Comedy In The New York Times

Things really are changing at the NYT. Now they’ve introduced a new comedy column in the Sunday Magazine. Here are excerpts from the first one, by veteran contributing writer James Traub.

Why are the Democrats so much more willing than the Republicans to make political sacrifices in the name of procedural fairness or of good government? Maybe Democrats are just nicer, but a more philosophical view is that liberals are committed to, are in fact bedeviled by, ideals about process that do not much preoccupy conservatives, at least contemporary ones. Liberals put their faith in such content-neutral principles as free speech, due process, participatory democracy. Is that too lofty? Then maybe we should say that today’s liberals, unlike today’s conservatives, don’t believe in any particular set of ends ardently enough to blind themselves to the means they are using to achieve them.

Say What? (7)

  1. peg July 6, 2003 at 11:34 am | | Reply

    john–my thoughts exactly! i almost laughed out loud when i first read this column.

    how is it possible to perceive what is occurring on the political scene in such a dramatically different fashion?

    then again – perhaps the column is merely comic relief. (if only….!)

  2. M July 6, 2003 at 1:20 pm | | Reply

    Its tough to be a democrat. It seems to me that a BIG chunk of the democratic faithful are democrats because the support the environment, women’s rights, and education and oppose racism.

    The problem is that 99% of the general population does so as well. So sense “republicans” tend to disagree it must be because they hate women, blacks, bambi, trees, clean water, etc..

  3. Mark July 7, 2003 at 7:07 pm | | Reply

    So what’s the substantive response to this column? _Why_ is this comedy?

  4. John Rosenberg July 7, 2003 at 11:53 pm | | Reply

    I dunno. Maybe I have a warped sense of humor (or the NYT does), but I just figured that an essay arguing that the most fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans might be that the Democrats are “nicer” but that a “more philosophical view” is that Democrats, unlike Republicans, are committed to “ideals about process” and such good things as free speech, due process, etc., simply couldn’t be serious.

  5. Mark July 8, 2003 at 2:01 pm | | Reply

    Point taken. In that case, what would your response be to the data that Traub uses to reach his conclusion (such as the extremely unusual second round of redistricting in Texas)?

  6. Jeff Medcalf July 8, 2003 at 7:29 pm | | Reply

    Being from Texas, I can answer the redistricting question. After the 2000 census, when the redistricting was being done, the Democrats used every possible procedural move to stall and delay and obstruct the process, which resulted in the deadline for a new district map (mandated by the State Constitution) passing without a new map. As a result, the courts stepped in and mandated that until the Texas legislature passed a new map, the map to be used would be the one presented by the Democrats, since they had the current majority of seats in the Congressional delegation.

    So the Republicans, who hold all statewide offices in Texas, have a minority of US House seats. Earlier this year, when the Republicans tried to bring up redistricting yet again, the Democrats left the State during a legislative session (normally only held every other year in Texas) in order to prevent the issue coming up for a vote (which, incidentally, they knew they’d lose). So, the reason that the Republicans are trying to redistrict now is that the Texas legislature has not redistricted since the last census.

    Which party would you say was trying to follow procedure, and which one would you say was trying to get their job done to the best of their abilities?

    (And no, I’m not a Republican. I’m an independent with libertarian tendencies.)

  7. Mark July 9, 2003 at 8:15 pm | | Reply

    Several comments. First, it is worth pointing out that Gov. Perry (R) specifically declined to call a special session of the Legislature for redistricting, such as the one occurring now. (In other words, the Republicans declined to use all the means at their disposal to try and get redistricting passed).

    Second, the map the Court mandated was _not_ the one proposed by Texas Democrats. It was one drawn by the Court _themselves_, based on politically _neutral_ redistricting principles (see http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/static/pdf/opinion.pdf). The Court’s map allotted districts in rough proportion to population (within the confines of the Voting Rights Act), and explicitly did not engage in political gerrymandering.

    The map they came up with benefitted Democrats, it is true. The principal reason, though, was the demands of the VRA, mandating “majority-minority” (read, Democratic) districts. Otherwise, it was basically as neutral a map as could be drawn. Remember that a Reagan-appointed judge approved the map.

    Third: many (most) of the Democratic Congressman who would be screwed by the new round of redistricting are in districts where a majority of the voters are Republican. That is, they vote for Republicans in statewide and presidential elections, but a Dem congressman. That’s terribly unfair to the Republicans, of course.

    To sum up: the current map was drawn by neutral parties in _2001_ according to neutral drafting principles and the Voting Rights Act. While the Dems have a 17-15 edge under the current map, several of the Dem congressman are in otherwise Republican-leaning districts. Explain to me how the Republicans are being screwed?

Say What?