Sara Haile-Mariam

Jonathan Martin of Politico has a piece out today on the “unprecedented” criticism coming out against the Obama administration today from the New York Times. The article notes-

“It’s not unusual for Barack Obama to take a little friendly fire from the Times. But it’s perhaps unprecedented for him to get hit on the same day by columnists Frank Rich, Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd—and in the paper’s lead editorial. Their critique punctuated a weekend that started with a widely circulated blog post by Paul Krugman that said the president’s yet to be announced bank rescue plan would almost certainly fail. The sentiment, coming just two months after the president was sworn in, reflects elite opinion in the Washington-New York corridor that Obama is increasingly overwhelmed, and not fully appreciative of the building tsunami of populist outrage.”

Frankly, I read all of the aforementioned articles today and I didn’t really walk away with the same shock and awe that Mr. Martin did. Yes, they were all fairly critical but I would hardly say that it was unprecedented. “Elite opinion in the Washington- New York corridor” has spoken out against the President on numerous occasions, particularly throughout the Presidential campaign and I think that the Politico article today says more about elite opinion than today’s NY Times Op-Eds. Deliberation and dissent, particularly when spoken by those of similar political ideologies, has become almost taboo in contemporary times. A multiplicity of views is often categorized as some sort of indication of weakness or disarray. The Republican party tends to embrace this phenomenon chastising anyone who dares to stray from the party line as “not a real conservative”. Democrats on the otherhand don’t seem to employ the same strategy and the Obama administration has taken great strides to indicate that we’re in the era of inclusion.

More after the jump….

On the other hand, I would argue that the relationship between the NY Times and the administration should be one of respectful debate and constructive criticism. Albeit harsh, both Frank Rich and Thomas Friedman offered instructive pieces today both of which called on the President to exercise additional leadership. Maureen Dowd, has always had a style of her own and her larger point is that the administration needs to move away from catering to the financial industry. The Times editorial on Bush policies was direct, calling on the President to follow through on his promise to reverse bush detainee policies and to restore America’s standing in the world. In addition to calling for the expansion of judicial oversight of the executive branch, the Times editorial also calls for an investigation of Bush administration abuses.

It’s sensationalizing to suggest that these articles are somehow more dramatic simply because they were published in the same issue. We need to move away from the mentality that certain ideologies move forward in lockstep, or that the Obama administration is beholden to the editorial pages of a news paper. I think it’s important to push back against the administration but what concerns me is the desire to pinpoint the moment the honey moon ends between the administration and the media. This obsessive search for a “turning point” is simplifying the debate at a point where things couldn’t be more complex.