Considering the pandemic it faces to function and the disinformation coming from its taproot source, the New York Times deserves Pulitzers in multiple categories, including investigative and explanatory honors.
Editorially, however, the bible of journalism has been as spotty as, well, the bible.
Consider: During the presidential primary run, the Times endorsed Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, depending on where you stood on the progressive scale — a copout endorsement, plain and simple.
If you don’t define the scale, how do do you know where you fall on it? (And there was conspicuously no defining where the Times fell on it.)
Now it’s taken the same wavering stance on who Joe Biden should pick as his (promised) female running mate. In a political piece last week, the outlet named Kamela Harris, the Representative from California, as the most likely pick.
But in an opinion piece today, the Times said that Stacey Abrahms, the gubernatorial hopeful from Georgia, was the “obvious pick,” because of the Democrats’ need to secure the state and connect to young voters.
This is no time for hemming, brethren. Donald Jemimah Trump does enough waffling for the rest of us. Besides, there are real stories to be found in Biden’s ultimate choice — starting with the historical nature of the pick itself.
Regardless of whether there’s an actual election in November (and that’s seriously in doubt), Biden’s VP of choice may be the most telegraphed in modern politics. When has a candidate ever promised to name a VP from the pool of the politically-shunned?
More importantly, the pick is going to tell us what the Democratic party envisions for its future. Does it see national political experience as a merit badge or mark of shame?
The choice matters, even if Trump remains in office until his death. Because when he goes, so too will the party anchored to him. They simply have no provision for this inescapable political reality: For the first time in U.S. history, most American 15-year-olds are non-white, according to the latest census data.
Not only will that fact never change in the U.S.; it will apply to an ever-growing demographic. Whenever we do conduct a presidential election, it will be the last between grandpa Simpsons: angry, white, male and uncertain of their place in the world.
And finally, brethren, how about some propers for Warren? She has failed to crack the circle of serious contenders among the pundits, which is simply wrong. Among all the finalists, she truly deserves to be our vice-president. She’s worked longer and harder for the executive office than any of her colleagues, male or female, in office of out of it.
That her efforts have gone unrecognized perhaps says the most about the American political landscape and our view of women in it, regardless of how progressive we fancy ourselves.
