When Great-Grandma Antonina wanted to reinforce her opinion on a point of political or social contention, the diminutive matriarch of a family friend would draw herself up to her full 4-feet-eleven-inches and declare with a dignified surety that would brook no doubt, “I read it in the newspaper!”
At other times, particularly during the Huntley-Brinkley heyday, Antonina would argue, “it must be true! They said it on the TV!”
For Antonina’s generation of early Twentieth-Century immigrants, the freedom of America’s press offered solid evidence that their faith in the young country’s promise and opportunity was well-founded. Having watched Mussolini’s goons apply pressure on La Stampa (until its publisher, Alfredo Frassati (father of Bl. Pier Giorgio Frassati) sold to the more pliant Giovanni Agnelli) the ability of America’s papers to scream doubt in their headlines and offer critical analysis on their op-ed pages—and the government’s tolerance of same—were a reassuring balm to Antonina; if there was a depression, and everyone was struggling, at least she could trust the government, because the constitutionally protected press existed as a “fourth estate”—a citizens’ check and balance against governmental excess. Antonina and her contemporaries were happy to confer full credulity upon the press, and invest in its authority.
My parents and in-laws are children of the second-generation; born in America and raised in the last years of the depression, they inherited the immigrant’s unconditional passion for the new country, and happily melted into the pot—Americanizing their own names and Christening their children John instead of Gianni; Mary instead of Maria.
They also inherited their parents high-regard for journalism. As recently as 2000, senior citizens could be counted on to find the press credible; a quick look at the geriatric-friendly advertisers of our network nightly news broadcasts gives emphatic evidence of who is still watching by-appointment tv news.
Based entirely on anecdotal evidence, however, I believe the press’ credibility with senior citizens has taken a hit from which it is unlikely to recover, and it may be entirely due to the election of 2008, when the mainstream media utterly abandoned whatever responsibilities to the public trust to which it still felt obliged, tossed presumptive-nominee Hillary Clinton aside and—rejecting any-and-all discomfiting questions about his experience, background, past-operations, education, friendships or capabilities—hoisted candidate Barack Obama upon their shoulders and carried him into the White House in triumph.
At a large, multi-generational family gathering this past weekend, inevitable discussions arose about the economy, jobs, and the bleak outlook for the immediate future. The general consensus was that our president is a failure, the congress is a wreck, and there is no authenticity or originality in our leadership, nor in our press. A majority in attendance—both Democrats and Republicans—had voted for Barack Obama (a few grudgingly, as they had supported Clinton) but while everyone expressed disappointment (there was not a single voice raised in support of the president) the senior citizens confided a deep sense of betrayal—of their trust being shattered. When I asked one of them, a former “Reagan Democrat” who had voted for Dole, then Bush, then Kerry why she had pulled the lever for Obama, she threw up her hands helplessly, “all I knew was what I heard! That other guy seemed too hot-headed and that Sarah Palin; she just wanted to play dress-up!”
And that was the general response from that side of the room: “I paid attention; I read all the papers—they all loved this guy!”
“He was new! We needed change!”
But not, as it turns out, the kind of change we are currently experiencing. Asked if they regretted their vote, to a one they said “yes.” Most of them said they wished, in retrospect, that they had voted for Hillary Clinton who “at least understood that the economy…it’s the economy, right? Stupid?”
None of them will be cast a second vote for this president, nor will they be so quick to listen to a press that—absenting an Obama abdication—will cast the flop-sweat from its brow and once again lift him to their shoulders, chanting new slogans and dire warnings about the opposition, but no longer singing songs from The Student Prince.
If Bill Keller’s recent column is an indicator, it seems any Obama deficiencies in the election of ’12 will be again relegated to the shoulders of George W. Bush, but that won’t play with the seniors, this time, either. Bush, it turns out, wasn’t so bad. He was authentic, and worked hard, even if he made some mistakes, just like them. He kept his nose to the grindstone and never complained, just like them. He loved America nakedly, just like them.
And if those Weapons of Mass Destruction ended up not being where they were supposed to be, well, Bush believed what he had been told. Just like them.
So, no, demonizing Bush is not going to work in this election, and—as demonstrated in the recent special election in New York’s ninth congressional district—the seniors will no longer be swayed by dark warnings that the GOP will end medicare and social security—these older people realize that the programs of the New Deal and the Great Society have become unsustainable and that—somehow—a real and drastic change must happen, soon.
They realize it and they dread it; comfortably (though not lavishly) retired, they watch their own children work 60-hour weeks—120 hours per couple—in order to avoid becoming expendable, because at their age, being re-hired is unlikely. They see these children’s retirement plans get put on hold; they press a few dollars into the hands of their job-hunting grandchildren, who have moved back into the bedrooms of their adolescence because the economy has beaten them down, and they whisper, “to tide you over, take it,” encouragingly.
