What Profits the New York Times to Gain ‘the World?’

By Noah Rothman

Wednesday, October 28, 2026

 

The New York Times editorial board’s unctuous effort to drive Democratic turnout this year — as if Times readers needed the prodding — makes no attempt at persuasion. It speaks directly to the progressive id, asking them to “imagine” a Washington in which Democrats block “tax cuts” and theatrically berate Trump administration officials in televised hearings. Given the absence of an “affordability” agenda to accompany the Democratic Party’s “affordability” message, the paper’s focus on the political drama to which we’ll be privy next year makes sense.

 

The editorial’s blanket endorsement of the Democratic Party’s candidates, however, includes an admission as funny as it is revealing. “If Democrats retake both houses of Congress, and more state governments than they now control,” the Times’ editors wrote, “it will tell the world that Mr. Trump does not represent most Americans.”

 

The opinion of “the world” is probably of paramount importance on Eighth Avenue, but most Americans are unlikely to value it the same way. And not because, as the Times’ editors likely flatter themselves, Americans are not worldly enough. Rather, they probably understand that “the world” is not some undifferentiated collective, much less an infallible moral arbiter.

 

“The world” is, in fact, composed primarily of a motley collection of bigoted, corrupt autocracies. The states with more liberal social covenants have nevertheless outsourced their national security to the United States. They depend on the American people’s goodwill to protect their safety and interests.

 

That fact does not give the Trump administration license to hector, strong-arm, and embarrass America’s partners abroad. Prudence alone should have militated against that approach, and the GOP’s officials cannot blame anyone but themselves for sowing the seeds of a global backlash against Republican governance. But the opinion of “the world” is worth precisely what we’ve paid for it.

 

That sounds to me like “the world” should worry more about what Americans think about them. And in my admittedly limited experience abroad, their people and governments do.

 

Maybe the New York Times’ editors should travel more.