The New York Times’ editors should exercise some caution.
After all, at this rate their deranged liberal readers might drag them into a Maoist struggle session.
On Monday, the Times printed a guest essay by National Review editor Rich Lowry entitled “Trump Can Win on Character,” which left deranged liberals frothing at the mouth over what amounted to a rather mild bit of commentary.
Indeed, on substance, Lowry made an argument perhaps best described as uninspiring-but-plausible.
“Everything has to be connected to the deeper case that Ms. Harris is weak and a phony and doesn’t truly care about the country or the middle class,” Lowry wrote.
In other words, former President Donald Trump needs to make the 2024 election a referendum on Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris’ character.
Lowry, in fact, suggested that the former president focus on Harris’s myriad weaknesses.
“To wit: Ms. Harris was too weak to win the Democratic primary contest that year. She was too weak to keep from telling the left practically everything it wanted to hear when she ran in 2019. She is too weak to hold open town-hall events or do extensive — or, at the moment, any — sit-down media interviews,” the National Review editor wrote.
Tellingly, Lowry did not build a positive case for Trump’s character but only a negative case for Harris’. That alone should disqualify Lowry from issuing advice to the former president, whose appeal Lowry clearly does not understand.
Do you agree with Rich Lowry?
Yes: 94% (721 Votes)
No: 6% (43 Votes)
Predictably, however, the Times’ liberal readers could not handle even that much.
For instance, on the social media platform X, Tom Nichols of the establishment mouthpiece The Atlantic called Lowry’s essay “shameful.”
People are hammering that Rich Lowry piece for the headline on “Trump Can Win on Character,” but it’s even worse than you think: He means Trump can win by being Trumpy about Harris’s character, and he thinks that’s a good idea that would work and not shameful at all: pic.twitter.com/IYP4PV3AUn
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 26, 2024
“[T]his guy thinks Trump can beat Harris on character. Wow,” writer Matthew Dowd tweeted. “Harris campaign would love this election to be about character and who cares about the middle class. Rich should find a mirror and look at himself on the issue of character.”
this guy thinks Trump can beat Harris on character. Wow. Harris campaign would love this election to be about character and who cares about the middle class. Rich should find a mirror and look at himself on the issue of character. https://t.co/A7itSBfHI4
— Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) August 26, 2024
Finally — and perhaps most predictably — podcaster and uber-deranged liberal Keith Olbermann responded with a vulgarity-filled post that readers may view here if they so desire. (WARNING: Following this link will lead to a post that contains vulgar language that some readers may find offensive.)
Some X users mocked Olbermann.
“Someone check on Keith make sure he’s ok. The meds have clearly worn off,” one user wrote.
Someone check on Keith make sure he’s ok.
The meds have clearly worn off
— kevin smith (@kevin_smith45) August 26, 2024
An X user named “RiverMango,” however, perceptively took Olbermann’s measure.
“Somehow an image of you in a nazi uniform keeps popping into my mind. Don’t know why…” RiverMango wrote.
Somehow an image of you in a nazi uniform keeps popping into my mind. Don’t know why…
— RiverMango 🇺🇸 🇨🇦 (@BlueSkySunFree) August 26, 2024
When it comes to people like Olbermann, whose only recognizable mode of expression involves a mixture of flippancy and rage, we need not concern ourselves too much with ideological particulars. Nazi or Communist, it makes little difference.
In other words, where RiverMango saw a Nazi, one might as easily spot a Maoist.
During China’s catastrophic Cultural Revolution of the 1960s and early 1970s, comments about dictator Mao Zedong or the ruling Communist Party that contained even a hint of merely lukewarm approval, let alone outright criticism, could involve the unfortunate speaker in a ritual central to totalitarianism: the struggle session.
Struggle sessions did not necessarily begin with a visit from the secret police. Instead, neighbors and co-workers subjected the alleged “class enemy” to a violent ritual of humiliation and torture. They did it on their own, without direct prompting from government officials, and for the sheer pleasure of it.
The message derived from struggle sessions, of course, is that no one may stray from the party line. No one may suggest, even in a misleading headline, that one’s avowed enemy might have human qualities.
The Times’ editors have already acknowledged that Democratic elites effected a coup against President Joe Biden. For some readers, that alone amounted to a bridge too far.
But to suggest even for a moment that Trump might have a strong character? That could earn the editors a visit from their deranged liberal neighbors and co-workers.
