The New York Times, a publication often heralded by its liberal readership as a bastion of progressive thought, has found itself at the center of controversy following the publication of an op-ed titled “Trump Can Win on Character.” The piece, authored by National Review editor Rich Lowry, has ignited a firestorm of criticism from leftists, many of whom have taken to social media and other platforms to express their outrage.
Lowry’s op-ed posits that former President Donald Trump, despite his often polarizing persona, possesses the character attributes necessary to win the 2024 presidential election. This assertion, though relatively mild in tone, has been met with intense backlash from liberals who view the very notion of Trump’s character as an affront to their values.
People are hammering that Rich Lowry piece for the headline on “Trump Can Win on Character,” but it’s even worse than you think: He means Trump can win by being Trumpy about Harris’s character, and he thinks that’s a good idea that would work and not shameful at all: pic.twitter.com/IYP4PV3AUn
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) August 26, 2024
The op-ed suggests that Trump’s resilience, determination, and unwavering commitment to his base are qualities that could propel him to victory in a future presidential race. Lowry argues that, contrary to the dominant narrative, these characteristics reflect a type of leadership that resonates with many Americans who feel alienated by the current administration. He writes, “Trump’s character is defined by his refusal to back down in the face of relentless opposition, a trait that his supporters admire and that could serve him well in a 2024 bid.”
This perspective, however, has not been well-received by the Times’ left-leaning audience. Many have taken issue not only with the content of the piece but also with the Times’ decision to publish it. Critics argue that the op-ed normalizes Trump’s behavior and downplays the numerous controversies that have surrounded his presidency. The reaction has been so intense that some commentators have likened the backlash to a “Maoist struggle session,” where dissenting views are publicly shamed and silenced.
The uproar over Lowry’s op-ed highlights a broader issue within the media landscape—namely, the reluctance of liberal outlets and their audiences to entertain viewpoints that diverge from the prevailing progressive orthodoxy. The intense reaction to a relatively measured piece underscores the left’s intolerance for any narrative that does not align with their own, particularly when it comes to Trump.
The irony of the situation is not lost on conservative commentators. The very notion that a discussion of Trump’s character could provoke such an extreme response reveals, in their view, a deep-seated insecurity within the liberal establishment. This insecurity, they argue, stems from the left’s recognition that Trump’s appeal, far from being an anomaly, taps into a significant and enduring segment of the American electorate.
Moreover, the backlash against Lowry’s op-ed serves as a reminder of the widening ideological divide in the country. The left’s vehement rejection of the idea that Trump possesses any positive character traits contrasts sharply with the perspective of his supporters, who view him as a champion of their interests and a bulwark against the excesses of liberalism.
As the 2024 election looms, the debate over Trump’s character is likely to intensify. For conservatives, the op-ed and the subsequent liberal meltdown are indicative of a broader cultural struggle, one in which the left’s attempt to control the narrative is increasingly being challenged by voices that refuse to conform.
The New York Times, for its part, may need to navigate this cultural divide with greater caution in the future. While the publication’s willingness to host a diversity of opinions is commendable, the reaction to Lowry’s piece suggests that there are limits to what its readership is willing to tolerate. As the ideological battle lines are drawn ever more starkly, the question remains whether the Times can continue to serve as a forum for free and open debate—or whether it will succumb to the pressures of its most vocal critics.
Sponsors:
Huge Spring Sale Underway On MyPillow Products
Use Promo Code FLS At Checkout
Inflation Buster: Freedom From High-Cost Cell Plans (50% off first month with promo code: FLS)
Freedom From High-Cost Cell Plans Same Phones, Same Numbers, Same Coverage For About Half The Price.
Eric Thompson