| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| NYT Editorial: Regime Change by AlQ = Healthy Democracy |
| 2004-03-17 |
| If this was posted yesterday, please delete! EFL / Fair Use Change in Spain Published: March 16, 2004 The terrorist bombings in Madrid last week were undoubtedly the main factor in Sunday’s upset of the incumbent Popular Party, which supported the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. The victorious Socialists, like most Spaniards, did not. If Al Qaeda organized the bombings, as now seems to be the case, the outcome may be seen by some as a win for the terrorists. We disagree. Certainly, the events in Madrid have been a major blow to the Bush administration’s strategy of inducing democratic governments to endorse its military operations even in the teeth of overwhelming opposition from their own people. But the war on terror will go on, perhaps stronger than ever. The Popular Party expected that its impressive economic achievements would cause the Spanish people to overlook Prime Minister José MarÃÂa Aznar’s unpopular decision to support the invasion of Iraq and send a symbolic detachment of Spanish troops to aid in the effort. Thursday’s terrorist strike — Western Europe’s worst in more than half a century, with 200 dead and 1,500 wounded — scrambled the political calculus. Sunday’s vote became an expression of national pride and mourning. Spaniards who might not otherwise have voted turned out in large numbers and voted against a government that they opposed before the bombs went off. Others may have turned against the government over its early emphatic insistence that the bombings had been the work of Basque, rather than Islamic, terrorists. Either way, it was an exercise in healthy democracy, in which a change of government is simply that, and not a change of national character. ...more... The home of moral equivalency holds the line. |
| Posted by:.com |
| #3 LH, this may have been a good analysis some time ago but have you seen the NYTimes weather section lately. Its got the colors of the USA weather map and actual precip amount. Maybe the red diaper babies have a little weathergeek in them. |
| Posted by: mhw 2004-3-17 10:26:23 AM |
| #2 Mike: the contrast between the WaPo and the NYT has been striking for years. It goes back even before 9/11. The WaPo editorial line is basically New Democrat and Clintonian. The NYT under Raines was bitterly anti-Clintonian, FROM THE LEFT. IN particular Raines waged a long and bitter war against welfare reform. Apparently the current Sulzberger-in-charge goes in for this point of view also. While the Grahams at the WaPo remain loyal to their Kennedy era/ New Frontier version of liberalism. You could also say its different audiences. The NYT target audience is a certain sort of Upper West Side liberal, with CPUSA or at least fellow traveler background, who works in the culture industries, and for whom politics is largely a way of snubbing competing, less cultured, elites. WaPo's target audience, Dems and Republicans alike, is people who actually have to deal with policy on a day to day basis, and who have to be deal with reality, both international reality and US domestic political reality. Typical WaPo reader - busy hammering out a fishing agreement with France. Typical NYT reader - has a house on the Riviera in France. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-3-17 9:48:00 AM |
| #1 Essay question (15 pts) -- Compare the above with the Washington Post's editorial of the same date discussing the Spanish election. Which of these great liberal newspapers is written and edited by mature adult human beings? Support your conclusion. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-3-17 9:01:59 AM |