post-election thoughts

~on.

as we all know by now, obama won. so, what does this mean for us? well, it seems, or at least i am hopeful that it seems, that we are embarking on a new phase of liberalism. the conservative backlash to the era of FDR, truman, kennedy, and johnson has perhaps run its course and the world the liberals now inherit is the direct result of deregulation, free market excess, and the culture wars. these things aside, i don't see that what obama has inherited is any worse than what FDR inherited from hoover - in fact, bush could very aptly be described as hoover-esque (and i'm sure his presidential library will be just as dreary). my anti-conservatism aside, what will come to define this new liberalism, if that is in fact what this is. the new yorker has a good spread on just this.

Liberals would dominate the entire government in a way they haven’t since 1965, or 1933. The Journal’s nightmare scenario of America under President Obama and a Democratic Congress included health care for all, a green revolution, expanded voting rights, due process for terror suspects, more powerful unions, financial regulation, and a shift of the tax burden upward. That idea is ascendant in 2008 because it answers the times. These political circumstances, even more than the election of the first black American to the highest office, make Obama’s victory historic.

indeed, this seems like the conservatives' nightmare, but it does reveal that the policies carried out from regan to bush and bush, jr. have waned in enthusiasm among the general public. curiously as well, this election could not focus on the social issues that had been the bread and butter of neocon ideology in the bush "wins."

on a slight tangential note, there is certainly unrest among some, which seems particularly directed at the media. a forthcoming documentary is set to expose how the media won the election for obama. (see also). i will not profess that there was not, in fact, a media bias; however, i will suggest that people are only willing to cry foul when their particular ideology is not the one carrying the day in the media. our news outlets are, indelibly, the fountainhead of ideology: turn on, tune in, and get your daily dose of what people with more money than you think you should think. it astonishes me that people are just now like wtf? but better late than never, as they say. again though, the real issue here is that conservatives are blaming the media because it was not biased in their favor. if it had been, then the liberals would be crying wolf. as long as the media is owned by anyone other than the people, there will be no such thing as objective news coverage ... and even then it might fail still. in a comment thread from the western standard, i found a "libertarian" view of interest as well:

I don't know of any libertarians that are suggesting the state should break up the media. And I don't at all suggest that anything involving the law or the government should be done to the news media.

The criticism, it seems to me, is that the media is failing in providing unbiased news.

Maybe we should reject that vision of the journalist. Maybe, instead, we should embrace a vision that includes open and honest expression of bias (like we do here. We love liberty. Our news stories are from a pro-liberty perspective, etc.)

Freedom of speech is a call to keep the government out of it. It is not a call for silencing critics. I think it's perfectly all right for Republicans to express their criticism, to boycott, to write letters, and so on. All of that is consistent with free speech.

And they can, legally, print whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned. But that doesn't mean that I have to endorse what they write, or approve of it. Just as I can't silence them for putting out pro-Obama news, they can't silence me in pointing that out and saying "shame on you" (or an equivalent).

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 18-Nov-08 5:23:51 PM

we have freedom of the press, but nowhere does it state that the free press must be unbiased. there is bias and ideology in every aspect of our culture; it is up to the observer/listener to be objective in making decisions and judgments about that bias. bias, in the parlance of our times, is simply double-speak for "does not agree with me." and to that i simply say: who the fuck cares? most people do not agree, and even if they do, it's certainly not all the time. having a plurality of views encourages discourse, debate, and perhaps, if the demarcations are not so deep, consensus. because i greatly doubt that truth is something knowable other than in science (but even there, truths seem to dissolve after time).

this all leaves us squarely in the realm of interpretation, and there were two opposing interpretations of how the result of this election came to pass. c. 46% of the country interpreted the current republican ideology as the best: the best to solve a financial crisis, the best to "win" a war, and the best to protect american nationalism. contrarily, c. 53% of the nation cast an opposing interpretation, one predicated upon government working for the people, ending poorly conceived conflicts, and believing in a different "american dream." neither has truth on its side. each only has an ideology and an interpretation. we can only hope for transparency about what that ideology is and whom it serves, so that if we find ourselves on the ass end of the situation, we can revise our interpretations and try again.

~off, and back to the underground.