But they have no more illusions that every day in America is brighter than the one before. And if anecdotal evidence may be submitted, they don’t want to hear the press tell them anyone has all the answers.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Elderly and the Media
La Stampa
NY-09, Scaring Voters Unpersuasive
Keller in the Times
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
Ironically, when I talk with an extended family full of passionate Jewish democrats, they don't want to vote for Obama either, not because he's been too left wing, but because he isn't nearly left enough. He promised more far-reaching changes, and his promises encouraged members of the family to work to support his campaign. None of them will support him this time around, because he compromised too much. He's too moderate for them. He's probably too moderate for me, too, but he seems definitely better than Perry or Santorum or anyone else on the other side.
But you're right. The main theme is disillusionment, on both right and left. I don't see how Obama's going to win a second term, in large part because he's alienated almost everyone. Right and left don't like him much.
Thank you for this wonderful insight. I suspect, as do you, that the real story of next year's election will be played out in a manner that will bear no resemblance to the story that will be given us in the media. Perhaps that will inspire the fourth estate to reclaim its integrity.
Peace.
The notion that the mass media itself is a power broker strikes me as silly. The mass media is all about selling product. Media personalities are celebrity-driven. Whatever will sell will get promoted. I think it was more a matter of not being able to sell Mr McCain, so the corporations decided to throw their money at Mr Obama and hope for the best. And they got what they bought: milquetoast reform and more of the same 2001-09, only with a depression as part of the background hum. No way do I think the GOP will improve our lot.
I think there is great disillusionment about both major political parties. Personally, I would like to see both the Republicans and the Democrats euthanized, but I suspect the power elites who control the mass media are unwilling to submit to a crapshoot with a much-needed third and fourth party.
A parliamentary multi-party system would certainly liven things up in Washington. Major parties would have to form coalitions or be summarily voted out of office. Failing that, if we could somehow get a "none-of-the-above" option at the polls, that would reveal just how disillusioned the citizenry is. That would be a change I could believe in.
I watched the press vilify Bush to an extent difficult to overstate, and while I'm not going to defend him for everything, as a veteran bred in COIN warfare there is little doubt in my mind that the Iraq surge worked. It was reviled as much as anything else. The press was dead wrong on that one.
Similarly, the messianic fervor with which Obama was hailed has fallen flat - read the New York Times to hear it.
They got it wrong with a conservative, they got it wrong with a liberal. What sounds like the opinion of everyone in the world can be badly wrong, but it won't be shown wrong for years afterward.
Younger commenters here may not appreciate this quality, but in bygone days real journalists would never inject "opinions", their own or those of others, into news stories. It simply wasn't done. Readers were assumed to be intelligent enough to take whatever facts were presented, compare that information with their life's experiences, and form their own opinions. It was a citizens' responsibility to do this.
Newsmen [or women] were never part of the story, either. But once the person reporting a story became a recognized "personality" big money reared its head and news suddenly become entertainment. That's what most adults assume to be the norm today. Daily topical entertainment from news readers.
Today, entertainment divisions are required to turn a profit. Formerly, news reporting was merely part of the overhead, just like tubs of ink and rolls of newsprint. The difference is striking. Ms. Scalia's kinfolk are right to be disappointed because in my view the change is for the worse.
Modern media story gatherers should no longer be called journalists. They are - at best - commenters. At worst they are fablers. Spinning yarns they want others to believe.
Does anyone really think Rick Perry is a viable candidate?
YES! YES! Perry also "inherited" an economy from Bush and under the Leftist chokehold of Obama Leftism has been one of the ONLY Governors to produce jobs in his state.
FYI - I personally do not care who the GOP candidate is - I will be voting for whoever he/she is.
Wow. I'm impressed by the sheer naivete required to say (much less believe) something so ridiculous as this statement. What a lame apology for one of the biggest blunders in American history.
Flamen, Bush appointed Pro-life justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. What did Obama do? He appointed Pro-Abortionists Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
"But the Republicans favor destroying all the programs that assist the poor and middle class contrary to the teaching of the Gospel. "
Oh, for Heaven's sake, drop it already.
So yes-if you want-blame Obama for failing to fix the years in the making catastrophe we are facing, in his first term. But it is absolutely ludicrous to blame him for causing it.
Oh and you also might want to consider that ANYONE who thought our president could begin to fix the dire straights we are in that was caused by so many mistakes in values and vision (and yes WE the people share some of the blame), deserve what they get.
For our countries sake I sure do hope the seniors and other members of the electorate our not as foolish, naive, and simple as you seem to describe.
