March 10, 2009--Behind the "Washington Post"

Call me ill informed or out of touch, but until last weekend I thought that the Washington Post was part of the east coast liberal media establishment. I assumed it was the Washington Times that was the right wing newspaper in DC.

But then someone send me the attached editorial from the WaPo, titled "George W. Obama," and I was so shocked by its silliness and, worse, mean-spiritedness, that I took a closer look at the Post and the columnists it features. And though, as a liberal, I like that the New York Times publishes David Brooks' columns on the op-ed page, and though most times I disagree with him, at least he has a brain and makes a good case for his views.

On the other hand, the Post's stable of columnists, and many of their editorial writers, are right out of the conservative wingnut school. Featured are Robert Kagan (who was instrumental in bringing us the war in Iraq), Charles Krauthammer (who has repeatedly called for us to bomb Iran from his Post perch at the as well as from his seat at Fox News), George Will (the WaPo's David Brooks), and Michael Gerson (George W's chief speechwriter) among a smattering of more moderate and left-leaning columnists. But the Post's editorials that I have been scanning have been tilting more and more to the right. All well and good, but not what I, in my naïveté, had been thinking.

Take this Jackson Diehl, the Post's deputy editorial page editor, who wrote the "George W. Obama" rant.

It’s actually more of a ramble that touches on Rush Limbaugh, the recent healthcare summit, and bipartisanship; but the section that Diehl seems to feel justifies linking Bush and is brief enough to quote in its entirety—it amalgamates Bush and Obama by claiming that Obama, like Bush, in spite of their rhetoric, during their individual crises (9/11 and the recession), did not call on all of us to sacrifice. Bush told us to shop and Obama:

Warned the country that fixing the huge problems in the financial markets and housing and auto industries would require a historic effort. "None of this will come without cost, nor will it be easy," he said. "But this is America. We don't do what's easy.

We do what is necessary to move this country forward."
Minutes later, Obama spelled out what he proposes this to mean for 98 percent of Americans: "You will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut . . . and these checks are on the way."

So much for summoning the country to sacrifice. Obama has been no more willing to ask average Americans to pitch in, even once the recession is over, than Bush.

Let’s talk for a moment about those 98 percent of Americans who Diehl claims are not being asked to pitch in or sacrifice.

Who in America has been hit hardest by the Great Recession? The two percent of Americans who are wealthy and used to be worth $20 million and are now struggling to get by on just $10 million? Those who had three or four homes and now may have to make do with only two? Those who have to take their kids out of Ivy League colleges and send them to state U’s? Others who won’t be going to St. Barts this winter? I feel for them, but really.

Or is it most of that 98 percent who have already been clobbered? Who have already sacrificed jobs, seen the equity in their homes implode, perhaps been foreclosed on, lost their health care benefits, seen the value of their 401(k)s cut in half, not been able to send their kids to even a community college, can’t afford to buy a used much less a new car, are doing all their shopping at Wal-Marts, and are scared to death that things for them will get still worse.

Yes, Jackson Diehl, Obama should be asking more of them. It’s these people’s fault that we are in the situation we’re in. It’s not true, in spite of what the radicals and socialists are saying, that they’ve been taken advantage of by government cynicism and incompetence or corporate shenanigans and unbridled greed. If the middle class and poor hadn’t taken the bait and mortgaged themselves to the hilt we wouldn’t be in this fix.

So, since it’s their fault, since we’re all equally in this together, we should also ask them to pitch in and sacrifice. If we’re going to ask those making more than $250K a year to pay a little more in taxes, why shouldn’t everyone else be required to do more?

To quote Diehl quoting Barack Obama from his address to Congress and the nation, “But this is America. We don’t do what’s easy.” But in Jackson Diehl’s America we kick people when they’re down, especially if the powerful and rich are primarily responsible for their being down in the first place.

So maybe he got the title to his editorial wrong. I prefer—“George W. Diehl.” That sounds about right.