In a front-page New York Times news article about the presidential prospects of Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio, comes this passage: "Throughout his political career, he has championed populist platitudes like the 'dignity of work' that have resonated with working-class voters in all corners of Ohio while also supporting liberal social causes like women's reproductive rights and L.G.B.T.Q. rights."
The Times repeats the language in a photo cutline: "Mr. Brown has championed platitudes like the 'dignity of work' that have long resonated with working-class voters in all corners of Ohio."
A "platitude," according to my authoritative Webster's Second Unabridged dictionary, is "commonplaceness, dullness, insipidity; as there was much platitude in his remarks" or "a trite, dull, or commonplace remark, especially one uttered as if it were a novelty or matter of importance."
In other words, when the Times, in what is supposed to be a news article, calls the phrase the "dignity of work" a platitude, it's a kind of sneer, an insult. It's the language of snark, of contempt, rather than of respect. It is not a compliment.
It just so happens that Oren Cass's book The Once And Future Worker: A Vision For the Renewal Of Work In America, is such a hot read at the moment that it is sold out in print at Amazon (though still available on Kindle), and ranks no. 1 on the Amazon bestseller list of public policy and economic policy books. The New York Times' own David Brooks recently called it "absolutely brilliant."
Cass's book is all about the dignity of work. He writes, "For the individual, work imposes structure on each day and on life in general. It offers the mundane but essential disciplines of timeliness and reliability and hygiene as well as the more complex socialization of collaboration and paying attention to others. It requires people to interact and forges shared experiences and bonds. It promotes goal-setting and long-term planning...Communities that lack work, by contrast, suffer maladies that degrade social capital and lead to persistent poverty. Crime and addiction increase, their participants in turn becoming ever less employable; investments in housing and communal assets decline; a downward spiral is set in motion...while productive activity provides direct benefits to workers, its worth also derives from the dignity and respect that society confers on self-reliance and productive contributions."
The Times may consider the idea of "dignity of work" a platitude, but politicians from John Kennedy through Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton and even arguably Franklin Roosevelt (the Works Progress Administration) have correctly recognized and articulated that it's work — rather than, say, expanded welfare benefit payments for sitting at home and not working — that is essential to the success and, yes, dignity, of American individuals and families. New York Times political reporting would be better if it were less cynical about this sort of thing — less eye-rolling about platitudes — and more earnestly curious.
And don't even get me started about what the word "populist" is doing in the sentence. We had a rule at the New York Sun that alliteration trumped all other rules, so "populist platitude" at least gets some points there in the "p" department. But just because something is popular doesn't necessarily mean it's populist, and vice versa.
The Times reporter who wrote this one is sharp and hardworking, and they are smart to pay attention to Brown's victory in Ohio and to his 2020 prospects. But even good reporters and good story ideas need careful line editing to avoid these kinds of blunders.