December 05, 2004
In this imperfect exercise of self government no one is ever fully satisfied. Compromise rules the day of anything that should get done.
It is important to note that because many people adhere to a perception loudly does not necessarily make it true. Their perceptive qualities could be clouded by the quality of information.
Pessimism, though, predisposes one to discount whatever would conflict with that outlook.
What you speak to primarily is a perception created by an "advocacy" media, often repeated (bombarding, perhaps), lacking in context which will lead to conclusions I see and hear not just in your writing.
It is important to note that there were contentious times in several and many election cycles. Spirited you might say. David McCullough’s book “John Adams” is one source comes to mind. Also, though, in that book goes to the nature of a “debating society” (which might withhold respect of legitimacy) v. taking action (appalled at paying tribute to the Barbary Pirates) with the information at hand based on principle. There’s nothing new , in many ways, going ‘round nor coming ‘round
In the case of the 2004 elections, as well as the 2000 elections for that matter, the major US media tried to minimize the amount of "negative" information that was getting out. They reported things when and if they had to report them, in other words, when not reporting them would have exposed their bias against the non-governing party.
First, an electorate gets the candidate that the majority deserve, not want.
Second, the US system of democracy is going to continue to suffer from this kind of result for as long as the method of candidate selection concentrates on lowest common denominator and money, rather than ability to do the job.
Links to this post:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.