Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Decided or Not, Getting it Right Requires Our Participation
As we approach our print date, I can't remember facing a more unpredictable month. Looking at the most important decision we will collectively make for the next four years is tough when it takes place so early in the month. Then again, as far as uncertainty about what's coming, why should it be different for me as a publisher than the rest of the country?
In less than a week Election Day will be past us, and a certain amount of tension in the country will be released, or potentially increased.
Working without the benefit of an infallible crystal ball, the days leading up to voting day lead me to believe we could find ourselves right where we were after the last presidential election. There are enough problems and irregularities before the election to point to another “undecided” period ahead.
Regarding the campaign, at least, we in California have been spared the television ads that have overwhelmed people I have talked to in other States.
The focus of both campaigns toward the end seemed to say, “I'm not really that bad. I'm not extreme.” I mean we do know, pretty much, who is supporting whom in this election. The gun lobby supports President Bush, which means candidate Kerry makes sure he is seen duck hunting—but making sure he is not seen carrying any dead ducks. Meanwhile, Bush keeps talking about how compassionate his programs are and how much he cares. Should that concern us, considering his record?
This strategy we have to accept is one that appeals to the “undecided” voter who could go either way.
It's hard to figure why, though, that after a debate we can read in the paper the next day which statements both candidates made that were inaccurate, and later hear campaign speeches that still include the same inaccurate rhetoric. How can partisans on both sides simply ignore the inaccuracies of their candidates? It gets as much attention as ammunition storage sites.
The rationalization I hear that bothers me the most, regarding voting and registration, is the one that says “they all do it,” or “it's okay because cheating has always existed.” Is that the standard we want? Isn't getting it right what office holders have taken an oath to do?
One of our best parts is our democracy, but it also seems to bring out some very questionable part of us/U.S.
In contrast to politics-as-usual—for a very, very short time a few years ago—Ross Perot addressed some issues head-on that nobody was talking about and that people resonated with. I think he spoke what he thought was true without holding back. I think people recognize, resonate with and respond to the truth.
Basically, Perot was saying that politicians were not addressing the issues that mattered. If an issue did not have an easy, sound bite answer, politicians would not talk about it. It was interesting and exciting for a while. He tried to bottle it and create an influential organization, then decided to run for office, which quickly finished him off. The power on that level must be so seductive.
Inspiring politicians who speak with candor about the issues before us are in short supply. There must be some balance we can find. Is there some place between simply following what is popular in the polls and running the agenda that's best for their best supporters?
These days there is little to resonate with—if you look to leaders to provide the inspiration. Maybe we're beginning to provide our own, though, instead of expecting it to be provided. How democratic of us/U.S.
That's happening more and more. There are a lot of people on the Internet whose insightful and informative voices are now being heard.
The vacuum of gutsy leaders is being filled with more independent observers and more grassroots organizations, such as True Majority and MoveOn. More people are participating and joining with others. We can now read new writers who were relatively unknown last presidential election. We can get our news from new sources such as TomPaine.com, BuzzFlash.com, or any newspaper we want online. We can get international perspectives previously unavailable or limited.
Almost as popular as the news is the parody of the news by Jon Stewart on his Daily Show . I liked the way he put our choice. He says it's about taking the keys from the guy who drove us into the ditch who keeps saying, “I can get us out of this.” Then giving the keys to someone else—anyone else—and saying “Here, you try.”
The ditch was not 9/11. The ditch, or gulf, is the difference between the world of support we had the day after 9/11 compared to the coalition we have now. The world was behind us and had the spirit and willingness to follow good leadership toward taking on world terrorism. We didn't get that thoughtful, unifying leadership.
If only because Kerry is willing to involve the world in solving a world problem, he should be our choice for President. Is it even possible to do it alone? Where do another 140,000 troops come from if we need to “reign in” Iran? Or Korea?
If the country—US—with a military larger than the combined militaries of the rest of the world cannot control a country the size of Iraq, we may need to rethink how “control” or leadership works—or simply look at what works.
It will certainly require having discussions politicians don't normally have. Do multi-national corporations contribute to the conditions that breed hopelessness and terrorism, or relieve those conditions? Where is the balance point? Does our reliance on oil contribute to them or relieve them? How do insurance companies and a health care system co-exist? When will the changing economic climate—the debt and growing trade deficits—be gently addressed before it becomes the next terrorist that has to be addressed? Where is staying the course an option? When can applying a fixed, predetermined philosophy of the world on the world fit the world?
There is hope, no matter how the election goes, because people are more involved in and watching what our government is doing. There is beginning to be more of a focus on what's true, or at least more accurate, than following blindly. Hey, fool me once, . . . the saying goes.
Hope and inspiration from our “leadership” is lacking, but that does not mean it isn't available to us/U.S. It's beginning to be more and more obvious that a government for the people won't happen unless it's by the people—coming from and including people's participation. It has begun. There are signs that it's growing.
Have a great month,
Steve Hays
BACK TO TOPHOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
