|
Barack Obama's trip abroad is one whale of a marketing job. To say he is getting presidential treatment from the TV networks is an understatement. Few presidents get such a boost (for free, please note) and that only after some outstanding achievement, like winning a war. But the honors to Barack from the media are not just presidential. There is a whiff of the imperial, of what used to be called a cult of personality. Now switch the station, and tune in to the "alternative media", meaning conservative talk radio. If for the TV networks Barack can do no wrong, here there is not a half-ounce of good in him. I will not repeat all the epithets (the list is long), but, to summarize, in those regions Senator Obama is a dunce, a vacuous intellectual zero; untrustworthy, an opportunistic dissembler, devoid of any principles; politically inexperienced, with a minimal record and no achievements to his congressional name; a leftist, a Marxist, a friend of subversives and America-haters, the empty creation of some liberal cabal. I do not share the above opinions. A political person should be judged, for good or bad, on his or her achievements, record, character and convictions, not a priori elevated on a pedestal or thrown into a pit. But I mention them to highlight the growing influence of ideology in current politics. It has long been known that the "mainstream media" - TV and press - had a liberal bias. This led to the rise of the alternatives, focused on radio, and giving voice to the conservative side. The aim would have been to achieve balance ("fair and balanced", as in FOX News), but the very opposite seems to be happening. From Michael Moore on the left to Mark Levine on the right (pick your own examples as you wish) the gap has grown rather than shrunk, and the tone is growing shriller. Ideology is trumping realism and common sense. At the same time there is a compensating phenomenon: even as the hard cores of both parties appear to be drifting to the far ends of the political spectrum, a great mass of voters is moving the other way and claiming the center. Independents might now well outnumber hard core Republicans and Democrats taken together. The "silent majority" is no longer on the right (as in the 80's) but squarely in the middle. Seen from the historical point of view, this is not a novel development. Such sharpening of ideological differences normally occurs at times of great political shifts, when new forces and issues are demanding a re-alignment, even as the political establishment, out of inertia, attempts to deal with new problems by applying old solutions (or simply denying that such new problems exist). Rising ideological intensity (with its attendant cult and/or destruction of personality) is a result of growing political pressure, and signals that new forces are, or soon will be, coming into being. What is of particular interest here is that, instead of splitting into opposing left and right factions, the growing mass of independent voters remains uncommitted - ready to give a candidate of either party the benefit of the doubt, but not taking sides in the ideological wars. They may throw their support to one side or the other (particularly in local elections) but are staying in the center - which is the fundamental reason their numbers are growing. Capturing this great mass of floating voters is the great challenge now facing the two established parties - or possibly a "third" one which could build a new majority, as the Republicans did in the mid 1800's. It is doubtful that a rehashing of past party platforms (the McCain position, more or less) or an undefined, vague appeal to the "future", to "change" and to "hope" (a la Barack Obama, early edition) will do the job. More likely a thorough analysis of their issues, coupled with a realistic set of solutions, will be the only way to secure the growing independent bloc. The old ideologies will no longer do. New ones will eventually emerge, but the immediate future belongs to what could be called "The New Realism".
Trackback(0)
|