The New York Times: Even To Question the Role of the State Is To Question the Very Meaning of Life

Because my wife, the adolescent girl from Latvia whom we are adopting, and I arrived Thursday afternoon from Riga (which is seven hours ahead of our own Eastern Daylight Time), our body clocks did not permit us to be awake when Obama gave his “jobs speech,” so we slept as the President gave his proposals on how to further destroy the economy. I knew that the “Newspaper of Record” was on the job, so when I read the NYT’s article and editorial on the speech, I realized I was back in utterly-politicized America.

While both the article and editorial gushed praise for Obama’s proposals (and I am sure that many LRC contributors will have enough commentary on THAT nonsense), I was struck by one line from the editorial that pretty much tells me that these supposedly-secular journalists really do have a religious faith: the State, which is Allah, and Abraham Lincoln being the Prophet Mohammed. The editorial declares:

He directly, even mockingly, challenged the increasingly nihilistic Republican view that government’s very presence is noxious. Just as Lincoln helped start the transcontinental railroad and land-grant colleges, he said, the two parties must together push the country past its economic crisis. (Emphasis mine)


First,the Republicans, other than Ron Paul, hardly are critics of the state, and all of them have been pushing one sort of “stimulus” or another. Not surprisingly, Paul is the target of some of the nastiest editorial commentary from the NYT, and I guarantee that if he does well in the upcoming primaries and the Iowa Caucuses, the vitriol descending upon him from the “Newspaper of Record” will be unprecedented.

Second, the use of “nihilistic” is unbelievable, as the editors literally are proclaiming that the State is the very essence of meaning. Think about that: government is Life Itself, according to these supposedly sophisticated people.

None of the Republicans have spoken about doing away with the state, not even Ron Paul. While I hardly support any of them besides Paul, the idea that they are a bunch of anarchists is a howler, which tells me how much out of touch with reality the editors and the political party that they represent, the Remocrats (Or do they represent the Depublicans?) have become.

Share

4:54 am on September 9, 2011