The New York Times hates Donald Trump, in part because of his “nativism.” He doesn’t appreciate the wonderful things the Chinese have done for us. He even went so far as to suggest that covid might have originated in a Chinese laboratory! And he has imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, a retrograde, far-right policy–even if tariffs were formerly recommended by the Times’s own Democrats.
But a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and, as we all know, the Timesmen have big brains. Thus today’s headline:
The paper’s lack of self-awareness is stunning. Suddenly, Chinese imports are a perfectly understandable threat that the Europeans have to deal with. (Of course, that too is Trump’s fault!) I am not necessarily endorsing the Times’s newfound tariff religion; the phrase “artificially cheap” does all the work, and has no clear meaning. It is the paper’s inconsistency that boggles the mind.
From the story:
[China] produces a vast array of artificially cheap goods — heavily subsidized electric vehicles, consumer electronics, toys, commercial grade steel and more — but much of that trade was destined for the endlessly voracious American marketplace.
With many of those goods now facing an extraordinary wall of tariffs thanks to President Trump, fear is rising that more products will be dumped in Europe, weakening local industries in France, Germany, Italy and the rest of the European Union.
Suddenly the Chinese are economic predators, “dumping” their products on unsuspecting consumers and “weakening local industries.”
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, has promised to “engage constructively” with China even as she has warned about the “indirect effects” of the American tariffs and has vowed to closely watch the flow of Chinese goods. A new task force will monitor imports for signs of dumping.
All of this is perfectly fine, the Times thinks, as long as it is done by sophisticated Europeans and not by that uncouth arriviste Donald Trump. The Times’s inability to keep its story straight illustrates why not even liberals take that paper seriously anymore.
