You probably never expected The New Yorker to endorse Mitt Romney. But you might have expected that when they inevitably endorsed Obama, they would at least address a few of the arguments that have turned roughly 50 percent of American likely voters against him. If you did expect that, you are certainly disappointed today.
You will find several clever turns of phrase in the magazine’s editorial — a comparison between GOP congressional leaders and the Iranian mullahs, for example. There is also a token reference to Libya, although none to Benghazi or to the ambassador who was recently killed there.
But despite the editorial’s length, there is no room for concerns faced by ordinary Americans in the glacial Obama recovery.
The word “unemployment” does not even appear. Nor does “poverty.” Nor do important words like “trillion” or “deficit,” which might explain angst over federal government spending and the waste represented by the stimulus package, etc. (The word “debt” does appear once, in the 17th paragraph.)
There are two mentions of “lending” — in both cases references to “predatory lending” — neither of which address the near-impossibility for anyone but the very wealthy to obtain or even refinance a mortgage in the current economic and regulatory climate.
There is also no mention of gasoline prices — the only mention of gas is an approving reference to fuel economy standards set by the administration, which won’t have any noticeable effect, good or bad, for years.
I’m probably not alone in thinking that when the editors of The New Yorker wrote that “Romney seems to be keenly loyal to the perquisites and the presumptions of his class,” they did so without recognizing the irony.