From the Publisher’s Desk
A Critical Look at the Editorial Voice at Saratoga Today
Chad Beatty’s editorials exhibit a reactionary worldview that conflates economic freedom with corporate exploitation, meritocracy with privilege, and sees government intervention as a convenient scapegoat. His views are symptomatic of a broader conservative backlash to progressive reforms, and they are riddled with logical fallacies, historical misreadings, and selective omissions of fact. It is, therefore, necessary to confront his arguments with the rigor they deserve. We are going to pick through his spiciest of takes and offer up a more thoughtful analysis.
Misunderstanding Worker Rights
In his article on the PRO Act, Beatty paints a disingenuous picture of freelancers as rugged, independent actors who face existential danger from the looming specter of unionization. According to Beatty, freelancers — those “enjoying freedom” from traditional employment — will be railroaded into unionized labor and lose the ability to work on their own terms. This, he suggests, will force them into shift work, away from their children, and into higher taxes.
To be clear: the PRO Act is not a draconian measure designed to chain freelancers to their desks in union halls. The bill strengthens workers’ rights to organize and prevents employers from exploiting the very freelancers Beatty claims to defend. It is not unionization itself that Beatty fears, but the empowerment of workers to have any say in their conditions. Freelancers, while often enjoying flexibility, are also subject to the whims of volatile markets, absence of job security, lack of healthcare benefits, and arbitrary contract terminations. The PRO Act addresses the rampant misclassification of workers as independent contractors — a practice by companies to avoid providing benefits and protections under labor law.
Beatty pits freelancers against unionization, ignoring a crucial reality: gig workers in places like California have already fought for and supported legislation like AB5, which sought to reclassify many independent contractors as employees. While Beatty implies that freelancers should be afraid of government intervention, the truth is that many independent workers are underpaid and lack basic protections like healthcare and retirement plans. The PRO Act would allow workers the right to organize and collectively bargain, giving them the leverage to negotiate better terms.
The Bogeyman of CRT and Anti-Racism
Next, Beatty has set his sights on evils of Critical Race Theory (CRT), equating it with an insidious ideology that teaches children to hate white people and label themselves as victims. Beatty’s argument is not just inaccurate but fundamentally dishonest. CRT is a legal framework developed by scholars like Derrick Bell and Kimberlé Crenshaw to examine how laws and policies perpetuate racial inequalities, even when they appear neutral on the surface. It is not, as Beatty claims, an ideology that teaches racial determinism or inherent victimhood.
Beatty’s invocation of Martin Luther King Jr. is especially galling. King’s call for a world where people are judged “not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” is frequently misused by conservatives like Beatty to argue against any form of race-conscious policy. King himself advocated for affirmative action–like policies and recognized that systemic barriers, not just personal prejudice, held Black Americans back. The idea that CRT “rejects the lessons of the Civil Rights Movement” is laughable to anyone familiar with King’s broader views on social justice.
“Justice for black people will not flow into this society merely from court decisions nor from fountains of political oratory…White America must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society,” King wrote in an essay published in 1969 titled A Testament of Hope.
Beatty’s claim that anti-racism labels all white people as inherently racist is a gross oversimplification. Anti-racist scholars and activists, argue that white people benefit from structural advantages in a society built on racial inequality. This is not an attack on individual morality but a critique of societal systems that maintain racial hierarchies. The problem isn’t white people per se, but whiteness as a construct that grants unearned privilege. Beatty’s attempt to stoke fear of anti-racism as a form of “reverse racism” only serves to obscure the real conversations about dismantling institutional racism.
Freedom and Freeloading
In the “borrowed” editorial on government spending, they present the tired conservative trope that those who receive government aid are somehow leeching off the hard-earned dollars of the responsible few. According to the article, “the people who are getting the free stuff” are spoiled by entitlements, whereas those paying for it are being unfairly punished. This is an astonishingly simplistic and misleading narrative.
The arguments fail to grapple with the reality that social safety nets, far from encouraging dependency, provide critical support for millions of Americans who are victims of systemic inequalities. Programs like Medicaid, unemployment benefits, and food assistance are not “free stuff” — they are vital lifelines for people living in a system that has failed to provide equitable opportunities. The insinuation that government programs encourage laziness is not only offensive but contradicted by research. In fact, poverty programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and SNAP have been shown to boost work participation and lift people out of poverty.
Beatty’s critique conveniently ignores the staggering wealth inequality in the U.S. While he rails against government redistribution, he conveniently omits the fact that the top 1% has seen their wealth skyrocket over the last few decades, aided by tax breaks and deregulation. The real freeloaders are not the poor but the wealthy corporations and individuals who hoard wealth while the government continues to cut taxes for the rich under the guise of “economic freedom.”
