What Comes Next?

After an election cycle dominated by strong personalities and charismatic individuals, it is time to recognize the complexities of politics and the unsung heroes of government. No one person, however skilled at inspiring people he or she may be, can tend to all of the aspects of government sufficiently. The people Obama chooses to surround himself with will have as great an impact on the future of the country as the president himself. The recent appointment of Valerie Jarrett as White House Senior Advisor and Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liasion, as reported by the New York Times (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/obama-taps-jarrett-for-senior-role/) exemplifies the skilled judgment we hope to see Obama display throughout his presidency. Jarrett's expertise in housing, transportation, health care, conflict resolution and diplomacy make her more than qualified for the position. Furthermore, the fact that she is an African American woman shows the many ways in which Obama will be defying the traditionally white male power structure. Her appointment is certainly a step in the right direction for the Obama administration, and it is an inspiration for black people and women around the country.

As Obama continues to make key appointments, the media should pay close attention to ensure that the selected people are qualified and reflect the promises Obama set forth in his campaign. The cabinet members and senior advisors will play a prominent role in the direction of the new government, especially considering Obama's relative lack of experience in such a high-profile role. He should try to appoint people who are also committed to changing the government, past policies, and the negative reputation of the U.S. in the international community. The long and arduous campaign trail has ended, but the journey has just begun for Obama. The decisions he makes in the upcoming months and the beginning of his presidency will set the tone for the next four years. His successes and failures are even more important than those of his predecessors, because his race itself makes him historically unique. The eyes of the country and the world are on Obama. This election has resulted in the making of history; time will tell whether Obama can live up to the incredible expectations of all who support him.

Knowledge is Power... Right?

Journalists are supposed to disseminate information, but they can hardly accomplish this fundamental responsibility if they lack an understanding of the topic they are covering. Ari Melber, the Net movement correspondent for The Nation who traveled with the Obama campaign for The Washington Independent, visited class and discussed some of the problems with current campaign coverage in terms of sensationalism. For example, he recounted an instance when most of the other reporters who were traveling with Obama latched onto the lipstick on a pig fiasco even though they knew firsthand that the accusations of sexism related to this comment were hollow. He speculated that their deplorable exaggeration of the story resulted from boredom, since they had been following the Obama campaign for months and were quick to jump at any break from the ordinary. According to admissions from other reporters as well as his own observations, Melber realized that many of the reporters did not have a comprehensive understanding of politics. The public suffered for the reporters' lack of knowledge, because this contributed to the media's obsession with minutiae and superficial rumors instead of substantial policy analysis.

This disturbing observation should cause us to re-examine the current state of journalism. Many members of the general public treat the media with disdain, and professional journalists and journalism majors are constantly trying to defend themselves against the scornful judgments of others. However, instead of simply claiming that not all journalists are tabloid-esque cut-throats vying for the next juicy bit of gossip so that they can blow it out of proportion in an effort to sell papers, we should turn to the mirror and finally recognize the ills plaguing the industry. Part of the solution is to encourage greater specialization so that journalism majors know more about a specific subject area instead of simply knowing how to write. This would facilitate greater depth in reporting instead of surface-level coverage of paltry stories. Journalists are professionals, and as such they should hold themselves to certain educational and ethical standards. If they are to inform the public, they first must have a firm grasp on information. Whether in political journalism or another field, journalists must make a group effort to achieve the highest possible level of expertise and help the general population develop a greater understanding of important issues.

Stay Out of My Lobby

For those who were concerned that the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff signified that Obama would quickly forget his campaign promises, the recently instituted ethics restrictions on lobbyists should show them that not all of Obama's speeches were empty rhetoric. The campaign was unquestionably influenced by corporate sponsors and interest groups, because Obama relied to a large extent on these groups to help him achieve his record-breaking fundraising. The Democrats might not have been successful in their campaign had interest groups not provided as much financial support and publicity for Obama. However, now that the election is over, Obama's transition team has sent a clear message that the new administration will not allow lobbyists to influence key governmental decisions. As described in a New York Times article by Helene Cooper and Jeff Zeleny, the Obama team has barred lobbyists from helping to pay for the cost of his transition to power or working for the president-elect (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/us/politics/12obama.html?ref=politics). Citizens from all political parties should celebrate this decision as a step away from the corrupting influence corporate lobbying and a step toward receptiveness to the broader constituency.

People should realize that, despite most promises made during political campaigns, most U.S. politicians are not looking out for the best interests of American citizens. Rather, their top priority is to be re-elected, which necessitates a large pool of financial supporters. Candidates depend on the support of interest groups and lobbyists in their efforts to reach political offices. The dysfunctional electoral system in the U.S. essentially guarantees that the candidate with the most money will achieve the highest office. This is not to discredit Obama; true, he did receive donations from many interest groups, but the general population still supported him. However, the extent to which lobbyists played a role in the campaign should give us pause. We should try to ensure that the next president does not place their interests ahead of our own as he plans for the next election cycle. The restrictions placed on the roles of lobbyists in the transition to power have in essence hinted that Obama will not adopt a modern spoils system but will rather make appointments based on the good of the people. While we should always be skeptical of politicians, this move could signal a transition away from the influence of lobbyists in government.

To Celebrate or to Berate?

One week ago, history was made: the people of the United States elected a black man as president. Regardless of party affiliation, none can deny the significance of the event and the implications for the current state of race relations in the country. Obama's election by no means signifies an end to racism, but it is nonetheless a monumental event and a step in the right direction. However, the Media Research Center seems to believe that pointing out the significance of this election reveals that the media are biased. A recent CyberAlert criticized George Stephanopoulos for remarking on the Oprah show that is was "impossible" to not be excited about Obama's victory (http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20081111.asp#3). The article also criticized the journalist for asserting early in the campaign cycle that Obama would win the election.

Stephanopoulos predicted that Obama would claim victory based on his experiences in politics and opinion polls throughout the campaign. He also emphasized the role of the economy in influencing voters to select a Democrat who would play a larger role in regulating businesses. In this sense, Stephanopoulos was not basing his ideas on paltry preferences related to Obama's personality or merely the fact that he is a Democrat. Rather, he drew upon facts to form what turned out to be an accurate prediction. He should not be criticized for analyzing the current political situation and making an educated, correct assertion that Obama would win. Furthermore, his recognition of the significance of the election should not be grounds for calling him biased: the election was historic in that a black man was elected. Journalists should strive for objectivity, but they are still human and as such will be affected by significant changes in their nation's history. Additionally, the MRC was criticizing figures who hardly claim to be objective: Stephanopoulos was a former Democratic aide, and Oprah officially and publicly endorsed Obama. Educated audiences realized these potential conflicts of interest and considered them in their election coverage. Still, the transcripts of the Oprah broadcast that allegedly revealed Stephanopoulos' bias can hardly be taken as evidence that he is unfit to report news fairly. While Stephanopolous' statements indicate that he favored Obama early in the campaign and was thrilled about his victory, the MRC is not completely justified in lambasting a journalist for basing predictions on statistics and celebrating a historic election. Americans, whether journalists or average citizens, should be allowed to celebrate the monumental historical moment without criticism.

Proposition: More Comprehensive Media Coverage of Issues

The election is over, but the reprecussions will continue throughout the upcoming years. The campaign coverage largely focused on the personalities of individual politicians instead of dealing with more complex platform issues. The coverage revealed a lack of substance, as audiences learned more about how much money Palin spent on clothes and how Obama and his wife engaged in fist bumps than they did about specific foreign diplomacy stances. Although it is now too late for the media to turn back time and provide more comprehensive news coverage, it is never too late to reflect and learn from mistakes. One of the most disturbing results of the election was the banning of gay marriage in three states (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06marriage.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=gay%20marriage&st=cse&oref=slogin). Since people were wrapped up in the "American Idol"-esque popularity contest of political figures, they squandered their opportunity to express themselves through direct democracy.

Although it is very possible that the majority opinion prevailed and that most citizens in these states opposed gay marriage, the lack of publicity and debate surrounding the ballot propositions leads me to question whether people fully considered the results of their vote before casting their ballot. Many saw the election solely as a contest between McCain and Obama, meanwhile ignoring the significance of local races and propositions. Numerous people only voted for president and left the remainder of the ballot blank, because they did not take the time to search for information on the propositions and local candidates. Herein lies the problem: citizens should not have to search for comprehensive information on these ballot measures, because the media have a responsibility to make such knowledge readily available. It is fine that the New York Times is covering the gay marriage ban after the fact, but the lack of such coverage before the election, when it could have actually made a difference, is startling. Pages of newspapers were covered with glamorous photographs of McCain and Obama, while the actual issues were ignored or hidden in the back pages. This is particularly disturbing when considering the importance of direct democracy opportunities such as propositions on ballots. Arguably, such measures should receive more coverage than candidates because they directly influence policy instead without the filter of a politician. Likewise, local politicians often have a more direct impact on constituents, yet these races received minimal coverage. The silencing of real issues in the campaign coverage leading up to the election prevented many people from fully understanding the proposition initiatives and the potential impact of their vote. Now, the country has to live with those consequences.

A Black Man in the White House

Yesterday, people all around the world watched a black man win a historic election to become the next president of the United States. This event had seemed little more than a whisper of a dream to those who remember the oppression faced by black people throughout American history and the struggles of the Civil Rights Movement only a few decades ago. Now, the New York Times declared, "Obama: Racial Barrier Falls in Heavy Turnout," and Kevin Sack wrote an inspiring article about how far the movement for equality has come since the 1960s (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/us/politics/05civil.html?scp=1&sq=kevin%20sack%20%22after%20decades,%20a%20time%20to%20reap%22&st=cse). Of course, Obama's election is historic. However, the NYTImes and the nation as a whole must not fall into the trap of thinking that racism is a thing of history.

Obama might be the first black president, but some would argue that he did not run as a black candidate. He made a concerted effort to run a post-racial campaign and only addressed race when he was practically forced to because of the media's incessant discussion of Rev. Wright and other race-related issues. Had Obama dealt with the very real but insidious issue of race throughout his campaign, he might not have been as successful. He refrained from addressing issues that are inextricably linked to the marginalization of black people and other minorities, such as the astonishing number of incarcerated Americans. Race was a factor in the campaign, but both sides tried to deny the facts. For example, the media were reluctant to discuss the racist motivations for people who avoided voting for Obama, despite the frequency of racial epithets being yelled at McCain rallies. The media brushed the issue of race under the rug and pretended that racism no longer existed in the United States--after all, how could a racist nation nominate a black man for president?

Obama's election certainly shows that the U.S. has made tremendous strides in race relations, since only a short while ago many black people were prevented from voting through discrimination and literacy tests. However, we must simultaneously look back at how far we have come and look forward at how far we have to go. There is still segregation, discrimination and violence against minority groups, and we cannot allow Obama's victory to let us slip into complacency. Racism is still alive in the U.S., but we cannot end this horrific legacy until we admit its existence. Obama is a testament that some black people can achieve the American Dream. Our next task, as a country, is to make that dream a reality for all of the population.

The Long and Winding Road

The day has finally arrived: after nearly two years of watching campaign signs pop up on neighbors' lawns, being bombarded with advertisements, watching clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and pondering the definition of the word "maverick," the epic saga that is the 2008 presidential election is expected to reach its conclusion in approximately 13 hours. By this time tomorrow, the nation will either have its first female vice president or its first black president; regardless of the outcome, this is certainly a historic election. A New York Times video retrospective of the campaign effectively conveys the length and evolution of this election cycle (http://video.nytimes.com/), from the large pool of prospective candidates to the fierce battle between Clinton and Obama to the last leg of the campaign.

Considering the source, which has officially endorsed Obama, the video was less biased than one might expect. It provided quotes from both Obama and McCain supporters and avoided interviewing radicals who would cast either side in a poor light. The voters seemed well-informed and presented coherent arguments for their chosen candidate. This suggests that, beneath the mudslinging and superficial accusations that have plagued the campaign, some Americans are actually aware of the issues and have formed educated decisions. There might be exceptions, but it is erroneous and demeaning to claim that all Obama supporters are only choosing him because of his surface appeal and charisma, and it is also wrong to claim that McCain supporters are racist warhawks and religious zealots. Although people on Liberal college campuses might scoff at any person who presents Conservative ideas, it must be noted that a considerable portion of the population is aware of the Republican stance on issues and truly believes that their platform is the best way to run a country. This does not mean that they are ignorant or selfish; rather, it just means that they are different. The same should be said of any Democrat who has formed a personal political opinion based on facts.

Of course, as I watch the election results come in tonight, I will hope that a certain candidate wins the presidency. I will also be hoping that certain candidates win in state and local elections, and those candidates do not necessarily belong to the same party as my choice for president. However, regardless of whether or not my selected candidates claim victory, I hope that the elected leaders will make wise decisions. Their decisions might not reflect my opinions, but if they reflect the opinions of the majority of the population, I will be content. I simply want the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and a high voter turnout of informed citizens will presumably guarantee that the majority opinion prevails. Therefore, come what may this evening, I sincerely hope that we can wipe off the mud that has been slung around for the past two years and come together as truly united states.