‘New York Times’ Found a Cozy New Name for Racists To Call Themselves
Just when you thought the New York Times couldn’t have sunk any lower, everyone’s favorite transphobic neoliberal rag is back at it again with a preposterous premise: coddling racists with euphemisms.
In an article called “The 6 Kinds of Republican Voters,” NYT breaks down Republican party allegiances with one of the strangest metrics ever devised. They use the following categories to distinguish so-called diversity among the platform: Anti-establishment, isolationist foreign policy, populist economics, racial conservatism, social conservatism, and Trump loyalty. As we’ve said before, what do you expect from a publication that defended J.K Rowling?
If you’re wondering what the big difference is between categories like “racial conservatism” and “social conservatism,” don’t worry, we can’t figure that one out, either. The NYT is making the case that the Republican party is a lot more fractured than people think, and that not all Republicans hate things like … abortion or immigration, for example.
And while majorities of Republicans side with Mr. Trump on almost every issue, those majorities are often quite slim: Around 40 percent of Republican-leaning voters support aid to Ukraine, support comprehensive immigration reform or say abortion should be mostly or always legal.
There’s a huge problem with this: Whatever outlier beliefs some Republicans have, they align themselves fully with a death cult of a party that wants those marginalized groups dead. It does no good to say that you are pro-abortion while backing a party that stripped away Roe v. Wade. Being a Republican by default makes you against human rights, and no disagreements with the party line will ever change this fact.
NYT doesn’t understand this, opting instead to give these fascists immense leeway. They came up with euphemisms that disguise the other disgusting beliefs members of this party hold. These terms not only downplay that bigotry, but are also too vague to be meaningful. For example, what does “anti-establishment” mean here? It’s a word so misused by many, with malicious intent, that it really doesn’t mean anything anymore. Donald Trump is no more anti-establishment than any other right-wing populist like him.
This piece relies on the idea of the mythical moderate—the idea that reactionary politics can be tempered to a reasonable middle. As pointed out by FiveThirtyEight, this is isn’t true at all. Moderates often hold extreme opinions to the same severity as those considered more right-wing.
Because at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter whether the person who thinks that trans people shouldn’t be given rights is soft on immigration. Fascism is syncretic; it’s a big tent coalition involving many different backgrounds and varying beliefs under it. This is how Qanon works, and it’s how the Republican party operates. Some right-wingers are flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers, while others trust the science and believe that climate change is happening.
Don’t fall for it. Those belief systems have one good apple in a big pile of poisoned ones. And we can’t afford to take a bite.
(featured image: Gary Hershorn/Getty Images)
Have a tip we should know? tips@themarysue.com
