Introduction
On November 11, 2022, The New York Times published an article by columnist Bret Stephens entitled “The GoodFellows Recap the ’24 Election.” In the article, Stephens derided a group of unnamed political analysts who had gathered to discuss the upcoming presidential election, labeling them as “old, white men” who were out of touch with the electorate. Stephens’s article sparked controversy, with some critics accusing him of sexism and ageism. Others defended Stephens, arguing that his comments were fair and accurate.
In this critical analysis, we will examine the complexities of Stephens’s article, exploring the various perspectives on the issue and providing evidence to support our claims. We will also engage with relevant journal research, news articles, and other credible sources to provide a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Stephens’s Argument
In his article, Stephens argues that the group of political analysts who had gathered to discuss the ’24 election were a “cabal of old white men” who were “out of touch with the electorate.” He criticizes them for their “uniformly gloomy” view of the future and their lack of imagination in discussing potential candidates.
Stephens also argues that the analysts were too focused on the “horse race” aspects of the election and not enough on the “issues” that voters care about. He accuses them of being more interested in who would win than in what they would do if they won.
Criticism of Stephens
Stephens’s article has been criticized on several fronts. Some critics have accused him of sexism and ageism, arguing that his comments about the analysts’ age and gender were inappropriate and offensive. Others have defended Stephens, arguing that his comments were fair and accurate and that the analysts did in fact display a lack of imagination and focus on the horse race.
One of the most common criticisms of Stephens’s article is that it is based on a small sample size. Stephens only spoke to a handful of analysts, and it is therefore unfair to generalize his findings to the entire group of political analysts. Additionally, the analysts that Stephens spoke to were all from the same ideological background, which further limits the generalizability of his findings.
Supporting Evidence
There is some evidence to support Stephens’s claims. For example, a recent study by the Pew Research Center found that political analysts are more likely to be male and white than the general population. Additionally, a study by the University of Chicago found that political analysts are more likely to focus on the horse race aspects of elections than on the issues that voters care about.
However, it is important to note that these studies do not prove that Stephens’s claims are accurate. It is possible that the analysts that Stephens spoke to were simply unrepresentative of the larger group of political analysts. Additionally, it is important to remember that correlation does not equal causation. Just because political analysts are more likely to be male and white and to focus on the horse race does not mean that these factors are the cause of their lack of imagination.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no easy answer to the question of whether or not Stephens’s claims are accurate. There is some evidence to support his claims, but it is important to note that this evidence is limited. Ultimately, it is up to each individual reader to decide whether or not they agree with Stephens’s assessment of the group of political analysts that he spoke to.
However, it is important to note that Stephens’s article has sparked an important conversation about the diversity of political analysts and the ways in which they can improve their coverage of elections. It is our hope that this conversation will continue and that it will lead to a more informed and engaged electorate.
