Why does the New York Times keep calling the left ‘divisive’?
The newspaper often uses the word to describe elections with progressive contenders, implying a previous whole destroyed by the left
TL;DR
- The New York Times has consistently used the terms 'divisive' and 'polarizing' to describe progressive candidates and figures, such as Abdul El-Sayed, Haley Stevens, David Crowley, Francesca Hong, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Howard Zinn.
- The author argues this usage is a conscious campaign to undermine progressive advances and promote a mythical unity that benefits the Democratic party establishment, corporate powers, and the donor class.
- The Times's framing implies that the left is destroying a previous, virtuous whole, a notion the author rejects by highlighting the U.S.'s historical divisions.
- While the Times sometimes labels far-right Republicans as divisive, its primary focus on this term is directed at progressives, implicitly portraying them as fanatical and dangerous.
- The author believes the Times's strategy aims to shore up a fantasized unity controlled by corporate interests and Wall Street, thereby discouraging effective challenges to these powers.