Heavy propaganda guns, that is.
The New York Times, which for some reason is obsessed with spinning the recent government shut-down as Republican Populist Tea Party wing foolishness, trots out the venerable name of Taft in an op-ed piece to further excoriate Cruz, et al., as irresponsible rhetorical bomb-throwers.
Of course they’re projecting, for in that very piece Taft himself trots out the loathesome specter of the 20th century’s most infamous Republican, Joseph McCarthy, in a decidedly unsubtle rhetorical explosive aimed at those ugly Tea Party populists.
God, what tripe. And what transparent class consciousness: Taft, the patrician from one of the most revered political families in the country, versus the unruly rabble that has hijacked the Republican party from its traditional role of “stewardship”.
Stewardship is hardly called for when you’ve got too many water-tight compartments flooded and you’re sinking hard by the bow. You have to wonder what planet the new generation Taft – this one’s name is John – is on.
I’ve probably said this enough times on this blog that regular readers have tired of it, and I don’t blame them. But still: you can wage all the propaganda war you want, you can change minds and shout down the opposing point of view and lock its advocates away, or kill them. None of this will alter reality one iota. The New York Times has a big microphone, but it will not change fiscal and economic fact and law.
A little more about the author of the piece, John G. Taft. In addition to his role as scion of the wealthy and influential Taft breed, he is also a major executive at Royal Bank of Canada, apparently running its US operations.
Nice gig. You know, you gotta love any institution with the word ‘Royal’ in it.
There’s a strong element of striving to re-open old Republican wounds in picking a Taft. Taft’s uncle Robert (or was it cousin ?) was the leader of non-interventionist, deeply conservative – maybe even what you’d call “hard-right” – anti-FDR/New Deal Republicanism of the first half of the 20th century, the kind of Republicanism that famously (if you were a National Review subscriber in the later 20th century, like I was) succumbed to the more “moderate” (read: liberal), “eastern establishment” style of Republicanism typified by New York governor Tom Dewey. Yes, Taft lost the fight for the soul of the Republican party, but was dignified and principled about it and is still remembered fondly by old timers.
The newer generation of Tafts has apparently defected to the other side. John G. Taft isn’t the only one.
Thus there is further method to the madness in the op-ed’s citation and quoting of Warren Buffett, a dismal traitor to his father, Howard Buffett, Nebraska Congressman, hero of the libertarian Old Right (much like the older Robert Taft) and gold standard advocate who has graced these pages before.
See, the New York Times can try to pull off these subtle digs against their political opponents, but even these obscure little details will not escape our attention over here at Lawyers on Strike.
A government shut-down must really frighten the New York Times, for the only reason anything frightens the New York Times – it must be a danger to its influence. But why? I suppose the problem is that the government can “shut-down”, as it just did, and too many people will realize that the sky didn’t fall, exposing all the Times’ propaganda efforts as just so much shrill hysteria.
Not to mention the government default problem. That’s a dagger aimed right at Wall Street, which so far this century makes New York City what it is, which in turn makes the New York Times what it is.
Sabre rattling and gun brandishing are often just variations on squealing like a stuck pig.