Misrepresenting COVID-19 and Public Health
Beatty’s commentary on COVID-19 bordered on dangerous misinformation. His assertion that lockdowns and public health measures are examples of government overreach completely disregards the catastrophic toll of the virus, which has claimed over a million American lives. His argument that the “cure” (i.e., lockdowns) was worse than the disease is a cavalier dismissal of the scientific consensus. Public health measures like mask mandates and temporary business closures were necessary to prevent the collapse of healthcare systems and save lives.
Beatty’s suggestion that the economic impact of COVID-19 measures outweighs the death toll ignores the evidence that economies fare better in the long run when the virus is controlled. Countries like New Zealand and Taiwan, which implemented strict lockdowns, saw far fewer deaths and quicker economic recovery than places like the U.S., where inconsistent public health measures led to repeated waves of infection.
NIMBYism Disguised as Concern
In his editorial Downtown Dilemma, Chad Beatty offers a portrayal of Saratoga Springs that leans heavily into a narrative of fear, discomfort, and economic threat, casting the city’s homeless population as a growing blight on an otherwise idyllic landscape. Beneath the veil of concern for public safety and local businesses lies a common and deeply troubling form of NIMBYism — a reluctance to accept the presence of vulnerable people in spaces that cater to commerce and tourism. Beatty’s argument, while draped in calls for “dignity” and “help,” fixates on the supposed disruption that homeless individuals cause to Saratoga’s pristine image rather than addressing the systemic failures that lead to homelessness in the first place.
Beatty raises alarm over people “passed-out on the sidewalk” or engaging in public urination, conflating such isolated instances with a larger narrative of urban decay. This tactic fuels public fear, focusing on discomfort over seeing homelessness, rather than fostering a real dialogue about solutions that address the root causes of poverty, addiction, and mental health struggles. Instead of empathy, we are treated to a defense of Saratoga’s reputation as an upscale destination, where the presence of the homeless population is framed as a detriment to local businesses and the city’s image.
The editorial follows a familiar NIMBY logic — acknowledge the existence of a social issue but push for its resolution elsewhere, away from places of privilege. Beatty’s concerns about safety and economic disruption mask a reluctance to accept that true solutions to homelessness require systemic changes that will inevitably alter the status quo he wishes to preserve. His support for an outreach center tucked away on Woodlawn Avenue, far from the commercial heart of the city, signals a desire to contain rather than solve the problem.
Saratoga’s real challenge isn’t just the visibility of homelessness on its streets, but a broader unwillingness to address the underlying societal factors contributing to the rise in homelessness. Rather than calling for deeper investment in affordable housing, mental health services, or long-term rehabilitation programs, Beatty’s approach leans heavily on superficial fixes that would sweep the issue under the rug to keep Saratoga’s “jewel” intact.
By framing his editorial with thinly veiled NIMBYism, Beatty’s concern for public safety and economic vitality reveals itself as less about the well-being of the community and more about protecting a sanitized version of Saratoga that leaves no room for its most vulnerable residents. True progress demands a departure from this reactionary mentality and a commitment to policies that offer dignity and inclusion for all, not just those who can afford to stay in the heart of the city.
A Manufactured Crisis
In his Shots Fired editorial, Chad Beatty paints a dramatic, fear-filled picture of Saratoga Springs, invoking images of urban decay and violence that, according to him, are rapidly engulfing the city. “It is a quick and slippery transition from a beautiful upscale resort community to a crime-ridden deteriorating city…and we are quickly slipping.” His portrayal — complete with fights, stabbings, and gunshots — aims to stoke fear and push for a hardline stance on public safety. However, this narrative, rife with reactionary undertones, reveals the same inclination toward NIMBYism and a preference for superficial solutions rather than addressing deeper issues.
Beatty’s calls for stricter law enforcement and earlier bar closings focus on symptoms of unrest rather than its causes. He blames “undesirable elements” from neighboring cities like Albany, Troy, and Schenectady for bringing crime to Saratoga’s downtown, echoing a familiar trope of outside forces corrupting a local community. This narrative distracts from internal challenges like homelessness, substance abuse, and mental health crises — all of which contribute to the very public safety concerns he raises, but are largely ignored in his editorial.
Rather than addressing these core issues, Beatty advocates for a “heavy police presence” and warns against Saratoga becoming “the homeless capital of upstate NY.” His preference for an authoritarian response — coupled with language demonizing groups such as Black Lives Matter (BLM) protesters and the homeless — reveals a worldview that values exclusion and control over inclusion and rehabilitation. Instead of seeking solutions that balance safety with justice, Beatty seems focused on preserving Saratoga Springs as an upscale enclave, free from the complexities of social issues.
Ultimately, Beatty’s editorial exposes the limits of reactionary thinking, where fear of change and a desire for nostalgia override the need for meaningful reform. His simplistic calls for more policing and earlier bar closings do little to address the underlying causes of crime and unrest, instead fostering a divisive atmosphere that pits law enforcement against marginalized groups and those advocating for broader social change.
