We walked the four miles from the bus parking area at RFK Stadium to the Washington Monument in frigid temperatures, detoured around security "frozen" zones and fenced areas, at one point going through fences and climbing down embankments to cross a closed highway - thousands of us - our goal: to witness the inauguration of Barrack Obama as President.
Our vantage point, so far away that individuals on the scaffolding in front of the Capitol were indistinguishable, was augmented by large video screens showing the proceeding, although no audio reached where we stood. My wife and I shared the earbuds of a tiny radio, which played the oath of office, and Mr. Obama's speech.
Our frigid trek back to RFK Stadium was eased by the positive mood of the crowd, and I told a reporter interviewing riders on our bus that this was my first bus trip, among many to D.C. going back to the '60s, that was not for a protest.
The good feeling did not last long. We were hardly back home in NJ before the assertion that, since Chief Justice John Roberts has fumbled part of the oath of office, Mr. Obama's Presidency lacked legitimacy, began its rounds of conservative talk radio and websites. This first challenge was followed by similar attacks on the basis of anything and everything connected with him or his family, and distracted his supporters from their intended political goals. Mr. Obama's attempts to deal with irrational people on a rational basis were interpreted as weakness, both by his base, and by his opponents.
It is illuminating to compare challenges made to President Obama under freedom of speech in the media, to those made to former President George W. Bush in court on a matter of law.
George W. Bush's 2000 campaign victory resulted from a voting dispute in Florida, which was brought quickly to the Supreme Court, and that ended decisively [by 5-4 margin] in his favor. All further challenges were mocked as whining and grumbling, and never completely aired.
The whispering campaign about Mr. Obama's citizenship, although never brought before any official for scrutiny, has reverberated around the media, waxing and waning for nearly three years, not completely ended, even by President Obama's release of his birth certificate.
Blaming the media for the polarized gridlock that prevents any solution to our economic woes from gaining a hearing in DC, ignores the people consuming that media - us. We want a simple solution to a complex problem, and any proposals must fit the ideological template through which all political dialog is extruded. In our desperate quest to avoid facing unpleasant realities, we endorse one short-term deferral after another, while savaging our perceived opponents at every opportunity, even if it entails passing on a solution that otherwise would benefit us.
The inability [or unwillingness] of people to process issues may be partly due to a lag in adapting to the communication revolution that has accelerated dramatically in recent years [since its first effects were felt in the 1960 election of JFK]. So much information moves so quickly that staying on top of all of it is impossible. Your average American, allocating his or her time among the competing demands of career, family, community and grocery shopping is unable to keep up, and is desperate for an end to the barrage.
Packaging it in digestible pieces has fallen to highly specialized analysts and psychologists, operating largely behind the scenes, and distributed by recognizable media outlets, to a public grateful to be relieved of the burden of so much input.
Individuals are free, of course, to venture out and sample raw information, but the cost can be steep, both in time and in the security of one's worldview. If you notice the man behind the screen, it is hard to restore faith in the big talking head.
No comments:
Post a Comment