It’s all falling apart!
Woe is us, according to an Associated Press news story over the weekend, which asks the question: “Is everything spinning out of control?”
The “news” story cites everything from recent natural disasters — from New Orleans to China to, most recently, the Midwest floods — to sports flubs — Barry Bonds under investigation; NBA referees accused of cheating — as reasons behind the theory.
Not surprisingly, the article played on the upcoming presidential election. And while the writers — Alan Fram and Eileen Putman — took care to mention both candidates, the photo accompanying the story — perhaps coincidentally, perhaps suspiciously — was one of Michelle Obama’s appearance on ABC’s The View last week. Subliminal message of change for the downtrodden masses? Perhaps. Who knows?
I beg to differ with the article’s tone. There’s little doubt that Americans are not satisfied with the current state of affairs in our nation. But I would submit that it’s more a sense of complacency that is a part of human nature rather than a sign that ol’ Third Rock is about to spin off its path of orbit.
Sure, there are reasons for concern. There is no end in sight to the soaring energy costs, the dollar continues to decline in value, our economy is rather stagnant at the moment . . . but the unemployment rate is only 5.5%, the economy did grow in 1Q, albeit slowly, more people still own homes today than before the housing bubble that led to the Great Housing Crisis, and there hasn’t been a major terrorist attack on our soil or against our interests in nearly seven years.
Compare this with the morning of 9/11, when the Twin Towers were heaps of rubble and tens of thousands were feared dead. Or with the early 1980s, when unemployment was in double digits nationally, and as high as 25% in many rural areas, and interest rates were through the roof. Or the late ’70s when the day of the week dictated whether you could buy gasoline to fuel your automobile. Or the early ’40s when we were mired in a war to end all wars, in a fight for the very survival of ourselves and our allies. Or the early ’60s, when the onset of the Cold War and fear of nuclear warfare made bomb shelters a novelty. Or the early ’30s, after morale and the stock markets had crashed to conclude the Roaring 20s and investors were putting bullets into their heads after losing all they owned.
Is the outlook for our future positively concrete? No, but is it ever?
Perhaps our problem is that we concern ourselves so much with things over which we have no control. Such as preventing the global temperature from rising half a degree over the next two generations, or expecting sports stars who make millions based on performance to not use performance-enhancing drugs, or predicing natural disasters before they happen.
Or, perhaps we’re merely complacent after eight years of looking at, and listening to, the same man in the Oval Office. We’re nothing if not a boresome lot, us Americans.
UPDATE [06.24.08]: The excerpt containing Allan Lichtman’s comments seemed more than a little suspect:
American University historian Allan J. Lichtman notes that the U.S. has endured comparable periods and worse, including the economic stagflation (stagnant growth combined with inflation) and Iran hostage crisis of 1980; the dawn of the Cold War, the Korean War and the hysterical hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s; and the Depression of the 1930s.
“All those periods were followed by much more optimistic periods in which the American people had their confidence restored,” he said. “Of course, that doesn’t mean it will happen again.”
Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House.
Eric at Vocal Minority points out that Lichtman has served as a consultant to Al Gore and Ted Kennedy, and charged that there were racial discrepencies in Florida in the 2000 presidential election.
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
While posting on my own blog about this “story,” I made some startling discoveries, including the following:
“Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.”
Watch the wording? Iraq, Afghanistan, AND against terrorism. The authors’ point: Both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the war on terror, but rather Bush-concocted distractions from the real war.
But this is the kicker: Who is this “American University historian” Allan Lichtman, whom they cite? According to Wikipedia:
Lichtman has testified as an expert witness on civil rights in more than 70 cases for the U.S. Department of Justice and for civil rights groups such as the NAACP … He also consulted for Vice President Al Gore and Senator Edward Kennedy. He assisted the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigation into voting irregularities in Florida during the 2000 election[1], submitting an extensive report of his statistical analysis of balloting problems … [2] […]
On September 28, 2005, Lichtman formally announced his candidacy for the United States Senate from Maryland. He ran as a progressive, opposing the War in Iraq and calling for an immediate and safe withdrawal of U.S. troops […]
“American University historian” my ass. This guy is a hard-core radical leftist with a truckload of political axes to grind against Republicans!
For the authors to cite this ideologue as an objective source is criminal in itself, but for them not to even label this guy at least as a “liberal” warrants a complete revocation of their journalism degrees. Could you imagine them citing a source just a smidgeon to the right of center without labeling them “conservative” or “right wing”? Me neither.
This is journalistic malpractice of the highest order, plain and simple.
P.S. It’s Eileen PutMaN. (I made the same error too until someone pointed it out to me)
http://VocalMinority.typepad.com
Jewish AND Republican?? Oy gevalt