Washington Post Editorials Are Now So Bad The Headlines Make No Sense

They’ve gone from absurd to farcical.

The Washington Post editorial board doesn’t even pretend to be objective anymore. It’s become all “don’t tax Jeff Bezos or make him pay higher wages” all the time. And under the banner of “Democracy Dies in Darkness” of course.

I’ve lost count, but I’m pretty sure the lead editorials warning us of the hazards of interfering with Jeff Bezos’ wealth accumulation now number in double digits.

The good thing, I suppose, is that they’ve reached the point where the absurdity of the Post’s warning is in the headline, which means reading the text is unnecessary overkill. Check out this one:

Lower inequality does not guarantee better democracy

I’ve seen numerous critiques, mostly about the Post’s logic in arguing that the UK has lower inequality than the US but not a better democracy.

But why bother getting into those weeds?

Of course lower inequality does not guarantee better democracy.

It’s absolutely correct.

And absolutely meaningless.

It reminds me of the old trite expression “money doesn’t buy happiness.” Also absolutely correct and also absolutely meaningless. It’s typically invoked to downplay the importance of income. But the reality is that there is a clear correlation between income and happiness, especially at modest levels. Money not “buying happiness” doesn’t prevent the lack of money—abject poverty—from practically guaranteeing misery.

By the same logic, lower inequality does not guarantee better democracy, but that doesn’t stop higher inequality—like what we’re experiencing in America today—from destroying democracy. Just as extreme poverty makes happiness impossible, extreme inequality makes democracy impossible.

Consider the quote attributed to Louis Brandeis: “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” That quote remains undeniably valid, even if the Post’s editors are correct that the UK’s democracy is in worse shape than ours while its income and wealth distribution is slightly less unequal.

But make no mistake. The intended effect of the Post editorial is to minimize the threat that concentrated wealth represents to democracy. If Post readers believe less inequality could lead to less democracy, they’re less likely to fight for equality to protect democracy. It’s kind of like getting a starving person to die of hunger by making him believe all available food is poisonous.

The Post editorial board’s “inequality and democracy” rant is not just absurd, though, it’s farcical.

Consider again that Brandeis quote. Brandeis knew that when wealth becomes too concentrated in a society, the wealthy convert their wealth into political power. A classic example would be one of the wealthiest citizens using a tiny fraction of his net worth to buy control of a major media outlet, then use that outlet to rally public sentiment in favor of policies that protect his wealth.

That of course refers to Jeff Bezos’ translation of wealth into power by buying the Washington Post then using its editorial page to pursue his personal political agenda.

Here’s where it becomes farcical: This “inequality and democracy” editorial is Bezos’ translation of wealth into power by making the Post’s readers believe that his translation of wealth into power is not a threat to democracy.

War is peace!