All the Views Unfit to Print

The New York Times waves white flag to Trump voters
These have not been good days for The New York Times. For a long time it’s been a punching bag for the American Right that views it as a mouthpiece for liberal elitists. But lately, especially since the reign of Trump, it has come under increasing attack from the Left. The Nobby even took a swipe at it a few posts ago even though, as this post will reveal, I’m somewhat sympathetic with the paper’s mission to understand Trump voters.
The hard reality we must face after Trump is finally driven from office is that we will still be left with a calcified 30% or so of the electorate that remains loyal to him (Nixon had 24% when his criminal activity finally ended his presidency, but Nixon didn’t have the benefit of Fox News to buoy his numbers whatever his offenses against the US). I think getting at the bottom of how so many of our fellow citizens can continue to support such a transparent con man is not only a newsworthy story, but an important one for the nation going forward after Trump. So I have no more of a problem with The Timessending waves of reporters into Trump country to find out what makes his voters tick than I ever had with The Times or any other news outlet sending reporters into Muslim enclaves to get a better handle on what’s behind Islamic terrorism directed at the West. I see Trump voters and Islamic radicals as equal threats against liberal democracy, and I for one would like to know all I can about who's behind that threat.
On January 18, 2018, The Times went even further in trying to profile the identity of Trump voters by turning over its entire op-ed section to their letters explaining their preference for Trump. I read the letters in spite of myself. Like many liberals, I have been inclined to believe that I already know all I need to know about these people. As I stated in a comment on Facebook last week, “they like liars, gauche rich guys, pussy grabbers and racists. Oh, yeah, and feeling sorry for themselves.”         
Yet none of my characterizations are borne out in any of the letters published by The Times. Here’s what my fairly objective and charitable summary of those letters is. Overall these Trump voters are pleased with his:judicial appointments and deregulation orderssuccess in bolstering the economy and degrading ISISfresh, albeit brash, new governing style The first cannot be denied. With the immeasurable help of pirate Mitch McConnell, Trump not only bagged a Supreme Court seat for the Right that was not rightfully theirs, but he has effectively been filling lower court vacancies with conservatives that will give them sway over government long after Trump and the Republican revanchists in Congress are gone.
The second point can not only be denied but easily refuted by abundant and easily accessible evidence that the economy had been steadily growing and ISIS had been steadily declining over the last years of the Obama Administration. As with his birth millions, Trump again has been blessed by inheritance. But in this Trump voters are really not much different from hyper-partisans of the past, who cast credit or blame on previous administrations with aplomb. 
The third point is pure eye-of-the-beholder stuff…or to quote one of my favorite Paul Simon lines: One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. Where so many see a shameless vulgarian, these Trump voters see Jesus in the temple, overturning tables and disconnecting cables to shock Washington to its senses.
In this self-portrait, these letter writers have helped The New York Times in its mission to normalize Trump voters and bring them into civil discourse on the pages of a paper that proudly accepts the appellation of Gray Lady. The Times yearns to serve tea and crumpets to all its readers in the upstairs parlor where they can sit upright and discuss all the news that’s fit to print. “Fit to print.” That Times motto exudes pure Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham, sense of decorum to the very tip of Maggie Smith’s downward-pointed nose.
But something hits my nose not quite right…and not just my nose. One of the letters from a Trump voter begins like this: “To the editor: Before I respond to your questions, I have a question of my own: Did you run similar surveys for Obama voters? Or, for that matter, Eisenhower voters? Trump voters are not circus freaks to be displayed or singled out.” Ironically that’s the same line of attack aimed at The Times from the Left. Why didn’t The Times ever devote as much time trying to understand Obama voters? Or, more poignantly perhaps, understanding the feelings of Hillary voters who actually voted in greater numbers for her than Trump’s voters voted for him, only to be deprived of the presidency by that third nipple of the US Constitution, the Electoral College?
The answer of course to both the Right and the Left--though The Times would be too obsessively well-mannered to say so--is that Trump’s voters actually are the circus freaks of American democracy. What else to conclude about people who luxuriate in the shower of Trump's testosterone while remaining utterly indifferent to the plight of the millions he willfully hurts? How else to describe people who exalt in Trump's knack for shaking things up and ignore the cost in international prestige and standing with the vast majority of the country? What other can you say about people who extoll his ignorance and inarticulation about fundamental governance and policy as "telling it like it is"? This self-evident freakishness is precisely why The Times has spent so much of its resources attempting to decrypt these voters. 

It is also why this latest attempt to do that by allowing them to put into their own words their thoughts about Trump is not only a failure, but makes the decoding job doubly hard by throwing another layer of bullshit over who Trump voters are and what motivates them. Anyone who has--as I have--encountered Trump voters anywhere on social media immediately recognizes how at variance those voices are with these Times letter writers. Not only is the level of literacy and coherency expressed in The Times letters far above that found in social media postings by Trump voters, but no where to be found in any of these letters…at least not explicitly…is a trace of the xenophobia, nativism, racism, and resentment that are the true hallmarks of Trumpism. Perhaps Times readers are a self-selecting group of thoughtful, literate, concerned citizens, regardless of politics…and these letters are a true reflection of Times readership generally. But it’s hard to imagine that The Times solicitation for feedback from Trump voters did not yield at least a few that reflected their triumphant glee at Trump's ruthlessness in putting down minority groups, our free press, and any politician with an inkling of compassion. It’s hard to imagine that in a week of revelations about "shithole" countries, payoffs to porn stars, and an ever-tightening independent investigation, none of that echoed through into the letters of The Times selection of Trump voters.

It may not be fair to accuse The Times of sanitizing the letters it chose to present on its op-ed pages, but it also seems fair to say that in order to keep the Gray Lady’s hands clean, The Times continues to refuse to do the dirty work necessary to uphold its status as our paper of record.   

Trump voters meet The New York Times--
the movie