It’s truly astounding how the NY Times, and the “mainstream media” in general, relentlessly disrespects Democrats, applies double standards (holding Democrats to infinitely higher standards than Republicans), buys into right-wing slanders against Democrats, does lazy “reporting,” etc., etc. Latest case in point: the NY Times’ new op-ed, by columnist Michelle Cottle, about Virginia and New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial nominees Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill, and entitled “Weak, Woke and Whiny’ No More.” The problems with this article? Here are just a few reasons why it’s basically a puff piece filled with hot garbage “takes.”
- First of all, the clickbait headline – “‘Weak, Woke and Whiny’ No More” – plays into a bunch of negative, and overwhelmingly false, stereotypes about Democrats. I mean, “weak, woke and whiny” are adjectives that the right wing USES about Democrats, but that doesn’t mean they’re at all accurate. And yet, this entire op-ed is set up as demonstrating how two female Democratic candidates for governor – Abigail Spanberger in Virginia and Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey – don’t fit those stereotypes. Of course, in setting it up this way, the article de facto accepts the premise that the stereotypes are true, or at least doesn’t make any effort at debunking those stereotypes, even though – again – these are right-wing smears of Democrats that they repeat over and over and over again, but that are no more accurate despite that constant repetition.
- Second, looking at each of those adjectives in order, WTF is this even saying? I mean, let’s get specific here – who exactly in the Democratic Party is “weak” or “whiny,” and what exactly does the adjective “woke” refer to? Because again, most of these are just vague “vibes” or right-wing smears. For instance, the word “woke” is simply an all-purpose right-wing attack on Democrats, with essentially zero meaning when used by the right wing (since they apply it to literally anything/everything they dislike). In fact, “woke” is a term “began as an adjective in African American Vernacular English to mean being aware of and attentive to crucial facts and issues, especially concerning racial and social justice,” but which “has been co-opted and weaponized, particularly by some conservative media, to dismiss progressive or inclusive policies and movements, often as a derogatory term for perceived left-wing political correctness.” Thus, we see the Trump administration taking an axe to what it absurdly calls “Woke Programs” including pre-school development grants, minority business development, what it calls “radical DEI and climate change alarmism,” USAID “aid to radical, leftist priorities, including climate change, DEI, and LGBTQ activities around the world,” etc. As you can see, the Project 2025, DOGE, far-right, Trump administration, etc. are using the word “woke” to essentially mean “anything we don’t like, for whatever reasons, often related to science, the environment, race, gender, etc. Using the word “woke” as a slur, then, means that caring about science, the environment, racism, etc. is a BAD thing, apparently something to be avoided, and linked somehow to being “weak” and “whiny.” In contrast, apparently, cutting USAID programs and, in the process, harming – or even killing – millions of people, is not “whiny” or “weak?” Same thing with burning up the planet, apparently – very strong! Of course, the right-wing’s demonization of all these things serves their overall aims, whether to enrich their fossil fuel cronies, reestablish white (straight male) supremacy, whatever. But again, the framing of this NY Times op-ed, implies that being “woke” is equivalent to being “weak” and “whiny,” while apparently NOT being “woke” is strong and…not whiny? Who the f*** knows, seriously – it’s just drivel in the NY Times, as is far-too-often the case these days.
- Third, the examples the NY Times op-ed uses to prove its thesis, that Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill are DIFFERENT than all those other “weak, woke and whiny” Democrats, basically come down to having “butt-kicking résumé”s which include the fact that: a) they’re suburban moms; b) they have “national security chops”/are “national security mom”s; c) they are “both formidable and approachable, tough and caring, driven by [their] commitment to service”; and d) they buck their party, such as not supporting Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. The thing is, those are all (except for not voting for Pelosi, which was inexcusable substantively, probably didn’t help politically either) perfectly fine, but first off they’re not unique – in fact, there are TONS of Democratic elected officials who are suburban moms (or dads), have national security chops, are “tough and caring,” “driven by…commitment to service,” “buck their party” at times, etc. And, of course, there are TONS of Democratic elected officials and politicians who have “national security chops,” are moms or dads, and all the other things listed above. There are also, of course, Democratic elected officials who aren’t moms or dads, who don’t have national security chops, who don’t live in suburbia, but are PERFECTLY FINE, even EXCELLENT! Because, the fact is, being a mom or dad, living in suburbia, having national security chops, etc., are not requirements for being good people, effective public servants, tough and caring, etc.
- Fourth, the entire concept – which this op-ed clearly buys into – that a primary goal of Democratic politicians should be to avoid, at all costs, being labeled “lefty extremists” by Republicans (and that a national security bio also makes it harder for Republicans” to do that), is yet again the wrong way to look at things. I mean, do Republicans sit around worrying that Democrats will label them as “righty extremists”- and compensate accordingly? If not, why not? Is distancing themselves from their ideological extremes something that only one “side” has to do? Regardless, why should Democrats always be in the position of having to present themselves in ways that are acceptable to the right wing, especially given that Republicans are NOT in the position of having to present themselves in ways that are acceptable to the left wing? Also, while we’re on this topic, what exactly makes one a “lefty extremist” these days, in the view of Republicans and/or the media? Because it often seems like no matter WHAT Democrats do, no matter HOW “centrist” or “moderate” they are (e.g., Abigail Spanberger and Mikie Sherrill), Republicans are STILL going to call them “far-left/liberal/progressive extremists” regardless. Anyway, the main point here is the asymmetry – in the sense that the media ONLY looks at Democrats as having to hide their liberal, progressive, or (god forbid) “left-wing” sides, while Republicans can be as far-right as they wanna be…and it’s all good.
- Fifth, when the author of this piece writes things like “It also cuts against the idea that Democrats aren’t patriotic,” it implicitly or explicitly accepts the premise that the “idea that Democrats aren’t patriotic” is a valid one, out there because there’s something to it, and not pushing back against it as a right-wing construct that has minimal if any basis in reality. And yet the author of this piece just throws it in there, casually/flippantly, as if it’s an obvious fact that doesn’t even require critical examination, or even looking into where that “idea” came from. Instead, the author just throws it out there, uncritically, and then uses it to support her thesis that there are types of Democrats – Spanberger and Sherrill for instance – who are immune, or at least resistant, to that “idea,” because of their “national security chops,” etc. You see how this is basically just circular bullsh**? People are saying that Democrats are xyz bad things, thus there’s the “idea” out there, thus it’s important for Democrats to run candidates who are resistant if not immune to those bad “ideas” about most Democrats – even as there’s no evidence that most Democrats aren’t patriotic, aren’t strong and effective, whatever.
- Sixth, the author undercuts her own argument by pointing to numerous “Badass” national security Democratic women candidates – Amy McGrath (who lost to Mitch McConnell by 20 points despite raising $90 million), M.J. Hegar (who lost to John Cornyn by 10 points), Elaine Luria (who won in 2018 and 2020, but then lost to Jen Kiggans in 2022) – who had all the things the author says are crucial, but lost elections, sometimes badly. So, apparently, being a “Badass” isn’t a guarantee that you’ll win, while not being a “Badass” is most certainly not a guarantee that you’ll lose. But other than that, there’s a strong correlation here? LOL
Anyway, this could go on all day, but you presumably get the idea – including that, as usual, the “mainstream” political media is lazy, sloppy, and just loooves to perpetuate negative stereotypes about Democrats. But here’s the main thing: Abigail Spanberger deserves to win this election, not because her bio is admirable (which it is!), but because she has far better IDEAS to move Virginia forward than her far-right opponent, Winsome Earle-Sears, and her PARTY is more competent when it comes to the economy, health care and pretty much every other issue than Republicans, who are an unmitigated disaster no matter how you look at it. And, because, in the end, every time we turn over power – whether at the state or national level – to Republicans, disaster ensues. Which, of course, raises the question, why would we ever turn over power to Republicans? And why wouldn’t we elect Democrats, whether “Badasses” or not, unless/until Republicans prove that they’re a competent, effective, sane, reality-based, sane party, instead of the extremist freak show they are right now? And why won’t the media just SAY THAT, instead of writing ridiculous articles like “‘Weak, Woke and Whiny’ No More?”
P.S. A commenter just wrote, “The Times is definitely a leader in being part of the ‘problem’. Just lazy click bait journalism, oh, and not to mention, the disrespect demonstrated to the candidates themselves. Whiny? Ah, yes, whenever have you seen that word associated with a male politician?”
