Permalink to “The New Yorker” Endorses Obama

“The New Yorker” Endorses Obama

 

No surprise there, I know–nor come to think of it, is there even any surprise in the way the endorsement, which appears in the current issue of the magazine, opens: “The morning was cold and the sky was bright….On that day in Washington—Inauguration Day, January 20, 2009—the blustery chill penetrated every coat, yet the discomfort was no impediment to joy.” We’re in New Yorker world, where everything sentence is oh-so-precious and every article moves oh-so-slowly.

Yet the novella-length endorsement–it runs to 3,600 words–is, in a way, perfect, presenting every argument on behalf of Barack Obama that can possibly be mustered while offering an exquisite articulation of a worldview in which reelecting Obama not only makes sense but represents a moral duty.

As I read the endorsement, I kept thinking, What is there to say to people who would write this stuff? And then–but of course!–it struck me: I’d ask you, the Ricochetti.

Herewith, the first of several excerpts I’d like to post:

Perhaps inevitably, the President has disappointed some of his most ardent supporters. Part of their disappointment is a reflection of the fantastical expectations that attached to him. Some, quite reasonably, are disappointed in his policy failures (on Guantánamo, climate change, and gun control); others question the morality of the persistent use of predator drones. And, of course, 2012 offers nothing like the ecstasy of taking part in a historical advance: the reëlection of the first African-American President does not inspire the same level of communal pride. But the reëlection of a President who has been progressive, competent, rational, decent, and, at times, visionary is a serious matter. The President has achieved a run of ambitious legislative, social, and foreign-policy successes that relieved a large measure of the human suffering and national shame inflicted by the Bush Administration. Obama has renewed the honor of the office he holds.

The question, again, is simple:

What is there to say to these people?

Join Ricochet!
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 53 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Profile photo of genferei Member

    The New Yorker gives political endorsements? Who knew? Isn’t that a bit like Better Homes and Gardens or Good Housekeeping doing so? Except that these latter magazines have about 7 and 4 times the circulation of the New Yorker, respectively.

    Anyway, isn’t it a reëndorsement?

    • #1
    • October 30, 2012 at 1:51 am
  2. Profile photo of Basil Fawlty Member

    Pick up a copy of Tom Wolfe’s Hooking Up. He said it all about the magazine in “Tiny Mummies” and “Lost in the Whichy Thickets.”

    • #2
    • October 30, 2012 at 3:37 am
  3. Profile photo of LCLee Inactive

    There isn’t much you can say to them. They are of the same socialist mindset as Obama. The way they view the world is so colored by their goal of the complete government takeover of every aspect of our lives that they will never understand the thinking or desires of people wanting independence and freedom. The only thing there is left to do is to fight the good fight to help more people see the truth of those dangerous socialist policies embraced by Obama and his rabid followers. Thanks ricochet for giving us a place express our feelings. It is great to have a place to lend a voice to the fight.

    • #3
    • October 30, 2012 at 4:22 am
  4. Profile photo of Paul Stinchfield Member
    flownover: I said ” please cancel my subscription ” early in the first Bush term when Hertzberg started to foam at the mouth .

    It was hard after years of faithful readership , but they went south faster than Andrew Sullivan at a Wasilla Prom .

    Haven’t missed much I bet . · 6 hours ago

    The rot began much earlier. Remember Paul Brodeur’s crackpot “Currents of Death”? They have an army of fact-checkers to make sure names are spelled properly and dates are correct, but there are vast areas of knowledge they don’t understand and don’t want to understand.

    • #4
    • October 30, 2012 at 4:23 am
  5. Profile photo of Cornelius Julius Sebastian Thatcher

    I would say, “Please leave and move to Europe, where you obviously belong.”

    • #5
    • October 30, 2012 at 4:31 am
  6. Profile photo of kgrant67 Member

    What is there to say to them? Nothing. They’re of the 47%. Write them off.

    • #6
    • October 30, 2012 at 4:55 am
  7. Profile photo of Carver Member

    Well once again I’ve been beaten to the Tom Wolfe punch. But I’ll restate: To anyone that has ever choked on reflux after reading some “About Town” his parodies are hilarious.

    I think yesterday I finally decided (completely) that many of these outlets are just bought and paid for. Otherwise they would not be making themselves laughing-stocks and otherwise repulsing what’s left of their respective market shares.

