On RFK, Jr. and the New York Times

Despite consistently negative media coverage, RFK Jr. easily polled a higher favorability rating (+19%) than either of the two presumptive nominees, who both are negative (-7% Biden, -10% Trump).

The NYT article that ran Monday about the RFK Jr. campaign is typical of the slant to the news. Not an opinion piece, it nevertheless reeks of the hopes and wishes of the well paid servants of the oligarchy, while ignoring inconvenient aspects such as what might best serve the interests of the working class. You know, the general welfare that all our elected officials pledge to support. The RFK Jr. campaign is a “headache” for Biden, not a representation of a large segment of the party who would otherwise be voiceless in the POTUS campaign. So much for democracy, even among the fewer than 30% of eligible voters who elect a POTUS candidate. Much less the 100 million-plus eligible voters the decrepit two-parties can’t lure to the polls.

The President has plenty of weaknesses, as does his presumptive opponent. (For that matter, so do all the “realistic” prospects on either side of the partisan divide.) What RFK Jr. is campaigning against are the systemic weaknesses that have been built in over the past 50 years, no matter which party is in office. I don’t recall the NYT ever complaining about the votes Hillary Clinton received because of the narrative the Times had helped construct about her husband. As opposed to, say, a narrative formed around the Kennedys at least partly because two family members died for their political beliefs, which differed from the prevailing wisdom of the ruling class. Yet, the idea that “Mr. Kennedy’s popularity in polls is largely because of his family” was repeated at least three times in the article. Nor are “billionaire donors” a problem so long as they are giving to “acceptable” candidates. The Times routinely celebrates bipartisan achievement when it means party elites coalescing around corporate welfare. But RFK Jr. “consorts with right figures” when he attempts to meld growing apprehension from across the political spectrum over our blank check to Ukraine into support for a policy of peace. The Times, at least 8 months ahead, with the date not firmly set, is already spinning a potential defeat of Biden by Kennedy in the New Hampshire primary as “cosmetic.” His stands on Big Pharma using its power to put profits ahead of human health, and the Dem nomination process being rigged are mischaracterized and dismissed as ”conspiracy theories” although both represent actual practice understood by much of the population. And in the case of Dem rigging, supported as their right by a court decision.

As reflected by the statements of Rep. Garcia of California, the Biden strategy will be to double down on the fear mongering that the US has used to sell its imperial project to voters for 75 years. “His views and worldview are dangerous.” This from someone supporting an administration that has made the prospect of both direct US involvement in another war and even a nuclear exchange much more likely through the expansionist and aggressive policies that RFK Jr. would walk us back from.

That Trump was elected once, got more votes a second time despite fulfilling very few of his campaign promises, and could conceivably succeed in a third try despite indictments and possible convictions, should have tossed the “electability” canard into the dumpster. Along with the excitement Bernie’s campaigns generated, a lesson should have been learned that the average US voter is not happy with the way our economy is shaping their daily lives. (And again, a plurality doesn’t even bother to vote, and it’s not because they are so happy, but because they have lost hope.) All “electability” has ever meant is that the candidate it’s applied to is a paid up member in good standing of the status quo. Yet here it is being trotted out by Mr Castro as if that could possibly be in doubt about Biden. Perhaps Castro should consider that his “electability” might actually be the problem, and hammering it might make things worse for him. Leadership is based on inspiring people, not convincing them you are “electable” by haranguing voters about your supposed “accomplishments.” (A “summer of events promoting his legislative achievements”? Come on. What malarky!)

Biden is not inspiring. For good or bad, to a large segment of the population, Trump is. Dems tossed aside an inspiring candidate twice in the past two elections. Yet most of the very little they have accomplished when they managed to win anyway in 2020, was based on the inspiration and support generated and mobilized by that discarded candidate. They should be leery of doing it a third time. Perhaps more to the point, they should abandon their systemic advancement of uninspiring drones, who will make no waves, to the top of their political heap.

The poll represented in the photo I posted was not mentioned in the article.

The New York Times article is here (behind a paywall).