Notes From D.R. | Random Thoughts on the Passing Scene

Just as healing can never undo the memory of injury, the joy of victory cannot fully remove the recollection of loss. As wonderful as the Boston Celtics’ NBA title win over the Los Angeles Lakers was last month, it can never fully compensate for the ache the city still feels over the tragic events of fifteen years prior.

The July 27, 1993 death of former Celtics captain Reggie Lewis began an era of mourning that can never truly come to a conclusion. There will never be a time when Bostonians stop wondering what would have happened if fate had permitted Lewis to live longer than twenty-seven years.

Boston simultaneously became stronger and weaker as a result of his passing. On August 2, 1993, nearly fifteen thousand people filled Northeastern University’s Matthews Arena to honor Lewis’ memory.  A city that had become world-famous for racial violence in the mid-1970s—a city that had witnessed a race-fueled brawl at South Boston High School as recently as May 1993—managed to put aside cultural, political, and economic differences for one moment to pay homage to Lewis’ achievements as an athlete and as a citizen. On that day, cynicism was also laid to rest.

However, the passage of time has not alleviated the pain of Lewis’ death. As a civic leader, as a sportsman of unmatched class, as a husband and father, Lewis passed away at the most unfortunate of times. Perhaps the sight of Lewis continuing to set an example for Bostonians of all ages would have lessened somewhat the various social burdens of the past fifteen years.

Lewis was one of the few athletes—in Boston or anyplace else—who actually deserved to be considered a heroic figure. He was an ego-free performer, a man whose work ethic made him the best sportsman in Northeastern University’s history and one of the best Celtics players of all-time. His charitable efforts were as extensive as his years were limited.

Sadly, Lewis has become the textbook example of an athlete whose achievements were not recognized during his time. Prior to his death, Lewis was insufficiently praised as a great talent; in the early-1990s, Lewis was an ignored superstar, a man who labored tirelessly for the Celtics without receiving much public approbation for his efforts. Many Bostonians were stunned by his untimely death, but how many gave him his just due in life? After his passing, there was some discussion of the role race supposedly played in Lewis’ failure to become as popular as his talents warranted. Lewis’ lack of flamboyance, not his race, explained his status as a star few people seemed to care about prior to his death. How sad is it that the man was ignored for years simply because he wasn’t a self-promoter?

For those who did appreciate Lewis’ talents during his active years, his passing hurts just as much as it did in those horrible hours following his collapse at Brandeis University. Lewis’ admirers saw him the way supporters of Barack Obama now view the Illinois Senator: as a vibrant, charismatic force with unlimited potential, a person capable of inspiring citizens of all backgrounds with his personality and talent. Lewis accomplished so much during his time; were it not for his broken heart, he would have been able to aid, entertain and motivate so many more.

Lewis’ passing was a coming-of-age moment for many Bostonians, a time when the fundamental unfairness of life was revealed in a raw, stinging form. His death will never pass from our memories. His beautiful life should also have a permanent position in our thoughts.

An interesting New York Times piece on Steven Spielberg and the changing economics of Hollywood.

Jeff Jacoby on Obama’s Berlin speech.

UPDATE: More from the Washington Post.

John Fund on quota politics.

UPDATE: John McCain comes out against quotas.

The Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama’s overrated speech.

UPDATE: More from David Brooks and Oliver North.

The Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama’s overrated speech.

UPDATE: More from David Brooks and Oliver North.

A quarter-century ago, Reagan charmed young voters and won 59 percent of their vote in 1984. In 1992, on the heels of the Reagan Revolution, voters under 30 split their allegiance about evenly between the two major parties. But every presidential cycle since then, Democrats have gained ground. This year, according to the Post-ABC poll, 44 percent of those under 30 call themselves Democrats, and only 18 percent identify as Republicans.

–“Young Republicans, Blue About the Prospects Ahead”, Washington Post, July 22, 2008

Why do folks under the age of 30 hate the Republican Party?

There’s a temptation to give an easy answer—“They’ve been propagandized by the liberal colleges and universities!”—but such an answer cannot possibly explain in toto the intense loathing young Americans seem to have for the GOP. Anti-Republican sentiment among under-30 voters is the product of two connected factors:

Bush. Unlike Reagan, Bush never seemed to have any real appeal to the under-30 crowd. Although Reagan was pushing 70 when he won the White House in 1980, he had a personality and spirit that appealed to Americans of all ages. Bush’s personality had little appeal to young Americans; during the 2000 campaign, it often seemed as though Bush was gearing his message explicitly to married, heavily taxed parents between the ages of 35 and 55, conceding the rest of the electorate to Al Gore (perhaps this explains, at least in part, why the election was so close).

Bush’s image was also damaged in the eyes of young voters by the negative characterization of his party in the popular culture during the late-1990s. Despite his claims of being a “compassionate conservative”, Bush was seen by under-30 voters as being a clone of the much-derided Newt Gingrich and Ken Starr. Young Americans who regarded Gingrich and Starr as right-wing nutcases viewed Bush as their handmaiden, and thus refused to cut Dubya any slack.

Bush’s actions as President haven’t exactly endeared him, or his party, to young voters. Bush’s domestic agenda, such as it was, had little tangible appeal to under-30 Americans; his tax-reduction policies were more beneficial to the aforementioned overtaxed parents than they were to those who weren’t making enough to pay a large amount in taxes to begin with. While his decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power will be regarded as historically noble, those with friends who came back from the Iraq War missing hands or legs may not necessarily share that perspective.

