{"id":397984,"date":"2019-03-05T00:09:22","date_gmt":"2019-03-04T23:09:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/wapo-warns-dems-that-progressive-policies-could-bring-them-many-victories\/"},"modified":"2019-03-05T00:09:22","modified_gmt":"2019-03-04T23:09:22","slug":"wapo-warns-dems-that-progressive-policies-could-bring-them-many-victories","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/wapo-warns-dems-that-progressive-policies-could-bring-them-many-victories\/","title":{"rendered":"WaPo Warns Dems That Progressive Policies Could Bring Them Many Victories"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Jeff Cohen<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A standard\u00a0bias in news coverage in elite outlets (Washington Post<\/strong>, New York Times<\/strong>, NPR<\/strong>, etc.) is centrism<\/a>\u2014using an allegedly objective voice to warn against or critique \u201cextremism\u201d of left and right. Centrist bias sometimes takes the form of inaccurate critiques of broadly popular progressive policies that are quite defensible\u2014such as\u00a0Medicare for All<\/a> or raising the minimum wage<\/a>.<\/span> <\/b>Or it manifests itself in inaccurate claims about the impact of right-wing or progressive “extremism” on US elections.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\"WaPo:<\/p>\n

Washington Post<\/strong> (3\/1\/19<\/a>) warns against young progressive representatives like Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez and Ayanna Pressley.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

A good example\u00a0<\/span>of this status quo bias\u00a0<\/span>was provided by the recent Washington Post<\/strong> “news” story (3\/1\/19<\/a>) warning of the progressive upsurge in the Democratic Party\u2014”Centrist Democrats Push Back Against Party’s Liberal Surge.” The bias w<\/span>as imparted wit<\/span>h the help of \u201cobjective\u201d phrases in the reporters\u2019 voice, such as \u201cshoot-the-moon policy ideas\u201d and \u201chardball tacti<\/span>c<\/span>s of liberal firebrands.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>And by\u00a0<\/span>quoting in the article a half-dozen sources from\u00a0<\/span>the corporate wing<\/span>\u00a0of the party, <\/span>and none from the progressive wing<\/span>. But\u00a0<\/span>more striking was\u00a0<\/span>the skewed history\u00a0<\/span>and numbers\u00a0<\/span>in this paragraph (emphasis added):<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Some warned that imposing purity tests could lead to a Democratic version of the conservative Tea Party revolt that transformed the GOP in recent years. That surge has brought Republicans new energy and new voters, but it also\u00a0<\/span>cost the GOP some congressional races and legislative victories<\/span><\/b>. <\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Let’s run the numbers: When the Tea Party revolt began in early 2009, Democrats had the White House and 59 or 60 Senators caucusing with them. Republicans now have the White House and 53 Senators. Democrats had a huge majority in the in the US House with 257 seats, but even after their\u00a0big comeback win last November, Democrats now have 235 House seats.\u00a0Democrats had 28 of 50 governorships in the country; the GOP now\u00a0has 27 of 50. In 2009, Democratic state legislators outnumbered their Republican counterparts<\/a> by 859 seats; now the GOP has an edge of 379 over Dems among state lawmakers. <\/span>
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The Tea Party upsurge might have \u201ccost\u201d the Republicans in morality and compassion, but not in seats or political power. Activists are hopeful that a solidly progressive platform can bring the Democratic Party a similar advantage. And while Post<\/strong> reporters casually dismiss them as \u201cshoot-the-moon policy ideas,\u201d progressives believe that a country as wealthy as ours\u00a0can achieve such measures as Medicare for All, constraints on Wall Street and\u00a0a Green New Deal.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Messages can be sent to the Washington Post <\/strong>at letters@washpost.com<\/a>, or via Twitter<\/strong> @washingtonpost<\/a>. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective.<\/em><\/p>\n