    • #7
    • October 30, 2012 at 5:19 am
  8. Profile photo of Leslie Watkins Member

    Reading the excerpt I pictured a big overstuffed bed with gigantic billowy pillows and a spread so thick that the only sight of the human underneath (is there only one? who can tell?) is a scrawny, outstretched hand reaching for the wobbly, half-full Cognac glass on the side table.

    • #8
    • October 30, 2012 at 5:24 am
  9. Profile photo of Schwaibold Member

    Many of the strongest arguments against Obama require a refutation of progressive ideology, which would have no effect on a typical New Yorker subscriber.

    Arguments aainst Obama that a progressive might understand are the precedents established by the aforementioned drone strikes, a general disregard for the rule of law, abuses of power, scandals and coverups.

    Even if you are not particularly disturbed by the specifics, consider the broader implications of condoning such behavior. I’m sure many centrists and thoughtful squishes did not vote for Mccain in 2008 to express their concern over the press’ constant reminders about the WMD ‘scandal’, and the Patriot Act’s civil liberties violations. Are there any thoughtful squishes on the left? I guess we’ll find out next wek.

    • #9
    • October 30, 2012 at 5:28 am
  10. Profile photo of Keith Preston Member

    ramirez-mediabias-lg.jpgRamirez got it right

    • #10
    • October 30, 2012 at 5:32 am
  11. Profile photo of Carver Member
    Keith Preston

    Ramirez got it right · 0 minutes ago

    And we know this has affected the crease, right?

    • #11
    • October 30, 2012 at 5:34 am
  12. Profile photo of Larry3435 Member

    “What is there to say to these people?”

    Nothing. The way they think is — lefties have good intentions­, so the programs they support must be good. If those programs don’t work, then we obviously have to pump more money into them. We HAVE to do this, because the programs are good. Fortunatel­y, lefties know that there is an endless supply of money available simply by taxing the “rich.”

    Anyone who disagrees with the lefties obviously doesn’t share their good intentions­. Such people have bad intentions­. Such people are malicious. They want to watch people starve in the streets so that hedge fund managers can have bigger yachts. The “teabaggers” want this because their corporate overlords tell them to.

    I’m sure that somewhere, deep down, there is a part of the lefty brain that knows how ridiculous this is – a part of their brain that knows that nobody wants to see people starve in the streets. But it is the only explanation they can conceive, so they stick to it.

    Trying to explain economics to a lefty is like trying to explain calculus to your dog.

    • #12
    • October 30, 2012 at 5:37 am
  13. Profile photo of Songwriter Member
    HVTs: Tell them this:

    All one needs to know about Obama’s failed Presidency is that it it took 3600 words to convince readers of The New Yorkerto stick with him for four more years. If it takes that much effort to make the case with that audience, there is no case. · 7 hours ago

    True enough. But remember, 3600 words in the New Yorker is like two or three short sentences most other places.

    • #13
    • October 30, 2012 at 5:45 am
  14. Profile photo of TaleenaS Member

    What do you say?: “Bless your heart, care for more kool-aid?”

     I have friends who will not vote for Romney for “a bajillion million years” and so will cast their lot with Gary Johnson. They are pro-abortion, socialist, pro pot, etc. – They are still reachable. Perhaps not this election, but if they can be weaned off Mother Jones, Huffpo, and DNC talking points we can deprogram them. It is the difference between not understanding the insidious bondage of “free” choice and socialism and those who know it and count such bondage as a goal to be earnestly desired.

    • #14
    • October 30, 2012 at 5:46 am
  15. Profile photo of Hibernian Inactive

    Does The New Yorker really spell “reelection” with an umlaut?

    • #15
    • October 30, 2012 at 5:55 am
  16. Profile photo of Sabrdance Member
    Larry3435: “What is there tosay to these people?”

    Trying to explain economics to a lefty is like trying to explain calculus to your dog. · 40 minutes ago

    You sell your dog short. He can do calculus in his head, on the fly, to catch a ball or frisbee. I doubt very much the President could.

    • #16
    • October 30, 2012 at 6:21 am
  17. Profile photo of Brandon Shafer Thatcher

    Maybe, because they have been drenched in liberal media for the past four years, they are blissfully unaware of the problems and scandals of the policies of this administration. A point by point rundown of the failed promises, and the numerous scandals and administrative failings of the administration might make a dent. However, that is pretty wishful thinking. I’ve long come to the realization that changing anyone’s mind is a difficult prospect in any sort of area that involves faith, and politics certainly involves a little faith in the policies that one supports. Like a drugged out vagrant, the liberal has to want to change. For the liberal I think steadily showing how their policies continue to fail, and how liberals ostracize, belittle, and denigrate those that dare to have a different opinion. Over time those might work, but it really depends on willingness of the listener. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

    • #17
    • October 30, 2012 at 6:21 am
  18. Profile photo of Severely Ltd. Member
    flownover: I said ” please cancel my subscription ” early in the first Bush term when Hertzberg started to foam at the mouth .