The Right to Protest vs. The Right to Comfort
Beatty’s commentary on the BLM protests reaches its nadir with the suggestion that protesters should simply be arrested and streets cleared by force — a chilling endorsement of authoritarian tactics that undermines the foundations of democratic society. By referring to protesters as “agitators” or “troublemakers,” Beatty frames the situation as one where civil disobedience warrants state violence, rather than recognizing the legitimate grievances behind the protests. His call to “deputize community members” to clear streets is not only a dangerous invitation to vigilante justice but also an admission that he values property and “order” over justice and the lives of those protesting systemic racism.
Beatty’s fixation on property damage and inconvenience reflects a deep discomfort with any disruption to the status quo — especially when that disruption addresses racial injustice. Conservatives like Beatty often argue that protests should not disturb daily life, but they fail to acknowledge that disruption is precisely the point. As Martin Luther King Jr. said, “A riot is the language of the unheard.” When peaceful protests and calls for reform are ignored, more disruptive tactics become a necessary means to force society’s attention. To demand that protests remain unobtrusive is to misunderstand — or deliberately ignore — the true nature of protest.
Moreover, the New York State Attorney General’s report found that much of the force used during these protests was unnecessary, and there were no credible allegations of widespread violence from protesters. This revelation completely undermines Beatty’s narrative, revealing that his call for a crackdown on violent protesters is without merit.
The Myth of ‘Destruction’
Beatty also perpetuates the myth that BLM protests have led to widespread crime and urban decay. This claim is simply unsupported by facts. Studies show that most BLM protests were overwhelmingly peaceful, with over 93% involving no serious harm to people or property. Even in instances where violence did occur, much of it was instigated by over-policing, far-right provocateurs, or other external actors — not the BLM protesters themselves.
The notion that protest movements like BLM destroy cities is a deliberate distortion. What actually harms urban communities is not protest but systemic inequality, disinvestment, and over-policing — the very issues BLM protests seek to address. Beatty’s call to “Refund the Police” ignores overwhelming evidence that increasing police presence does not solve the underlying issues of poverty, racial injustice, or police violence. Instead of confronting these structural problems, Beatty opts for the easy solution: crackdowns and arrests.
The Attorney General’s report also confirmed that local officials actively sought to suppress the BLM narrative, with Assistant Chief Catone even suggesting that his family’s political influence be used to silence the movement. This blatant abuse of power goes unmentioned in Beatty’s editorials, where his focus remains on demonizing protesters rather than addressing the misconduct of local officials.
Adding to Beatty’s distortions is Saratoga Today‘s practice of publishing police blotters, which raises significant concerns around privacy, fairness, and community impact. By publicly listing arrests, the blotter can unjustly tarnish the reputations of individuals who may never be convicted or whose charges may be dropped. In the digital age, these records remain accessible indefinitely, potentially damaging individuals’ careers and personal lives. This practice risks turning an arrest into a form of public shaming, disproportionately affecting marginalized individuals without the means to defend their reputations.
Moreover, police blotters contribute to an exaggerated sense of danger, skewing public perceptions of crime and amplifying fear within the community. By focusing on isolated incidents without providing context or resolution, the blotter helps create a narrative of disorder, much like Beatty’s portrayal of urban decay due to protests. Both approaches overlook the systemic issues of inequality, poverty, and social services, fostering fear rather than encouraging a balanced and constructive conversation about public safety.
Fear-Mongering to Spite Progress
Chad Beatty’s editorials consistently reflect a reactionary mindset that prioritizes order and authority over progress and justice. In his discussions of labor rights, racial justice, or public health, Beatty’s arguments exhibit a clear discomfort with change and a staunch defense of entrenched privilege. His fear-driven rhetoric about crime, social decay, and government intervention reveals a worldview that refuses to grapple with the complex, systemic issues that plague modern society.
Rather than proposing meaningful solutions, Beatty idealizes a nostalgic vision of Saratoga Springs as a pristine enclave, seemingly untouched by homelessness, social unrest, or inequality. His focus is on restoring an imagined past rather than confronting the present realities that demand reform. History, however, has shown that true progress comes not from authoritarian measures like increased policing or stifling protest, but from addressing injustices head-on.
In Beatty’s narrative, the solution to social challenges is always more policing, more suppression of dissent, and a return to an “order” that preserves the status quo for the privileged at the expense of the marginalized. Yet time and again, history proves that lasting change emerges not from crackdowns but from movements that expose and challenge societal failings. Rather than adhering to outdated notions of meritocracy and unchecked economic freedom, we should be striving for accountability, equity, and justice — the very values that Beatty, and by extension Saratoga Today, appear reluctant to embrace.
Find us on Facebook and Substack
