It’s rare that one sees blunt incivility in an old and revered political publication like the National Review, but here was the headline of Charles Cook’s column there yesterday:
The New York Times’ Editorial Board Is Apparently Extremely Stupid
I had read the editorial and my reaction had been the same, except that I would have been tempted to leave out “apparently.” I’d also categorize this as old news, at least to readers of Ethics Alarms. Then, for a nonce, I regretted the absence of self-exiled commenter “A Friend,” since his predictable efforts to defend the indefensible in the Times would have been particularly entertaining in this case.
Here’s the the paragraph Cooke was reacting to:
Imagine that every state were free to choose whether to allow Black people and white people to marry. Some states would permit such marriages; others probably wouldn’t. The laws would be a mishmash, and interracial couples would suffer, legally consigned to second-class status depending on where they lived.
This is the newspaper that is regarded as the flagship of the news media. This is the newspaper that holds itself up as a paragon of objective news analysis. This is a newspaper that claims that its perspective isn’t skewed by a progressive bias.
This is the newspaper I have been paying almost 90 bucks a month to have delivered every day for four years. Yes, I’m stupid too.
Here, in part, is what Cooke writes in his understandable disgust:
The Times’ editors aren’t merely suggesting that we wouldn’t want X, so we shouldn’t want Y, either, and nor are they making specious legal arguments about the likely consequences of restoring Glucksberg. They’re contending that, absent the (entirely safe) ruling in Loving v. Virginia, some U.S. states would move to end interracial marriage, such that “the laws would be a mishmash, and interracial couples would suffer, legally consigned to second-class status depending on where they lived.”
This is nonsense. It is ignorant. It is stupid.
The debate over Roe v. Wade has been a fixture of American politics for fifty years….It is a live question. Interracial marriage? Not so much. Here’s Gallup, from September of last year:
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Ninety-four percent of U.S. adults now approve of marriages between Black people and White people, up from 87% in the prior reading from 2013. The current figure marks a new high in Gallup’s trend, which spans more than six decades. Just 4% approved when Gallup first asked the question in 1958.
This approval can be observed everywhere in the country.
Those numbers, for the record, are:
- East (94%)
- Midwest (93%)
- South (93%)
- West (97%)
From where, exactly, does the New York Times’ editorial board believe that the impetus would come for “some states” to ban interracial marriage? …Would Mitch McConnell, the husband of of Elaine Chao, who was born in Taiwan? Would Justice Clarence Thomas, the formerly segregated black man who is married to Ginni Thomas, who is white?
Oh, I can answer that. The Times editors made this stupid analogy to confuse, mislead, and propagandize the kind of knee-jerk bigots it speaks for, those who believe that conservatives and Republicans are per se racists who want reduce the nation’s freedoms and individual liberty even as they battle the Times’ ideological allies who want to restrict so many of them.
The Times editors aren’t really stupid, you see. They are ruthless and dishonest. And they know their audience.