Mixed feelings about NYT’s mixed message

Fittingly enough, I’m of two minds about The New York Times’ controversial “we’re of two minds …” endorsement editorial.

After conducting extensive interviews with the leading Democratic presidential contenders in advance of the Feb. 3 Iowa caucuses, the newspaper’s editorial board on Sunday night gave its nod to both Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar.

Critics pounced. C’mon, Times! Yanny or Laurel? Paper or plastic? Chiefs or 49ers? Boxers or briefs? Marvel or DC? Tastes great or less filling? Take a stand already!

I took the point. The failure to choose and defend one candidate over all others felt like a betrayal of the board’s mission to make definitive pronouncements on the important issues of the day based on the values it has long espoused.

And the anointing of two candidates — Warren from what the editorial referred to as the Democrats’ “radical” faction and Klobuchar from the “realist” faction — had a whiff of cowardice, as though the Times didn’t want to offend either side in this intraparty battle for the nomination.

On the other hand, the 3,432-word editorial did effectively identify, analyze and referee the two distinct tournament brackets in the Democratic field, brackets that amount to separate primary-like battles for the coveted “tickets out of Iowa.”

The candidates who win, do well enough or sufficiently exceed expectations among the progressive and moderate wings of the party will earn viability in the New Hampshire primary eight days later.

It’s common for newspaper editorial boards to offer endorsements in both Democratic and Republican primary races for the same office. And given the split in the 2020 Democratic field in Iowa between the left and the center, the Times’ decision to endorse one from each makes a certain amount of sense at this point in the contest.

If you’re a committed lefty, the editorial makes the case that you should be favoring Warren over Sen. Bernie Sanders.

If you consider yourself a moderate Democrat, the editorial argues that Klobuchar is preferable to former Vice President Joe Biden, former South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and others.

One passage in the editorial sums up just about every conversation I’ve had with my fellow dithering Democrats in the last few months: “If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it.”

I see this as at once profoundly equivocal and unequivocally profound.

It’s a conflicted editorial for a conflicted moment in time. Real endorsement to follow.

I am certain of one thing, though. If there were ever a time to strip Iowa and New Hampshire of their primacy in choosing presidential candidates, now is it.

Current U.S. census estimates tell us that Iowa’s population is 85% white, 6.2% Hispanic and 3.5% African American. New Hampshire’s population is 90% white, 3.9% Hispanic and 1.7% African American. Meanwhile, the nation itself is 60.4% white, 18.3% Hispanic and 13.4% African American.

And yes, victory in Iowa propelled African American Democrat Barack Obama to the nomination and then the White House in 2008, but there remains value in having voters in a more demographically representative state have the first crack at winnowing the field.

Illinois, anyone? Our demographics — 61% white, 17.4% Hispanic and 14.6% African American — come very close to mirroring the country as a whole, and our economy could really use the boost of all the campaign activity that attends these first-in-the-nation events.

Only one Democratic hopeful this cycle made a stink about the death grip that Iowa and New Hampshire have on the primary process. “It’s really about reflecting the values that we say we have as Democrats where everybody has a place at the table,” he said. The party is “making the mistake of putting our nominating contest in the hands of two states that hardly have any black people, or hardly have any people of color.” He called it “hypocrisy.”

That was former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro, who dropped out Jan. 2 when it was clear his candidacy had no traction.

Other candidates have not wanted to risk endorsing the idea that the Democratic Party ought to shake up the order next time, a position bound to offend the very voters who will soon decide their fate.

For example, when a radio host put the question about primary order to Warren at a candidate forum in November, her response was defensive astonishment: “Are you actually going to ask me to sit here and criticize Iowa and New Hampshire?” she said, adding, “I’m just a player in the game on this one.”

Talk about shrinking from taking a stand.