Politics | Recovery | Current Obsessions
On staying unpublished.
The New York Times’ Ben Mullin has a memo from the new Washington Post op-ed editor, Adam O’Neal, introducing himself.
I used to write for that section. Not often, but enough to know that the people there were sincere and passionate about birthing big ideas into the world. I shared pages with some bad takes but I felt comfortable with the general mission: Engaging people. This memo, however, is a blueprint for adding the authority of the Post to the machinery of control.
The memo is a cheery gloss of the note Post owner and waistcoat apostate released a back in February to announce a “change” coming to the pages, as well as his dismissal of the section’s editor, David Shipley, due to insufficient ardor for the new direction.
Bezos, a month out of attending the inauguration, declared, “We 1 are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.” In a striking display of candor, or maybe just billionaire flex, Bezos admitted that he forced Shipley out due to insufficient zeal for the job of fluffing the intellectual dark web or whatever.
I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away.
O’Neal, it’s clear, has no such hesitations about “opposing those pillars,” right down to using the word “pillars” in his extremely slavish distillation of Bezos’ decree: “Advocating for free markets and personal liberties will be critical,” he writes, and “communicat[ing] with optimism about this country in particular and the future in general.” But, hey, “This is not a partisan project, and we will welcome robust debate within the twin pillars.”
You can question how great capitalism is—but not whether it’s working. And you’d better smile while you do it (you don’t want to end up like David Shipley, do you?):
“I know this represents a shift for many of you, and maybe even an unwelcome one for some, but simply being reconciled to these changes is not enough. We want those who stick with us to be genuinely enthusiastic about the new direction and focus.”
O’Neal suggests this shift is about “restoring trust,” not naming the group whose trust they’re chasing but that’s because it’s obvious: O’Neal is outlining a rigged marketplace of ideas where even dissent must flatter power.
Whatever sort of “economic freedom” future Post columns may laud, the objectives of the section and O’Neal and Bezos himself run counter to free markets. The reason Bezos wants the publication to declare allegiance to conservative ideas isn’t because Bezos is a sober student of Hayek. He has directed the Post to jettison any viewpoints that might puncture Trump hype—but the editorial directive isn’t even about political philosophy, exactly. Bezos is simply seeking state favor for the powerful, including him, personally.
Maybe the new Post op-ed section will advocate for class mobility or entrepreneurship, but a glorified Federalist Society newsletter doesn’t exist to spark bootstrappers to greatness. By argument and by design, an op-ed page that services the Trump administration will only buttress a system rigged to protect capital, not competition. And certainly not people.
And what kind of personal liberties are available to a Doordasher? To someone sick and unable to afford care?
I’ve spent decades earning a living because I could articulate uncomfortable truths about politics and media. I knew the ride wouldn’t last forever. I just didn't expect the bottom to drop out so quickly and thoroughly. I'm watching the industry get lobotomized with the eager assistance of one of the greatest newspapers of all time. The Post is now officially in the business of narrowing the range of acceptable thought, then slapping a flag on it. (Optimism about America encouraged and required!)
Adam, if you happen to be reading, would this defense of free markets make it into your op-ed pages?
(Not that I believe free markets actually exist. Like communism, they only live in theory. Capitalism, left unchecked, always curdles into the oligarchy you’re now so eager to prop up. But if you allowed me to defend “personal liberty,” this is where I'd start.)
I originally posted a version of this on LinkedIn, because I’ve been trying to be more “visible” there. Possibly I have now made myself visible in the wrong direction, but that’s kind of been the story of my career.
If you’d like to support work like this, a paid subscription keeps me from depending on op-ed pages to survive.