An article in the metro section of this morning's New York Times reports on an effort by a candidate for mayor, Mark Green, to distance himself from his old boss, Ralph Nader. "Mr. Green's decision to back away from his association with Mr. Nader reflects concerns by him and his supporters that the affiliation may be invoked against him by his opponents in the months ahead. Voters in New York City Democratic primaries tend to the left side of the ideological scale, so such a line of attack may prove particularly potent," The Times reports.
Try to untangle that logic, for a minute. First of all, the notion that voters in New York City Democratic primaries tend to the left is contradicted by several important cases -- Daniel Patrick Moynihan's victory over Bella Abzug in the 1976 Democratic U.S. Senate primary, Bill Clinton's victory over Jerry Brown in the 1992 presidential primary and Charles Schumer's victory over Mark Green in the 1998 Democratic U.S. Senate primary. Second, even granting the Times assumption that Democratic primary voters in New York lean leftward, why would they punish Mr. Green for his ties to Mr. Nader? Mr. Nader, after all, ran to the left of Al Gore. If the New York Democratic voters were as left-leaning as the Times claims, they might appreciate Mr. Nader. Being angry at Mr. Nader because of Mr. Gore's loss to George W. Bush is not necessarily linked to tending "to the left side of the ideological scale," as the Times claims. It could be linked to being far enough to the center on the ideological scale that you prefer the welfare-reforming, free-trade-agreement-supporting Mr. Gore to the unadulterated left-liberalism of Mr. Nader.
Independently Wealthy: The metro section of today's New York Times includes a profile of the new chairman of the Republican Party of New York. "Mr. Treadwell, who is independently wealthy, attended Groton School, then went on to college at the University of North Carolina," the Times reports. "Independently wealthy" is one of those phrases that isn't really all that useful in newspaper articles. What does it mean? In Mr. Treadwell's case, it seems to mean that he is so rich he does not have to work for a living. But the phrase tells us nothing about how Mr. Treadwell got that way. The rest of the Times article doesn't tell us how he got that way, either, except to vaguely suggest that he inherited his money. The article doesn't come right out and say he inherited his money; it does mention, however, that his mother was "the daughter of one of the founding executives of General Electric" and that he grew up "both in the city and on his family estate in Westport, N.Y., in a large house on 385 acres overlooking Lake Champlain." If the reason Mr. Treadwell does not have to work is because he was born into a rich family, "independently" wealthy seems like an awfully indirect way for the Times to phrase it. There's nothing "independent" about such wealth, for it depends on the circumstances of one's birth. Anyway, Smartertimes.com, unlike, say, the Times editorial page, harbors no class-warfare-style resentment or embarrassment about such circumstances. But there's no point, particularly in a newspaper profile, in skirting these facts with euphemisms like "independently wealthy."