US press: pick of the papers

The ten must-read opinion pieces from today's US papers.

1. A Middle East twofer (New York Times)

One reason the Arab world has stagnated while Asia has thrived is that the Arabs had no good local models to follow — the way Taiwan followed Japan or Hong Kong, writes Thomas Friedman.
2. Paul Ryan's hunger games (Wall Street Journal)
Did you hear about the GOP's red-in-tooth-and-claw plan for Medicare? Grandma and Gramps are going to be drafted for the Hunger Games, says this editorial.
Kathleen Parker says it is entirely possible that women simply aren’t that into Mitt. He’s just not their kind of guy. Health care, taxes, budgets, debt ceilings, capacity utilization, Chinese currency: soimportant. But at the end of the day — does he have “it”? 
It breaks my heart that even as we root for the survival of the fictional Katniss, we do not know enough — or care enough — to raise our collective voice and demand that North Korea stop breeding, starving and enslaving labor-camp children, says Blaine Harden.
5. Men in black (New York Times)
Maureen Dowd says: Has Obama, this former constitutional law instructor, no respect for our venerable system of checks and balances? Nah. And why should he?
There are, of course, legitimate uses for all such gizmos, as there are for gun vaults, portable bunkers and military gear. But Big Brother’s display space at the expo is expanding, writes Dana Milbank.
Every attack that Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich launches against Romney from the right bolsters the former governor’s credibility as a moderate in the eyes of the general electorate, writes Michael Rosen.
There is real pain here, and despair, and it's in the present. And I couldn't help wonder if I was also looking at America's future, John Kass writes from Athens.
9. High court crisis? (New York Post)
Sure, other presidents have argued bitterly with the court — FDR tried, in effect, to destroy it. Obama no doubt wants his signature piece of legislation to survive, says this editorial.
Although Romney has not yet accumulated the necessary 1,144 delegates to the Republican National Convention in August in Tampa, Fla., the chances are evaporating — make that have evaporated — that he can be denied his party’s nomination, writes Stuart Rothenberg.
Mitt Romney speaking at an event 3 April. Credit: Getty Images
Show Hide image

No, David Cameron’s speech was not “left wing”

Come on, guys.

There is a strange journalistic phenomenon that occurs when a party leader makes a speech. It is a blend of groupthink, relief, utter certainty, and online backslapping. It happened particularly quickly after David Cameron’s speech to Tory party conference today. A few pundits decided that – because he mentioned, like, diversity and social mobility – this was a centre-left speech. A leftwing speech, even. Or at least a clear grab for the liberal centre ground. And so that’s what everyone now believes. The analysis is decided. The commentary is written. Thank God for that.

Really? It’s quite easy, even as one of those nasty, wicked Tories, to mention that you actually don’t much like racism, and point out that you’d quite like poor children to get jobs, without moving onto Labour's "territory". Which normal person is in favour of discriminating against someone on the basis of race, or blocking opportunity on the basis of class? Of course he’s against that. He’s a politician operating in a liberal democracy. And this isn’t Ukip conference.

Looking at the whole package, it was actually quite a rightwing speech. It was a paean to defence – championing drones, protecting Britain from the evils of the world, and getting all excited about “launching the biggest aircraft carriers in our history”.

It was a festival of flagwaving guff about the British “character”, a celebration of shoehorning our history chronologically onto the curriculum, looking towards a “Greater Britain”, asking for more “national pride”. There was even a Bake Off pun.

He also deployed the illiberal device of inculcating a divide-and-rule fear of the “shadow of extremism – hanging over every single one of us”, informing us that children in UK madrassas are having their “heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate”, and saying Britain shouldn’t be “overwhelmed” with refugees, before quickly changing the subject to ousting Assad. How unashamedly centrist, of you, Mr Prime Minister.

Benefit cuts and a reduction of tax credits will mean the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for “equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome” will be just that – with the outcome pretty bleak for those who end up losing any opportunity that comes with state support. And his excitement about diversity in his cabinet rings a little hollow the day following a tubthumping anti-immigration speech from his Home Secretary.

If this year's Tory conference wins the party votes, it’ll be because of its conservative commitment – not lefty love bombing.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.