Ed Driscoll

Since When is Nihilism a Bad Thing at the New York Times?

Dan Riehl has a little fun with everybody’s favorite Gray Lady, Maureen Dowd:

Poor Mo Do, sounds like she didn’t get much play in high school, blamed the cheerleaders, and time and age certainly haven’t improved her lot. Filed under harpie and forgotten, as is usually the case with Dowd. If someone’s father hadn’t run a successful newspaper at one point years ago, the poor dear might not even have a job. Try to imagine The Ugly Ducking as an incomplete work.

We are in the era of Republican Mean Girls, grown-up versions of those teenage tormentors who would steal your boyfriend, spray-paint your locker and, just for good measure, spread rumors that you were pregnant.

These women — Jan, Meg, Carly, Sharron, Linda, Michele, Queen Bee Sarah and sweet wannabe Christine — have co-opted and ratcheted up the disgust with the status quo that originally buoyed Barack Obama. Whether they’re mistreating the help or belittling the president’s manhood, making snide comments about a rival’s hair or ripping an opponent for spending money on a men’s fashion show, the Mean Girls have replaced Hope with Spite and Cool with Cold. They are the ideal nihilistic cheerleaders for an angry electorate.


In exactly the same fashion as Frank Rich using the word “Stalanist” as a pejorative for likely the very first time in his paper’s existence to describe Empire State conservatives last year, since when did “nihilism” become an epithet at the New York Times?

Update: The Anchoress adds, “Mo Dowd Shows Bullies How it’s Done.”

Join the conversation as a VIP Member