New York Times buys into cynicism

I was disturbed by the tone of a recent New York Times article about the reaction to Barack Obama's move to the center. In it, the Times' William Yardley implies that progressives, liberals and lefties acting sore about the move are blind to the necessity of this kind of political positioning and, one way or the other, they're just wing-nuts anyway. I guess that's fair, but what disturbs me about it is that it freely categorizes the change in Obama's rhetoric as a "move to the center," rather than a rearrangement of the candidate's presentation of his positions. "Lighten up on the guy," Times columnist Bob Blanchard is quoted as saying, "We want to win."

When did that kind of cynicism become excusable? Maybe politics is about saying whatever you can to win, but that does not by any means make doing so acceptable, much less laudable. It is dishonesty. Either Obama and his campaign were misleading people about who he was before, or they are misleading people now. Or maybe he is neither person, and they have been misleading us all along. Or perhaps he has undergone a sudden, incredibly convenient change of heart, which is probably even more sinister.

One way or the other, it's difficult to be sure anymore of who Barack Obama, or any candidate, actually is, and what he actually believes in. To me, that is a disturbing environment.

As an aside, I laughed when I saw Nate Gulley quoted in the article. At the University of Oregon last year, he was the most notorious person on campus, prone to accusing other white members of the student council of racism and using school funds for trips to Hawai'i. It was doubly gratifying to see him not making too much sense.