I'm really impressed by the thoughtfulness of two of today's New York Times columnists.
Both discuss the Democratic presidential primary. David Brooks dissects the philosophical assumptions underlying each campaign. Clinton is a tough fighter for a tough world. Everyone is mean and against her, but she's strong enough to destroy them. (Whether or not she's right, whether or not they're wrong.) Obama is calm, able to stay civil in the midst of the worst crisis.
I find it interesting that Mr. Brooks doesn't express a preference explicitly in this column, making it rather easy for people with differing views to incorrectly assume he agrees with them. Those who agree that the world is a harsh place will find the Clinton argument compelling. Those who think we can change the tone and improve our lives may prefer Obama.
Thomas Friedman, on the other hand, explicitly prefers Obama in his column. Friedman lays out a case for America yearning to be great again. A nation which is frustrated from years of wasted opportunities, eager to move past false easy answers to difficult complexities. Difficult challenges we can strive to overcome. The truth may be hard, but after years of lies, some fresh truth will cleanse the palate.
No comments:
Post a Comment