In an article published on Wednesday, The New York Times’s Amy Chozik asserted that Hillary Clinton was driven to become wealthy because of financial hardships and worries for her family’s well-being following Bill Clinton’s failure to win the 1980 gubernatorial election in Arkansas.
In a subtle reiteration of Hillary Clinton’s “dead broke” comment, Chozik asserts that the Clintons, both Ivy League educated lawyers, were “financially strained” and “deeply uncertain about the future” following Bill Clinton’s failure to secure the Arkansas governorship in 1980.
This two-year period in Arkansas is described by Chozik as financially “difficult” for the Clintons.
Chozik describes Bill Clinton as not being motivated by a desire for wealth. “[Bill Clinton] seemed indifferent to securing a financial future,” writes Chozik. She quotes a friend of the Clintons: “[Bill Clinton] was never interested in money, ever.” Hillary Clinton the other hand, was motivated to earn money because of her “practicality.”
Chozik claims that a “contradiction” exists between Hillary Clinton’s speech-making income and her “selfless Methodist credo to do good for others… [through] public service.”
The Clintons lived in “one of the smallest houses” in their Little Rock neighborhood, writes Chozik, “largely bought with her own money.” Buying a home with one’s own money is, according to Chozik, a noteworthy detail.
The supposedly modest home was furnished with thrift store offerings. In an ode to income inequality, Chozik notes that the home was a “jarring departure from the governor’s mansion” the Clintons failed to secure.
Chozik writes that the years following 1980 were financially “lean” for the Clintons. She then provides her description of Hillary Clinton’s modest upbringing, focusing on the degree of material comforts enjoyed as a child.
The focus on materialism is an insight into the Marxist point of view of Chozik, and more broadly, her left-wing employer. The obsession with wealth and assets, rather than values and actions, exposes her primary paradigm of political analysis.
At no point does Chozik mention the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative, or the overlap between the two ostensibly charitable organizations’ donors and the Clintons’ speaking clientele. No questions are asked about why Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees were so high, despite her poor public speaking skills. Also ignored is the fact that Bill Clinton’s speaking fees were significantly increased after Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State.
Chozik’s fretting over the Clintons’ net worth caters to a generalized left-wing hostility towards wealth. What is not considered, however, is the method through which the Clintons obtained their wealth. As is common among her ideological allies, Chozik refuses to inquire about or delineate between varying pathways to wealth.
The New York Times mostly presents itself as an objective news outlet, with its reporters almost always denying political biases in their work.
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter.