New York Times unleashes trove of anti-Trump essays on eve of election

With Election Day closing in, The New York Times is going all out.

The Washington Examiner‘s Becket Adams alleged in a column Friday that the Times‘ opinion section had come “unhinged” on the eve of the election, with all 15 of the paper’s opinion writers penning essays on what they said “the past four years have cost America, and what’s at stake in this election.”

A collection of essays…

Among those losses, the Times claimed, are things like persuasion, innocence, faith, generosity, naivete, our word, conservatism, the chance of a female president, our allies, and even a sense of national pride.

How did President Trump cost us “conservatism,” you ask? The Times’ Bret Stephens writes that Republicans “will have spent the past four years squandering their reputation, forsaking their principles, and trashing the kind of political culture they once claimed to hold dear.”

Meanwhile, Adams notes, the Times‘ Frank Bruni argues that we’ve lost our “innocence” under Trump’s leadership.

“I’d seen us err,” Bruni wrote, according to Adams. “I’d watched us stray. Still I didn’t think that enough of us would indulge a would-be leader as proudly hateful, patently fraudulent and flamboyantly dishonest as Donald Trump.”

…or a collective nervous breakdown?

According to Adams, it all just lends credence to the idea that the Times is ignoring history to paint a bleaker picture of the Trump administration than it deserves.

Writing Friday, the columnist said several of the columnists involved in the Times’ essay project “lived through Abscam, the Iran-Contra scandal, the Waco massacre, Bill Clinton perjuring himself, the launch of the Forever Wars, the federal government’s culpability in the financial crisis, the Veterans Affairs scandal, the NSA spying scandal, and the extrajudicial droning of American citizens.”

“But it was not until this administration that the U.S. lost its ‘innocence,’ its ‘persuasion,’ its ‘pride,’ and its standing as a democratic world power?” Adams pressed in his piece for the Washington Examiner.

Perhaps the NYT’s essayists really have come “unhinged,” as Adams claims.

“Rather than explore seriously and realistically the short- and long-term consequences of the Trump presidency, the project comes across more like a collective nervous breakdown, full of self-absorbed handwringing and wild-eyed proclamations about the future of the republic,” the Examiner columnist concluded Friday.

“This New York Times project looks more like a psychotic break than the pooled wisdom of professional columnists whose shared experiences span generations,” Adams added. “[W]atching the paper’s opinion section perform in this manner ahead of the 2020 election is a lot like watching the reaction of a spoiled child being told ‘no’ for the first time.”

Share on facebook
Share To Facebook