| By Justin Elliott - Dec 18th, 2007 at 1:10 am EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
There are a lot of reasons to object to this Boston Globe endorsement of John McCain (e.g. running two endorsements—one per party, as the Globe did—lamely affirms a mushy “nonideological,” character-based vision of politics), but this passage really irks (emphasis added):
The antidote to such a toxic political approach is John McCain. The iconoclastic senator from Arizona has earned his reputation for straight talk by actually leveling with voters, even at significant political expense.
The piece goes on to cite the senator’s “willingness to acknowledge unpleasant realities,” the fact that he has “never been an uncritical booster of President Bush's policies,” his record as a reformer, his ability to “transcend partisanship and promote an honest discussion of the problems facing the United States.” What unites these disparate qualities? Not one has a damn thing to do with being an “iconoclast”:
So the word has a pretty specific meaning (more here). Even if you accept that McCain is a maverick (and plenty don’t), there’s simply no evidence that he’s iconoclastic. I’d go so far as to say that being a multi-term member of the U.S. Senate will, in this day and age, tend to drain a person of any and all iconoclast credentials. The editorialists at the Globe got lazy, and the result is a fairly glaring abusage. So sad to see the language mauled in one’s home paper.
- One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.
- One who destroys sacred religious images.
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Or it affirms the fact that there are two major parties and each is selecting a nominee in distinct primaries, and that voters who read the Globe may be participating in one or the other.
Really, I don't get how you can have a problem with endorsing a candidate in each of the primaries. In ANY primaried campaign local or regional papers will endorse in each primary, from President to school board. You can disagree with their decisions (or think that they should have offered no endorsement in the Republican primary because they're all pretty terrible), but to complain that the editors endorsed candidates in separate and distinct races is a bit excessive.
Rest assured that the ideological bent of a paper is generally well-represented come the General election. But I don't get the rationale behind alienating a segment of their readership when they could instead, you know, provide guidance to the misguided.