Once again, the WSJ is moderating away any criticism. Another example is a whine about how the statewide recount somehow compares to what happened in Florida in 2000. Nonsense in so many ways, not the least of which would be remedy. There may be one area in common, which is that the U.S. courts probably shouldn’t have jurisdiction in a state matter.
It is my recollection as well that The US Supreme Court had said that the decision should not be cited as precedent. While I can’t find the statement, the obvious logic was that the Supreme Court was under the gun for a decision where the electors had to meet, which is not the case here. A decision under pressure often leads to bad law and charges of partisanship. While I would accuse the Wall Street Journal of such partisanship with incessant and inane attacks against seemingly any and every Democrat, I do not so charge the court. However, the logic behind the decision is questionable, based on their starting point as to whether or not they even had jurisdiction to intervene.
I am actually a fan of the Wall Street Journal, and have subscribed for the better part of 25 years, either in paper or electronic form, since the day my economics professor, J.J. Seneca, handed out discount cards in class. Their reporting gets right down to the heart of an issue, without reiterating all sorts of basic information from yesterday’s news story.
However, I have never been a fan of their editorial page, as it is too far to the right for the son of a teacher and life-long Democrat. Friday’s editorial by Stephen Moore, recounting all the glamour of the Ayn Rand days (something Alan Greenspan did in his biography), is no exception. As the free market melts around us because it was not properly regulated, here we have a guy whining about both past and present economic stimulous packages on the table. The sheer lack of humility exhibited by the article is appalling. When Alan Greenspan can admit that he was wrong, the Wall Street Journal seems incapable of allowing for the possibility that Libertarian methods might not be the only path to salvation.
This follows up a previous article in which the WSJ claimed that the New Deal had failed. Failure is in the eye of the beholder, and simply putting food on the table in the 30s was considered quite an accomplishment. Perhaps this is why FDR was elected four times.
But this isn’t the worst of the WSJ’s latest crimes. Last year they added a feature where readers could comment on stories by simply clicking on a comment tab. More recently that tab has disappeared from political editorials. So go ahead and comment on a factual story, but please save your disdain for their snobbish opinions for somewhere else. How very Murdoch-esque.
Mind you, I don’t know if a New New Deal is the right approach. But I guess I’m just a little more chastened than these guys.