INTRODUCTION: Part Two

As I begin this adventure into publishing my thoughts on various political and social topics, I want to start off with a bit of disclosure about where I'm coming from. I grew up in a typically normal extended family. My parents divorced when I was four. I lived with my father, though I spent a lot of time with my grandparents on his side. I have scattered memories of my early childhood, but for the most part every one of them is good. Nothing worthy of therapy.

My father was a staunch conservative Republican. (Though not at all stereotypically conservative, as shall be revealed as this blog progresses.) He is largely responsible for shaping my political views, and especially on how I view the media's perception of politics. My father was an avid follower of politics and watched the news religiously. He'd watch the news in the morning before work, and the evening 6 o'clock news when he got home. Some of my earliest memories of watching television were of the nightly news. NBC Nightly News was his choice, with John Chancellor anchoring during this time. Much like the way Vin Scully represents the voice for many peoples' childhoods, (mine included to an extent), John Chancellor represents the voice of my youth as far as news is concerned.

Thanks to my father, I was blessed with an understanding of complex events. The more news I watched, the more inquisitive I became. The first major issue I can remember following was the Iranian Hostage Crisis in November 1979, where 52 Americans were taken hostage in the U.S. Embassy in Tehran for 444 days. I was eight years old. I remember the gas shortages, and specifically having the concept of even-odd gas days explained to me by my father. This was where you could only get gas on days designated by the last numeral on your license plate. The plate on my father's truck ended with an odd numeral, so we could only get gas on odd-numbered days. With energy issues, inflation and various other issues, these were trying times for much of the population. As my eyes were just opening to the world-at-large for the first time, these were not particularly shocking concepts to me. This was just my normal. I started to ask questions and have basic political concepts explained to me around this time. The first one I specifically recall was on a night where my father and I were waiting for our order in a fast food seafood restaurant in Barstow called Captain Hook's. There was a magazine rack, and on it was an issue of Time Magazine dated March 24, 1980.

 

I picked it up and asked my father what it meant, and he responded simply by saying, "it means inflation is winning." Granted, I had no idea what inflation or recession meant. I had no concept of these things. I could only extrapolate that if Jimmy Carter was President, and he was in conflict with inflation and it was winning, then inflation must be bad. And further, if inflation was indeed beating President Carter, then he must not be a very good President. Yes, this was filtered through the biased conservative opinion of my father, but give me credit for making these connections at such a young age. As each evening's news broadcasts counted up the number of days the Iranian hostages had been held, it didn't take much thought to figure that this also was bad. It was 1980. Even to an eight year old, things looked bad.

1980 was also an election year. This election ended up coming down to a decision between re-electing Jimmy Carter or electing Ronald Reagan. My father was clearly a Reagan man, therefore I also threw my support behind him as well. We all know how that turned out. Ronald Reagan would become my political icon. On January 20, 1981 Ronald Reagan was sworn in as the 40th President, and the 52 hostages were released. There was renewed optimism. And though 1981 and the prospect of turning ten brought on other interests, (music in particular) I maintained a keen eye on the political scene. Looking back, some revisionist types look upon the Reagan years as a bad time. I've had people ask me why I admire Reagan so much. The answer is fairly simple: He made people feel good about being American. And what's so wrong with that?

I love to hear people bash Ronald Reagan. When he passed away in 2004, there was an outpouring of grief so tremendous, it still makes me tear up just thinking about it. Unfortunately, by that point I had become so cynical about the media's bias against Republicans and conservatives, I wondered if any of it was sincere. Most pundits were pretty fair in assessing the Reagan legacy. I mean, the man died. Others, not so much. Some focused on some of the more controversial aspects of his life and presidency. His policies, Iran-Contra, even his personal life. Contrast that with the recent passing of Senator Ted Kennedy, a Democrat, where Chappaquiddick was rarely mentioned. I prefer to remember what I loved about Reagan. His charm, his warmth, and especially his wit. The way he handled the Soviets and the Cold War, Libya's "line of death," and especially his remarks following the tragic explosion of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 1986. In my mind, he was the last president who seemed, well, presidential.

I don't know where my disdain for media bias began, but it had to start in the mid-1980s.