    It was hard after years of faithful readership , but they went south faster than Andrew Sullivan at a Wasilla Prom .

    Haven’t missed much I bet .

    Ha, good Sully jab. With all that facial fur he’s almost a bush-pilot composite sketch, but I don’t imagine that that’s exactly his milieu.

    I bailed on the NYer too, but in the Clinton years, way too much cultural and political muck to sift through for the odd gem.

    What to say to a devoted NYer reader? “Now that Romney’s Prez, have you looked at the bargain prices on properties in Provence? With your sophistication I’ll bet you’re a shoo-in for EU citizenship.”

    • #18
    • October 30, 2012 at 6:30 am
  19. Profile photo of Midget Faded Rattlesnake Moderator
    genferei: 

    Anyway, isn’t it a reëndorsement? 

    My, that’s good.

    • #19
    • October 30, 2012 at 6:31 am
  20. Profile photo of Scott R Member

    They cite as failures — his fecklessness on Guantanamo, “climate change”, and gun control — the very areas that we Richochetti regard as his limited successes, so, really, there’s just no point in saying anything to these people.

    • #20
    • October 30, 2012 at 6:38 am
  21. Profile photo of Colin B Lane Member
    Hibernian: Does The New Yorker really spell “reelection” with an umlaut? · 1 hour ago

    This pretension alone made it almost impossible for me to continue reading even Peter’s short excerpt. I kept wiping my computer screen thinking I had a couple of little dirt spots. Some editor really needs his a** kicked….

    • #21
    • October 30, 2012 at 7:41 am
  22. Profile photo of The Forgotten Man Member
    HVTs: Tell them this:

    All one needs to know about Obama’s failed Presidency is that it it took 3600 words to convince readers of The New Yorkerto stick with him for four more years. If it takes that much effort to make the case with that audience, there is no case. · 9 hours ago

    HVT very well said. It is hard for me to comprehend why anyone would vote for President Obama. His record is that bad. When I think of Obamacare going forward and his Supreme Court appointments if reelected and the deficit he will run up. Brrrrrrrrrrrr.

    • #22
    • October 30, 2012 at 8:38 am
  23. Profile photo of gnarlydad Member

    Edited out of shame for words unfittingly spoken (written.)

    • #23
    • October 30, 2012 at 9:18 am
  24. Profile photo of Patrick in Albuquerque Inactive

    Ah well, the New Yorker is doing nothing more than preaching to the saved. Are we doing the same here in this thread?

    • #24
    • October 30, 2012 at 9:19 am
  25. Profile photo of Devereaux Inactive

    I’m shocked, simply shocked! Round up the usual suspects!

    • #25
    • October 30, 2012 at 9:21 am
  26. Profile photo of Midget Faded Rattlesnake Moderator
    Peter Robinson

    …the reëlection of the first African-American President does not inspire the same level of communal pride. But the reëlection…

    What is there to say to these people?

    “Nice diaeresis, dude.”

    Peter Robinson

    We’re inNew Yorker world, where everything sentence is oh-so-precious, and every article moves oh-so-slowly.

    Heh.

    • #26
    • October 30, 2012 at 9:24 am
  27. Profile photo of flownover Inactive

    I said ” please cancel my subscription ” early in the first Bush term when Hertzberg started to foam at the mouth .

    It was hard after years of faithful readership , but they went south faster than Andrew Sullivan at a Wasilla Prom .

    Haven’t missed much I bet .

    • #27
    • October 30, 2012 at 9:24 am
  28. Profile photo of Natalie Inactive

    Why is it any less historical to elect the first Mormon President?

    • #28
    • October 30, 2012 at 9:25 am
  29. Profile photo of Mike LaRoche Thatcher
    Peter Robinson

    The question, again, is simple:

    What is there to say to these people?

    I can think of four words: talk to the hand.

    • #29
    • October 30, 2012 at 9:26 am
  30. Profile photo of Midget Faded Rattlesnake Moderator

    I miss James Thurber.

    • #30
    • October 30, 2012 at 9:26 am
  1. 1
  2. 2