On Tuesday of this week, the New York Times posted this headline:
As one of the dozens of articles emanating from political establishment organs—including the Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal—these pieces can be taken as an indicator of how much distress the growing movement to win Medicare for All is causing Washington insiders. And you can always count on the "paper of record" to find the appropriate "leaders," "officials," and "staffers" to weigh in with appropriate gravitas.
So it got me to wondering. How would the Times editorial staff cover other momentous changes in American history? A quick search of the imaginary web—which operates in my mind—came up with these tidbits:
'Social Security Too Risky,' Democratic Party Leaders Say
(NYT: March 1, 1935) — Responding to President Roosevelt’s vow to push for the passage of Social Security in the recently convened Congress, several Democratic leaders urged caution. "This could really screw things up for the 1936 election cycle," said one. A prominent financial backer of the party added, "We've already stabilized the banking industry and Wall Street is running smoothly again. I don't see what the urgency is." Officials are suggesting that Congress would be better off adopting a "Social Security for Those Who Want It" plan. Under the plan, every American would have the freedom to choose to purchase a government-backed retirement plan underwritten by America’s largest investment banking operations.
'Abolition Too Risky,' Republican Party Leaders Say
(NYT: December 12, 1864) — Responding to President Lincoln’s vow to push for the passage of a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery in his second term, several Republican leaders urged caution. "This could play right into the hands of our opponents and really hurt our electoral prospects in the midterms," said one. A prominent financial backer of the party added, “The Confederates are on the run and the war will soon be over. I don't see what the urgency is. What we really need is a plan to stabilize the cotton industry because Egypt is eating our lunch." Officials are suggesting that Congress would be better off adopting the "Abolition for Those Who Want It" plan. Under the plan, enslaved Americans would have the choice to purchase their freedom or remain enslaved. Family plans would be available and generous financing terms would be underwritten by America's largest investment banking operations.
'Independence Too Risky,' Tory Leaders Say
(NYT: July 5, 1776)—Responding to the Continental Congress' Declaration of Independence, several Tory leaders urged caution. "We were hoping to promote moderate Brits to run for Parliament and help gain more favorable treatment for the colonies," said one. "This declaration will just piss them off." A prominent financial backer of the party added, "We've already been able to resolve most of our trade issues with the Crown. I don't see what the urgency is." Officials are suggesting that the Continental Congress consider the "Independence for Those Who Want It," plan. Under the plan, the Northwest Territories would be opened up for settlement by those who support independence with the promise that a later Parliament will give serious consideration to any petition that they may submit requesting independence. The government would back land purchases in the territories with generous financing terms underwritten by America's largest investment banking operations.