My first taste of it is sort of my own personal conspiracy theory. One which has been debunked time and time again, but I cannot seem to let it go. As a teenager, I would read the newspaper and notice that when photos of various political figures would appear, the ones of conservatives seemed to be less flattering poses than those of their liberal counterparts. An ex-girlfriend who was in the newspaper industry just laughed when I suggested this, and even told her co-workers about my theory, which incited more laughter. It was explained to me how the process worked and how they really had no say in what photos were selected, and how it would take hours upon hours each day if such a conspiracy was to be acted out. I'm still not convinced, but so it goes.

Even though stock newspaper photos may not be the damning evidence I've thought it was, I've still spent the last several years really becoming irked with the liberal bias in the media. After watching the near-universal ass kissing of Barack Obama that began during his campaign in 2008, how the press fawned over every little thing he did, while all but ignoring any hint of controversy, I got the biggest kick out of reading an essay tucked inside of a comic book anthology I recently acquired,  Bloom County: The Complete Library Volume One: 1980-1982 by Berkeley Breathed. In it, Dean Mullaney and Bruce Canwell wrote the following:

"In his 1988 book, On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency, author Mark Hertsgaard argued - successfully, we might add - that during Ronald Reagan's two terms as President of the United States, the White House Press Corps 'functioned less as an independent than as a palace court press,' essentially giving the California Republican a ride free from objective scrutiny.

It can also be argued - again, successfully - that the media was more eager to maintain its access to the corridors of power than to investigate the policies emanating from those corridors. By doing so, in turn, they failed the country."

Isn't that weird? Because if you replace references to Reagan with references to President Obama, an argument can be made - successfully, I might add - that it's indeed an accurate statement. I actually laughed out loud when I read this. I thought, how does anyone have the audacity to make such a statement, when the exact same thing is going on during the current administration? The thing is, after looking up some of Mr. Hertsgaard's other works, he appears to be quite the progressive liberal. Aside from the Reagan book, he's also written two books about the environment, including one releasing in 2011. He makes regular contributions to such progressive institutions as the Huffington Post, The Nation (Chris Hayes, yuck!) and Mother Jones, all the while proclaiming to be an "independent author and journalist." What's really crazy is that I just now, five minutes ago, realized that I own one of his books. Haha! It's on the Beatles, and is actually a good read. See? I'm not biased at all!

What's interesting about this is how I believe I'm able to view both sides of an issue, which is something I find most media pundits are completely incapable of doing. Even though I have conservative leanings influenced largely by my father, it was a high school history teacher who taught me balance. I would be speaking about Mr. James Duarte from Barstow High School.

From the first minute I was in his class it was clear that I would be singled out. As a scared freshman, I fell for his annual trick of introducing himself as a different instructor, and I attempted to dart out of his classroom as the rest of the class just laughed. A wonderful first impression. But he was an effective teacher. It wasn't until years later that I realized that there was a certain liberal slant to what he was teaching us. I learned about a number of unconventional issues during the two classes I had with him. For instance, we were taught about the differences between capitalism, socialism and communism in great detail. We were encouraged to read books about various contemporary issues, but in hindsight there was an agenda to it. The two books I recall reading, the two highest scoring books on his list, were "THE FALLACY OF STAR WARS: Based on studies conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists" and a book about the Vietnam War, the name of which escapes me at this moment. My father, a Vietnam veteran, was not at all pleased that I was reading this book. I assured him that it was just for an extra credit assignment. He was concerned I was being brainwashed. This was the beginning of my understanding that there were two sides to every issue. What I learned from Mr. Duarte, perhaps inadvertently, was that in order to develop an educated opinion on any issue, you had to listen to and understand both sides of any single issue before attempting to discuss it. Otherwise you just look like an idiot. Or Keith Olbermann.

So going forward I will be doing just this. Discussing things that are on my mind. And I will attempt to discuss them as I have learned, with both sides of the issue in mind. As I approach 40, I owe much to these two men: My father and my high school history teacher. They have left an indelible mark on me that I'd like to think gives me a unique perspective on the world. Even though it does have a conservative slant. Deal with it.