Is the New York Times editorial board adapting to reality, or is this cognitive dissonance?

This New York Times editorial says, "There are multiple reasons why Americans are working harder and not getting ahead, including a weak labor movement, globalization, technological change and a slowdown in educational attainment." Now that the Times editorial board is acknowledging that globalization is partly responsible for the Middle Class economic plight, I hope it will stop telling us to "embrace" globalization.

"Embrace" sends the wrong message about something that is doing us harm even if the Times thinks globalization is inevitable. Death is inevitable, but we're not urged by the Times to embrace or hurry into it. With respect to global climate change, the Times urges us to stop denying its inevitability and take collective action to stop it, not to embrace it.

If the Times is ready to replace "embrace globalization" with another concept but is at a loss for words, here are some suggestions: Manage, channel, slow down, overcome, stop denying there's a problem, manipulate to the advantage of ordinary working Americans, have a national strategy to meet the challenge, stop outsourcing US policy to the elites who exclusively benefit from globalization and advisors who didn't foresee the bad results for the Middle Class.

Update on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 10:34AM by Skeptic

Nope.  NYT is still embracing free trade, this time without acknowledging that it is contributing to our problems.

The United States must become a leading voice for open international trade. It must press harder for the completion of the stalled round of global trade talks started nine years ago in Doha, Qatar, and to undo the myriad protectionist measures that governments around the globe — including our own — have adopted since the financial crash.