Here's who makes up the Times editorial board. (It kind of speaks for itself.) The funny thing is that a close read of the oped gives a window into the group writing process. You start with original impulse: Dems have gone totally left wing! It's so bad! nytimes.com/interactive/20…
2/ They need to be unifying and bipartisan! So far so good. But at some point someone says, but wait, we're for new social spending and we say the climate is existential and the challenge of our generation! So they throw in this paragraph. 
3/ So now you have an editorial that says Democrats need to face the reality that their agenda is too extreme and the reason it's so important to change that is that the country desperately needs ... well, what sounds like the too extreme agenda. Welp.
4/ So basically you have an editorial that amounts to renovate the house. But hey, don't go spending money on renovations. Also, be sure to eat your cake. Also don't gain any weight. It's not so much analysis as 'how do we position ourselves as the extreme sage people ...
5/ we are and getting in line with chorus while also saying we're for the things we constantly claim we're for!' Not a problem. Write it elegantly enough and it will all hang together!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
