An OpEd published in the New York Times on January 14th, 2012, claims that Mitt Romney signals to ”a certain type of voter that he [Romney] is the cultural alternative to America’s first black president.” Anyone planning to vote in 2012 is urged to click on the above link and read the article written by Lee Siegel, a piece of writing that I find reprehensible and insulting. It is Mr. Siegel´s contention that racism is the primary factor that would cause anyone to vote against the President in his bid for reelection.
A few months ago the New York Times advised its readers that it would change the direction of its online publication away from objective news and more toward opinion. Since that declaration, The Times has successfully transitioned from being one of the world’s most reputable news sources to a partisan rag.
Using catch phrases is a subtle means of influencing readers; this is especially so when used in a byline with large print. Flaunting the term “First Black President” or “America’s African-American President” invokes visceral reactions from supporters and opponents alike. These descriptions are used deliberately and for a purpose. If one truly wants to combat racism, then the President of the United States should simply be known as “the President.”
The press consistently and conveniently ignores the fact that President Obama is not truly African-American. Perhaps some believe he is a hybrid, since he is the product of a mixed-race marriage. We should remember that not too long ago a union of mixed races was illegal in some states. So we might logically conclude that the election of a person of mixed color as president represents a far greater accomplishment than the election of one who is purely African-American.
Labeling often has an underlying political purpose. Sports columnists from the Times never refer to Tiger Woods as the Asian-African-American golfer. Nor do their entertainment columnists refer to mixed race stars like Lenny Kravitz (unfortunately not a relative of mine) as the Jewish-Bahamian-American pop singer.
The Times purposely ignores that, in most of America, people of mixed race, ethnicity or religion barely raise an eyebrow in social circles. There is no denying that prejudice exists; we can only hope it is the minority viewpoint. Still, the liberal media’s political coverage continually emphasizes the fact that President Obama is not white. That same media, as exemplified by Lee Siegel, then draws the conclusion that if one disagrees with the President’s policies or his class warfare rhetoric, then one must surely be a racist.
Lactose intolerance is the beginning and end of my intolerances , so I am offended by and grow weary of others using my political preferences as an indicator of what I believe or don’t believe on any other issue.
Similarly, The Times never misses an opportunity to use the phrase “Vulture Capitalist” when referring to Mitt Romney. It would seem that the two words are synonymous for most of the The Times staff. According to Lee Siegel, Romney is the Waspy-looking Mormon-American presidential candidate who believes America should be a country of opportunity, not of entitlement. That concept seems to be anathema to Mr. Siegel’s readers.
Rhetoric about Mr. Romney’s record at Bain Capital has become the most recent and the greatest weapon in the class warfare campaign. The conversation never touches on why some businesses fail, on how these failing companies are sometimes appropriately absorbed by larger companies (or individuals), or on why, in certain cases, they are allowed to fail. Hedge Funds are a recent addition to the American business landscape; they are not the cause of income inequality or any other ailment the American economy is experiencing.
Capitalism prospers when more efficient companies best their competition. Companies unable to innovate or keep pace must improve their management, operate more efficiently, find an injection of cash–compete effectively–or they must yield to market forces. Those willing to risk their own money on these failing businesses are entitled to a reward and certainly not every risk provides a reward. A vulture to some, a savior to others.
After his upset primary victory in South Carolina, The Times target will undoubtedly shift to Newt Gingrich, a born-again Catholic with a rich history of inconsistency, indiscretion and inappropriate comments. Gingrich will be catnip for ideologues who pose as journalists. I can’t wait to read the next Siegel or Krugman OpEd.
Tags: Misleading titles
January 26, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
Lou, I loved your latest and agree with every word (which naturally is why I loved it). However, I think you could expand on one of the current methods of succeeding under our current form of capitalism. Many, mostly large, companies find that they can succeed best at the public trough — Blackwater comes to mind — or through finding ways to avoid taxes that others must pay — GE comes to mind. They finance the politicians that will enable their success through specialized legislation or government action. Campaign finance reform is the only means of having the form of free capitalism that the U.S. publicly idealizes. Without it we will continue to have corporate welfare. It doesn’t matter which party is in power so long as they are not representing their voters.