage of life, from universal
child care to free public college to expanded Social Security.”
Warren is not interested in trying to enact changes
through the Constitutional structure, and this appears to be what appeals to
the Times editors the most. During the course of this campaign, Elizabeth
Warren declared that she will use executive orders to:
• Impose a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel
leases.
• Ban fracking entirely.
• Cancel almost all student debt.
• Expand background checks for gun purchases.
• Increase wages for women of color.
• Unilaterally reduce drug prices.
Even tax law professors who agree with the objectives
behind her wealth-tax proposal think its constitutionality is “doubtful
at best,” and think it would be likely to be struck down by the Supreme
Court. But nothing to worry about; Warren said she is open to the idea of
expanding the size of the Supreme Court.
In fact, portions of the endorsement read like they were
written by some board member who is pretty strongly opposed to nominating
Warren:
She sometimes sounds like a
candidate who sees a universe of us-versus-thems, who, in the general election,
would be going up against a president who has already divided America into his
own version of them and us… Warren often casts the net far too wide, placing
the blame for a host of maladies from climate change to gun violence at the feet
of the business community when the onus is on society as a whole. The country
needs a more unifying path.
Maybe we shouldn’t chuckle at Mara Gay’s statement above.
This endorsement really does sound like they don’t necessarily support the
candidate!
In fact, the second half of the endorsement, focusing on
Klobuchar, is really the most persuasive and full-throated argument on behalf
of the Minnesota senator you’ll find, touting her ability to work across the
aisle, deep policy knowledge, empathy, and humor. They call her “the very
definition of Midwestern charisma, grit and sticktoitiveness.”
All in all, this reads like an editorial board that
largely wanted to endorse Klobuchar, but who recognized that not endorsing
Warren would be seen as driving a stake into the heart of her candidacy. The
board may also have concluded that endorsing only Klobuchar would be a “waste,”
as the prospects for the Minnesota senator don’t look good. (She’s still not
hitting double digits in Iowa, where she’s focused almost all of her recent
attention.) Without saying so explicitly, the Times offered two separate
criteria: their favorite candidate, and their favorite candidate with a
realistic shot at winning the nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment