The New York Times is becoming unhinged in its hatred of Donald Trump. This morning, the paper published what may be the worst editorial that has ever graced its pages, excoriating not Trump but Jeb Bush for running a lousy campaign against Trump.
What is the biggest problem with America’s political culture? It isn’t nutty demagogues like Trump. They will always be around and will never win. It isn’t the corrupting effects of money: another piece in this morning’s Times reports that Bernie Sanders, with an average donation of $31.30, is raising enough to compete on a reasonably equal basis with Hillary Clinton and her machine. From now on, candidates will have to balance the advantages of big money with the disadvantages of being known to be dependent on big money.
No, the biggest problem with American politics is phony umbrage: invented issues that substitute for serious debate. They allow candidates to climb onto their high horses and go nowhere important. They allow voters to avoid thinking about the choices this country needs to make. Yet they often dominate the political debate.
A classic example is the current fuss over Jeb Bush’s use of the term “anchor babies,” in reference to babies born in the United States who are therefore citizens under the Constitution, even if their parents are here illegally. Some people claim to find this term offensive, but Bush’s initial, casual response to criticism was right: find me a better term and I’ll use it.
Among all the Republican presidential candidates, Bush unquestionably has the most generous attitude and liberal policy toward undocumented immigrants. His wife and his children are Latino. To make an issue of his use of the term “anchor baby” is ridiculous. For Donald Trump—who says he wants to re-write the Constitution and expel 11 million people—to criticize Bush for this is disgusting, but no surprise. For The New York Times to join in is mind-boggling.
Phony umbrage almost always elicits a phony response. In defending himself to reporters on Monday, Bush claimed, obviously dishonestly, that he was referring to Asian businesses that bring pregnant women in on tourist visas. The Times admits that “the phenomenon is real,” but instead of criticizing Trump for phony umbrage on behalf of both Asians and Latinos, went after Bush for giving Trump the opportunity to start “an unnecessary battle.”
The Times then lectured Bush that “His campaign should get better at stage-managing press events.” This is preposterous. The paper was put off by, among other things, “the grim, adobe-and-stucco backdrop” at a press event on Monday. But for heaven’s sake, does the Times believe that candidates should be judged on the quality of the artifice in their artificial press events? It would be nice to have a president who was terrible at “stage-managing press events,” wouldn’t it?
“When he does choose to tell the truth,” the Times concludes (quite unfairly, since they have caught him in no untruth except the small and indirect one about Asian babies), “he should find a more persuasive way to do it.” Bush has said that Trump’s immigration policy would “cost hundreds of billions of dollars,” would “violate people’s civil liberties,” and would offend Mexico (“our third-largest trading partner”). That third point is a bit boring, but the first two seem compelling enough. But the editorial maintains that people don’t really care about billions of dollars and their civil liberties, which is surprising since it seems to me that these concerns are raised, as applied to various issues, several times a week on the New York Times editorial page itself.
The Times says that Bush needs “better ideas.” It does not name any.