The “Party of God” image. Bush’s public proclamations of his faith in Jesus Christ also alienated him, and his party, from young voters. Those under the age of 30 have been raised in a secularized era: unlike the young folks who supported Reagan two decades ago—many of whom were raised by devoutly religious parents—“Millennials” and “Gen-Nexters” have little, if any, connection to organized religion. Those who are skeptical about the existence of God won’t be interested in supporting a political party so strongly defined by its religiosity.

Yes, Barack Obama can talk about God and faith, but everyone knows it’s a political hustle, since he belongs to a fundamentally secular party. However, the GOP is as fundamentally religious as the Democrats are fundamentally secular—and that religiosity is a turn-off to under-30 voters. When these voters hear religious-right figures take conservative positions, they’re instantly inclined to support the other side. Under-30 voters strongly believe that religion and politics should not mix (except superficially, as in Obama’s case); they cannot fathom voting for a party filled with those who firmly believe in the reality of a Creator.

In order to attract larger numbers of young voters, the GOP would have to return to the “Rockefeller Republicanism” of the 1960s and 1970s—a rather unlikely prospect at this juncture. Of course, it can be argued that these young voters will find themselves compelled to reconsider their liberalism in a few years’ time, as the financial pressures of raising a family will awaken them to the need for reduced taxation and the difficulties of finding good schools for their children will force them to support pro-educational-reform Republican candidates instead of teacher-union-owned Democrats. This seems to be the GOP’s current electoral strategy: wait until young voters get a little older, and then the Democrats will be as repugnant in their eyes as the Republicans are now.

For the time being, the GOP will remain the party of the middle-aged and middle-class. In a way, it makes sense. The Republican Party is supposed to be the more mature party. How can the GOP maintain that image if it’s filled with voters who’ve never heard of the song “American Pie”, but who can tell you all about the movie with the same name?

We always knew Bob Novak had drive…

Karl Rove on Barack Obama and John McCain.

UPDATE: Clarence Page on media bias.

Actress Estelle Getty passes away at 84.

A (typically biased) Washington Post article on the young right. (How do you write an article about young conservatives without talking to arguably the best young conservative writer out there today, Ross Douthat?) It’s nuts.

Shelby Steele on Jesse Jackson’s loathing of Barack Obama.

Shelby Steele on Jesse Jackson’s loathing of Barack Obama.

John McCain on Iraq.

The media’s endorsement of Barack Obama is actually a good thing.

Conservatives should actually be happy that the Fourth Estate openly cheerleads for the Illinois Senator. By shamelessly promoting the Obama campaign, the press has removed virtually all doubts about its bias in favor of political progressivism. No one can deny anymore that ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC are in the tank for the Democrats.

Mainstream-media figures should openly declare their political biases. They are human beings, and they clearly have opinions on the way America should be run and the party that should be in charge. So why not be honest about it? Charles Gibson, Katie Couric and Brian Williams should have Obama pins on their clothing when reading the nightly news. The Times and Post should include the phrase, “a progressive newspaper,” next to their titles.

No one believes for a moment that the mainstream press is or ever was objective. Walter Cronkite and Daniel Schorr did little to hide their contempt for Richard Nixon. Sam Donaldson and Ted Koppel made their loathing of Ronald Reagan obvious. Helen Thomas and David Gregory probably own twenty copies each of Fahrenheit 9/11.

Democracy would be improved if the Fourth Estate came clean, officially, about its biases. The de facto confessions of subjectivity are fine, but we would all be better off if major news organizations formally declared their perspectives.

No one would hold it against CBS if Katie Couric began her broadcast one night by saying: “Before we begin, an editorial note. CBS News has decided that the ideal of honesty must take precedence over the ideal of objectivity. Our reporters entered this profession to ‘comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable’; this idea has always motivated us, and motivates us still. Our reporting will not cover ‘all sides’ of an issue, since we believe there are certain sides that are morally right, and certain sides that are morally wrong. Our reporting will reflect our vision. We will take the side of the poor over the rich, the oppressed over the privileged, the progressive over the conservative, the innovative over the traditional. If you object to our vision, we won’t hold it against you if you choose alternative news sources. If you share our vision, come with us on our journey through America.”

If CBS and other mainstream-media outlets made a formal declaration of their biases, it would be an act of courage. Edward R. Murrow would be proud. Why hide behind the false image of fairness?

I want to hear Couric, Williams and Gibson support liberalism just as boldly as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham support conservatism. If it formally segregates media consumers into conservative and liberal camps, so what? We’re an ideologically segregated society anyway.

The Times and Post should declare on their front pages that they are firmly and proudly committed to the principles of the Democrat Party—and the New York Post and Wall Street Journal should declare on their front pages that they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the GOP. CNN and MSNBC should issue press releases declaring for the record that they share the vision and values of the Democrats. Fox News should also formalize its relationship with the Republican Party (and possibly trade Alan Colmes to MSNBC for Joe Scarborough).

If the Fourth Estate officially declared its partisanship, the benefits—financial and psychological—would be tremendous. Limbaugh made millions by declaring his partisanship and gearing his show towards those who shared his views; the major networks and newspapers could experience similar success by following his lead. (If Michael Moore could do it, why couldn’t the MSM pull if off?)

We’re not a unified country—the level of contempt that exists between the red and blue states is higher than the price of gas. So why not exploit such contempt for ratings and sales? So often we hear that the MSM is dying out, but it’s dying in part because it’s promoting a myth of objectivity. What harm could there be in officially choosing sides?

The Republicans and the mainstream press are in trouble because both entities have tried to sell America on falsehoods—in the GOP’s case, the lie that it believes in limited government, and in the MSM’s case, the lie that it does not favor certain viewpoints. The Republicans won’t recover until they dispense with the balderdash. The MSM won’t recover until it does the same.