By Jonathan S. Tobin
Friday, April 24, 2020
In the United States, left-wing megadonor George Soros
tends to be resented by right-wingers for his massive funding of leftist
protest movements and the Democratic Party. Conservatives have launched
polemics against Soros and his Open Society Foundations over what he and his
admirers call “democracy building” but that they see as a radical agenda that
undermines the freedoms of the liberal order. The New York Times casts
such polemics in a sinister light. An October
2018 feature described a campaign of “vilification” of Soros that had moved
from “the dark corners of the internet and talk radio to the very center of the
political debate.” What complicates matters is that Soros has been the focus of
anti-Semitic invective, especially in his native Hungary, where he has been a
tenacious opponent of the Viktor Orban government.
Some on the right have tried to link activists working to
defeat Donald Trump in 2016 and to derail the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh
as a Supreme Court justice to Soros’s billions. As the Times presents
it, those efforts were inherently illegitimate, even if the activists did in
fact get funding from one of Soros’s foundations. Anti-Trump and anti-Kavanaugh
were simply liberal causes; questioning the funding and organizing behind such
causes amounted to conspiracy-mongering rooted in hatred and hostility to
democracy.
Yet when right-wingers took to the streets in recent
weeks to protest coronavirus lockdowns as a violation of their civil rights,
the Times took a page out of the same anti-Soros playbook. Its coverage
of the demonstrations, rather than analyzing their merits or lack thereof, was
aimed at casting doubt on their legitimacy. Recalling its coverage of activists
who opposed the passage of Obamacare a decade ago, the newspaper’s focus was on
those who provided funding and legal support to the demonstrators. A front-page
headline read, “The Quiet Hand of Conservative Groups in the Anti-Lockdown
Protests”; an op-ed titled “Who’s Behind the ‘Reopen’ Protests,” by Lisa
Graves, appeared the same day.
According to Graves, the notion that the lockdown
protests were spontaneous or the product of frustration on the part of ordinary
Americans who believe that federal and state governments have overreacted to
the pandemic was spurious. Graves is identified as the head of an outfit
calling itself “True North Research,” a left-wing group that is silent about
its own sources of funding, and as “the curator of KochDocs.” The
demonstrations, she avers, can be traced back to the Koch family and other
libertarian and conservative funders.
The Times’ news article was a bit more equivocal
in that it acknowledged that the anti-lockdown protests were “organized by
local residents and are framed primarily against what they view as government
overreach.” But, like Graves’s op-ed, the news story is focused on establishing
links between the demonstrators and conservative donors and political
operatives. Both items also drew parallels between the recent protests and the
Tea Party movement, which tried to mobilize grass-roots pushback against the
Obama administration’s health-care reform and other liberal projects.
Whether or not the lockdown protests are justified is a
matter of debate. Some of those who turned up to protest used rhetoric or
displayed signs making inappropriate analogies between the lockdowns and Nazi
Germany. It’s also true that the calculus by which democracies balance
individual rights against the efforts of government to deal with national
emergencies like war or a pandemic is always murky. While some of Michigan
governor Gretchen Whitmer’s emergency orders seemed excessive and arbitrary —
such as forbidding state residents to visit their second homes or banning the
sale of gardening supplies — there was still a good argument to be made in
favor of strong measures to prevent a public-health catastrophe.
At the heart of the Times’ coverage is a refusal —
or an inability — to see the issue from the point of view of ordinary
Americans. It should not be that difficult to understand that people simply
want to be allowed to go back to work and provide for their families, or that
they believe, as many have put it, that the cure is worse than the disease.
Many of the same people are appalled by big-government interference in their
lives, confiscatory tax policies, and nanny-state policies.
The irony is that left-wingers like Graves, who are given
a platform by the Times and claim to speak for the interests of working
people, have no patience for blue-collar Americans who do not share their
political worldview—especially those who support President Trump. That Trump
has encouraged the protesters illustrates his ability to identify with these
people, even if his tweets in their favor flatly contradict administration
policies.
Instead of covering the protesters as people deserving of
respect for exercising their First Amendment rights, and offering viewpoints by
more sympathetic observers, the Times dismisses the protesters’
concerns, essentially demonizing them as a pack of extremists or the cat’s-paws
of, in Graves’s words, a “well-funded right-wing infrastructure willing to
devalue human life in pursuit of its political agenda.” To put it plainly, to
attack the lockdown protesters by suggesting that they’re manipulated by
conservative masterminds is to peddle a conspiracy theory—albeit one that
speaks to liberal prejudices.
The Times and its liberal readership are oblivious
to the hypocrisy. If it’s sinister for conservatives to question the money and
influence behind liberal advocacy projects, then it’s not right to delegitimize
advocacy supported by conservatives either.
No comments:
Post a Comment