Letters to the Editor
-
The importance of criticism (a thanks to Joan for reminding me)
I wasn't expecting to be thanking you in this letter. I have begun to support Obama, and have begun (of late) to see Salon as a kind of arm of the Clinton campaign. To some degree, I have assessed headlines as being somewhat lopsidedly "pro-Clinton." However, as many letter writers have noted (and I believe them, even though I don't watch television), much of "pundit class" seems to be pulling the other way quite flagrantly. I know that the Senator has been the victim of horrible misogyny, among other things.
I love Olbermann too, and I am distressed to learn that his newscast may be biased.
How could this not hurt Obama? Particularly as such lop-sided coverage fuels the fallacy that those who vote for Obama are "cultish" -- an ad hominem I find increasingly counterproductive.
My thought here is that we are missing the point. Reading the letter's section recently has felt a little jarring; many of us (me included) seem to want to defend our candidate and take offense against the other.
However, what's sometimes missing is substance. Glenn Greenwald noted recently that we need to be able to criticize our leaders. Bush is easy for us to critique, but we will be damaged if we do not critique even our Democrats, as they run for office and once they are in.
It is an empowered citizenry that makes change happen. Look, for example, at how a simple Blog initiative and the courage of Senator Dodd stalled (and hopefully blocked) a disastrous FISA extension.
This campaign is not American Idol, though many in our pundit class seem to create it as such. We read far more about who is up and who is down than we read about the substance of policy.
I would love to see Salon hold the bar higher. I would love to see more policy articles, and less articles about "spin."
What is going on with FISA? What happened to Padilla? What exactly is Mukasey doing? (Obviously, there are other issues, and obviously Salon does a wonderful job in investigating them; I only suggest more.)
Of course, we need to cover the candidates, but this means clearly assessing the difference between an issue and a spin. I thought the Broadsheet, for example, did a great job elucidating the question of Obama's abortion stance. In the blog's colloquial style, the author managed to convey what seemed to me to be a balanced view, and the letters seemed to reflect that balance.
I want to see clear analysis of both candidates.
I would like to see articles that assess Obama's stances clearly. His health care initiative certainly deserves questioning. I would also like to know what his exact economic plans are. Who are his advisors? (As an aside: as critics point out, he is a wonderful speaker, but ultimately tells us little about the details of "how" he will do "what" he will do. And how exactly does his "bipartisanship" work in practice?)
However, these articles must be written with high journalistic integrity. Krugman, in his recent columns, has done a wonderful job in doing this, even as he writes opinion pieces.
I would like to see articles that assess Clinton's stances. I have been concerned about that the administration she was involved in (and has prided herself for her involvement in – to some degree rightfully so) initiated welfare reform . Also, what exactly is her stance on Iraq and Iran? She voted for the war, for the Kyle-Lieberman initiative, and against an amendment that would have prohibited the use of cluster bombs.
We need to look clearly at who is giving money to both campaigns. Obviously, there are issues on both sides.
My plea, then, is that Salon be a stand for journalism that keys in on the issues. Let's not forget that, as Arendt tells us, a democracy is only successful if its citizenry is engaged. The fact is, no matter who is president -- Obama or Clinton -- it is up to us to make sure that our voices are heard.
The message should not be, "Yes, he can," or "Yes, she can," but "Yes, we can." That means more than Obama may suggest. "Yes we can challenge our president -- we have to -- if we are to have peace and economic justice."