"As we ring in 2011 with prayers for the world, our nation, our towns, our jobs and our families ... let us look back at a teeter–totter of a year, where high–riding America suddenly found herself hitting the ground of reality with a thud. War is not over; the economic recovery is slow–to–stagnant and those who are not yet struggling themselves know someone, or love someone, who is."
Elizabeth Scalia
Our Sunday Visitor
One of the time–honored end–of–a–given–year traditions of journalism is the year–in–review piece on whatever relevant topic the writer spends the rest of the year writing about — politics, sports, movies, etc.
These articles usually appear in the week between Christmas and New Year's Day. In all the years I worked for newspapers, that week habitually was the closest thing to a slow news week one was apt to find. Once in awhile, something would happen — but not often.
When I was growing up, such reviews typically came in the form of newspaper and magazine articles. In the digital age, you're just as likely to see a review like that in video form, either on television or the internet.
Nevertheless, I'm sure that you have seen or read something like that about 2010 in the last few days.
I can tell you, from having written my share of such articles, that there are several ways to approach writing them. I always preferred the chronological approach, personally. I kind of felt that it put things in context — X happened in January, whereas Y happened in May and Z happened in October.
Sometimes, my year–in–review articles came across like illustrations of the domino theory. But the truth is that certain events happen because (and only because) other events happened first.
Seen in that light, I think, the story of a period in time (like a year) can only be told effectively in chronological sequences.
Several years ago, for example, I remember watching a program on The History Channel about the month of April 1865, a truly pivotal month in the nation's history.
It was the month Robert E. Lee surrendered to Ulysses S. Grant. A few days later, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by a Southern sympathizer.
To people in the 21st century, it seems kind of neat and orderly — this happened, then that happened, then the nation began Reconstruction.
It is what happened. We know that. Our history books tell us so — but, as the program pointed out, there were many other events that took place that month and in the following month that had the power to change the direction of the flow of events — and, ultimately, alter the course of history.
It is because things happened as they did and in the sequence they did that the dominoes were positioned to, eventually, create the 21st century reality we have today.
Very often, events can be seen clearly only from the perspective that distance provides — and by acknowledging that sometimes things happen because other things happened earlier.
I've never believed it was quite as simple as the chaos theory, which suggests that a butterfly flapping its wings in the Andes can affect the weather on the other side of the globe. That suggests a tad more interdependence than I find comfortable.
But the chronological approach isn't the only way to tackle the assignment of reviewing a year. There is something to be said for other angles as well.
I'll grant you, the chronological approach doesn't really require much thought. When you have the benefit of a lot of hindsight, the way the producers for The History Channel have, you can do the kind of thoughtful analysis of the events of a given year because you know what happened in the years, decades, even centuries that followed.
But it's harder when you're writing about a year that has not yet ended. No one can yet say how the events of this year will influence the events of the future. All we can say with any real certainty is that they will influence the future.
That's why I give credit to Elizabeth Scalia of Our Sunday Visitor for at least trying to find more than a superficial examination of a year.
Our Sunday Visitor, in case you don't know, began operation as a Catholic newsweekly nearly 100 years ago.
I'm not Catholic so I haven't read the paper itself. I have only seen it online, but it appears the paper is still being published — and appears to be thriving. In fact, Our Sunday Visitor has a complete publishing wing that puts out books, periodicals and religious/educational materials.
Anyway, back to Scalia.
Her article focused on eight events that shaped this year. The task of peeking into the future is not an easy one, and I give her credit for trying even if she does so through a somewhat biased lens.
Our Sunday Visitor has always been politically and socially conservative, actively opposing communism, birth control, divorce and "indecency" in books and films. And Scalia's opinions seem to reflect that.
Some of the things of which she wrote were clearly religious in nature — so it wasn't really surprising to me that the pope's "fairly good run" this year and the church's role in relieving Haiti were at the top of her list.
In fact, the Roman Catholic church played a prominent role in many of the items on her list.
But I was intrigued by the final item — labeled Defeat of the Democrats.
Now, let me say this: Whether the opinions that are expressed or implied happen to be Scalia's or her employer's, they seem to be more conservative than my own. But that's really beside the point because many of her observations seem to be so obvious that neither philosophy nor theology come into play.
They are simply facts. And facts, as I wrote the other day — and John Adams said nearly 250 years ago — are stubborn things.
For example, Scalia writes, "Anyone paying attention ... when Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley for Massachusetts' 'Ted Kennedy' seat in the U.S. Senate knew that recession–weary voters were ready to throw aside sentiment, tradition and the status quo if it meant creating jobs and hitting the brakes on both government spending and a controversial health care bill that appeared unwieldy, costly, undefined and terrifyingly broad in scope."
Considering the results of last month's midterms, I find that hard to dispute.
I also find it hard to argue with her assertion that "[a]nyone paying attention when Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blithely remarked, 'we have to pass [the health care bill] to see what's in it,' knew that her disregard for the valid concerns of the citizenry came across as arrogant and oddly unserious."
Furthermore, she wrote, "[a]nyone paying attention would have predicted an electoral 'shellacking' come November."
Can't argue with that, either, or with her conclusion.
"It was as if the Democrats simply had not been paying attention," she wrote. "Whether the Republicans were remains to be seen; their very future may hinge on how well they comprehended the voter messages of 2010."
Aye, as Shakespeare wrote, there is, indeed, the rub. Were they paying attention?
Imperial hubris, I have frequently mused, was never confined to one side of the political spectrum. The Republicans were guilty of it and got their comeuppance in 2006 and 2008. Then the Democrats were guilty of it and got their comeuppance in 2010.
What will happen by 2012?
That depends on who is paying attention and who is not.
0 comments:
Post a Comment