The Corner
PlusMedia

The New York Times Isn’t Serious About Restraining Executive Abuses

Share this story

A woman walks into the New York Times building in New York, February 7, 2013.

Eric Thayer/Reuters

The New York Times editorial board calls for responding to Donald Trump’s first 100 days in office by “build[ing] a coalition of Americans who disagree about many other subjects — who span conservative and progressive, internationalist and isolationist, religious and secular, business-friendly and labor-friendly, pro-immigration and restrictionist, laissez-faire and pro-government, pro-life and pro-choice — yet who believe that these subjects must be decided through democratic debate and constitutional processes rather than the dictates of a single man.” It’s a noble ideal and one that I could get behind if sincerely pursued. But both the messenger and the message are wrong.

The Times opens with the sort of hyperbole its readers demand: “The first 100 days of President Trump’s second term have done more damage to American democracy than anything else since the demise of Reconstruction.” I guess we have officially moved on both from the claim that January 6 nearly toppled our democracy and the contention that Georgia’s 2021 voting law (which is still in effect) represented “Jim Crow 2.0.”

Dan McLaughlin

About the Author

Dan McLaughlin

Dan McLaughlin is a senior writer at National Review Online and a fellow at National Review Institute.

Comments

Advertisement

Advertisement