After touting GOP's "remarkable" feat in 2002 election, media ignored historical context for Dem victories in 2006
comments powered by Disqus
Michael Glen Wade - 11/29/2006
There may or may not be bias in this oversight. Ineptitude is also a possibility. Maybe this is the latest evidence of journalism's slide into talking headism. In any case, the important story is yet to come, and that is what use the Democrats will be able to make of this electoral gain. Will they use it to address really important issues such as energy alternatives, control of illegal immigration, budget restraints, and our gas-guzzling, deteriorating transportation systems? Will they initiate serious conversation about what global warming, exploding populations and the impending global decline of oil production mean for younger Americans who will have to deal with the legacy left them by 25 years and more of political irresponsibility by both parties and the voting public? Any hope of a searching discussion about what might constitute real homeland security, as opposed to the bureaucratic fraud we now have? Or will it be business as usual, with a sop here and there for appearances sake? Would that it were otherwise, but the smart money will be on the latter possibility. What the Democrats, and for that matter the Republicans, will do with the next two years is the real story, doubly so since no sentient being would want to rely on George Bush and his crowd for leadership or intelligent ideas.
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- David Hackett Fischer wins $100,000 prize for lifetime achievement in military writing