We, the people of the United States of America, have just over a week to save our Democracy. That's what this election is about, it's never been more clear than that, and we have lost much of our free press in a way that is crippling our ability to use our votes to save our country.
When the Washington Post ownership censors its editorial department, and stops a political endorsement, that's a sign that we are very much in the twilight, and the sun is about to go down on our freedoms. The newspaper of our nation's capital has a motto, "Democracy dies in darkness." The Post, owned by a billionaire, has been censored by him, and is no longer able to live up to its motto. And that's the biggest sign, among others, that we have lost our free press. It happened to the Los Angeles Times as well, but the Post, among what were once the big American daily newspapers that were the primary source of information, especially on politics, is the biggest symbol of America's free press.
Any American with even the smallest understanding of constitutional democracy and the individual liberties it guarantees should be in mourning. And, we should also be afraid.
Hindsight Is Always 20-20 Vision
The undermining of democracy is never as obvious when it is actually happening as it is in hindsight. We can look back at history now, and say, "Oh, they should have seen this coming." And in fact, there are signs that are visible, and there are many people who are issuing warnings and pointing to examples of the erosion of our freedom with evidence of its effect. But its only after the effect becomes obvious, and we're looking back, that we see what we should have done, and didn't do, and we wound up paying the price for it..
People like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, for example, were very open in their discussion of how far right wing conservatives could amplify their political power when they weren't able to win elections consistently at the statewide level, or at the national level, after their apparent invincibility evaporated in the defeat of George H. W. Bush's bid for a second term. They aimed at winning at the state legislative level, by putting resources into those state legislative elections, and then, once they had majorities, in using their power to gerrymander congressional districts to gain congressional majorities, and then, when they did have the power in those states, to appoint judges to the bench that would not call their efforts "gerrymandering" or take legal action.
They told us they were going to do this. Limbaugh talked about it regularly. Democrats were warned, but even after it started, it seemed like this caught the party leadership unaware. The winner-take-all attitude exhibited by these extremists, as opposed to the old line "negotiate and compromise" politics that Democrats still followed, cost us dearly, and we are still paying for it in lost congressional seats and in states where hard line conservatives have a lock on the state legislature.
We are still fearful, as this election approaches, that the legislators they have put in many of those state houses will try to find a way to overturn a Presidential election they don't want to lose. We see this clearly now, but didn't pay much attention to it when it was happening. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore, in 2000, is still haunting us. We didn't see it coming.
How Do We Respond?
In the obscured and hazy manner in which we now get our news, the response at WAPO has been internal turmoil, and the resignations of editorial staff, and an apparent surge in cancellation of both advertising contracts and subscriptions. Whether that prompts a reversal of the decision of its owner remains to be seen. I tend to think it will take a little more than that, like a major boycott of his main business interest, to make a difference. It takes a lot to have an affect on the bottom line of a billionaire, though the response to this might just be big enough to do it.
Newspapers, even though they have expanded into the electronic age, and have far more subscribers on-line than they do in print, are still pretty much dinosaurs. The shift in emphasis in American education away from long-term development of communication skills in language, to a more technical style of reading means that there are increasingly fewer people who spend more than a few minutes scanning photos and pictures online, or even clicking and watching a video report of something.
I find it very satisfying to get up early enough to pick up my daily print copy of the Chicago Tribune, and sit on my balcony with a mug of hot coffee, reading through the news and sports sections before finishing my routine of getting ready for work. It's a half hour of intellectual stimulation at the beginning of the day, prompting thoughts, sometimes worth jotting down. I also have the luxury of reading through the electronic version at various other times, especially to get updates of something during the day in which I'm interested. But I wonder, really, how many people actually look through a newspaper, understand the journalistic standards behind it, and make that their preference over some online tabloid that appeals to sensation.
And that poses just as big a danger to American free press as the bridling of editors at a major daily newspaper. Reading junk is one thing, relying on it for accurate information is quite another. That's frightening, if you ask me.
The Bottom Line is to go Vote
There may be a bit of a reverse effect from this now highly publicized censorship of the editorial board of the Washington Post, a negative response that triggers some additional votes for Kamala Harris. I hope so. I'm still somewhat surprised that the New York Times has endorsed her, with the headline that she is the only "patriotic" choice. The failure of the Post and of the L.A. Times to do so will cost them more than it will her
We have a long list of election issues, judicial issues and political issues, including determining that a convicted felon is not eligible to run for public office, ethical standards for the Supreme Court, that must be resolved once Harris is elected, and has a Congress that is workable. and other reforms that will set us back on the road to a workable democracy, if that's possible. For now, regardless of what happens or does not happen anywhere else, Democrats must focus on getting Kamala Harris in the White House in a way that precludes any possible post-election fight over certification of electors.
I certainly hope Democratic party leadership is on top of this, has anticipated every possible angle that the opposition can take, including violence, and is prepared to meet the challenge.
One thing is for sure. Our media cannot fall under the control of a few billionaires, especially those who are looking out for their own interests. Democracy does indeed die in darkness, and as close as we are now coming to the very edge of a blackout, we need to do something to pull ourselves back from the precipice.
No comments:
Post a Comment