Globe columnist Adrian Walker doesn’t seem like a bad guy, but he produces very poor columns when he talks about race. Whatever objectivity-mantel he normally wears is completely thrown off. I think he is trying to channel fellow Globe columnist Renee Graham, who only talks about race.
In today’s front-page column, which is not adequately labeled as an opinion piece, Walker joins the bandwagon to complain about three recent Trump tweets where the President stoops down to attack the four Democrats who form the “squad.” This group has been very vocal in their opposition to Trump since before they were elected, and now that the media has given them each their own megaphone, their race-baiting tactics have been on display for all to see. There have been several incidents over the past year or two which have been well-documented.
Many times, these young Democrat leaders have attacked President Trump personally. Based on their relative positions, I would guess that they have collectively attacked Trump five or ten times more than he has any of them, but who knows. In any case, they are getting a lot of attention in the Democrat Party, and the Republicans are simply amazed that the Democrats have moved so far Left that socialism, open borders, and free everything are now regarded as mainstream thinking.
I remember back when Democrats rejected the socialist label (for very good reason.) Now many seem to embrace it. Socialism, however, isn’t just a benign economic system. At its core, it destroys personal freedom, because its basic tenet is that society (represented by the State) owns or controls the output of its citizens. Now in capitalism, we have the necessary evil of taxation. But most capitalists accept the premise that whatever is left after taxes are paid is owned by the individual. This is one reason why “wealth” isn’t taxed (much.) If you focus on wealth, you destroy a strong incentive to save, which hurts society. It also leads to less output, because why put in that extra hour at the office if the State is just going to take it (or 90% of it) from you? You might as well live for the moment, and dream of creative ways to keep wealth beyond the reach of the Taxman.
When socialism goes full rogue, you get communism. Today, none of our socialists would dream of praising or advocating communism, but that’s exactly what we said about Democrats and socialism not that long ago.
So socialism is not just a failed system, it is also a flawed system. And American leaders who advocate socialism are thus pushing an immoral change that would benefit some Americans at the direct expense of others. This type of policy is proving to be quite divisive, as we can see not just in Washington, but among the Democrat’s leaders.
I would hope most mainstream Democrats would reject socialism, but the problem now is that they may get it even if they don’t agree with it. It may be baggage as part of a platform to “save the planet” by passing the Green New Deal, or “protect immigrants” by opening borders, or “provide healthcare for all” by passing the Sanders plan. The media’s hatred of Republicans and Donald Trump (just the latest poster child) has fed so much propaganda to so many people that they may overlook the economic consequences of voting for a Joe Biden or an Elizabeth Warren because they have been told that Donald Trump is a racist and if you don’t want to be called one too, you’d better vote the Left way.
I don’t think President Trump should send out tweets that have not been carefully fact-checked, but he apparently does. I would prefer it that Trump spend much less time attacking his opponents than promoting his policies and many successes. The guy is clearly far from perfect in his personal conduct. On the other hand, his policies have generally been good or great; he is shaking things up in Washington and around the world, and we certainly needed that. And if there is one thing that we know about him, it is that he is going to get down in the mud with his opponents if they go after him.
It is the Boston Globe’s and Adrian Walker’s opinion that Donald Trump should remain presidential while he is vilified by the Left. He just isn’t going to do so.
So let’s examine the double-standard of criticism. “Objective” journalism has charged President Trump with being a “racist” or even a “white supremacist” about a million times. Today’s Globe quotes Democrats calling Trump a racist, and Walker said he was “characteristically xenophobic.” But if Donald Trump, in his loose and opinionated tweet, tells these Congresswomen to “go back where they originally came from,” he must be a racist. So it is okay to call others racist but if someone attacks the accuser, it is just more evidence of racism. Seems like Walker, the Globe, and the media are holding Trump to a far different standard than they do any Democrat.
Do you remember George W. Bush, the president before Obama? Bush rarely if ever responded to criticism, even when personal. When he left office, many people on both sides of the aisle were happy to see him go. The Left had labeled him a failure as a President and he never fought back. They controlled the narrative completely. Yet I don’t think anyone can say that he didn’t act presidential at all times. That is how Democrats like their Republican presidents to act…like punching bags. Trump is no punching bag.
So what we have is a President who gets things done, who doesn’t allow his opponents to frame his presidency, who fights back using the same (sometimes despicable) tactics that his opponents use against him, and who will hopefully be reelected by voters who see through our biased media coverage.
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!