What a Wonderful World

I wonder sometimes what would change in America if the news reported good things, if politicians told the truth and actually worked for the betterment of the nation and its people, and if the public at large heard a consistent, positive message about the country.

The closest analogy I can draw would be to Reagan's first term in office. The late '70s were a time of upheaval and grim news. America was down on America, and the world seemed poised to rip it to shreds globally. The economy was in a tailspin, gas prices and housing prices were through the roof, and America was struggling with its global image, especially in the face of a lot of press concerning the Middle East (including hijackings, military skirmishes, and threats from leaders toward the West). Then along came Reagan, with a hard but humorous stance that America was the best place in the world, we should believe in ourselves, we should buy American, and everything will be all right.

And, you know what? It worked. By making people think of themselves as great, and making convincing them to buy locally (even if the American product was a bit more expensive), America halted the economic slide and made itself great again. The economy rebounded, the GDP went through the roof, and America became a leader globally again as it was seen to have heralded the fall of communism and stilled the voices of the Middle Eastern dictators, for awhile.

I see a lot of the same issues today. When Obama ran for President on the "Change you can believe in" mantra, I thought he might try to do something Reagan-esque by making Americans believe in America again and turn things around. And he did try. But the world in which Obama was elected is a much different place than the era of Reagan; the twenty-four news cycle, the divisive politics didn't allow him to present the same message of hope and encouragement that Reagan expressed. Whenever he said, "Let's work together," the opposition said, "Okay," but proceeded to then turn on him and tear him apart and lie about him. The news media took a surprisingly hard stance (compared to past Presidents, Democrat or Republican) on each and every attempt Obama made to right the economy. With the media and the opposition not doing or proposing any solutions of their own, but hammering the perceived failures of the existing administration, it is no wonder that polls showed a quick decline to Obama's once very favorable numbers.

The funny thing is, the American public do not seem interested in finding the facts. They are told that Obama has been ineffective, yet the economy has stabilized. They are told Obama is doing little, yet he has passed more bills so far than any other President. They are told that Obama doesn't want to work with the opposition, so the opposition will not work with him. Yet if you go back to every speech he has given so far and you will see at least a few lines if not whole paragraphs devoted to asking for both sides to work together, saying he has an "open door" to the opposition, and asking for bipartisanship. They are told the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not going as well as it could be, and that Obama's plan to bring home troops will make it worse. And yet the number say fewer are dying, more enemy combatants are being captured or killed, the UN forces of America's allies are doing more, and that the people of each nation are moving steadily toward self-protection.

I have come to the conclusion that the American people no longer want to think for themselves, and that is the true problem facing the country today. The news media has become a money-making enterprise, which hurts the truth. It is all about ratings, grabbing viewers, and getting ad revenue. So you have to hook people any way you can. The way some outlets have chosen is by having pundits (note that very few are called "news anchors" anymore) with a message and an agenda. They want you to be afraid, to listen to them, and to revere them. When called on it, they simply shout louder, knowing the American public will listen to the loudest.

I believe that we are only really hearing from the far right and the far left on most issues. Think about it, there are 535 representatives in the House of Representatives (435) and Senate (100). From how many of them do you normally hear? It is usually the same 15 or 20 from either side of the debate that makes the media rounds whenever something comes up, isn't it?

I truly believe that the vast, silent majority of people are somewhere in the middle on most issues, are fairly moderate in their opinions, and just want all the sound and fury to go away. I believe that this majority understands that things are not as the far sides are constantly insisting it is. The problem is, though, that this silent majority does not want to speak out, make waves, or become political. They are silent for a reason; they have their noses to the grindstone, are trying to make ends meet, and be good people to their families and friends. They don't necessarily care about Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Japan, global warming, or the global or national economy, per se. What they care about is their job, their car, the local prices they have to pay, if their child is in harm's way.

And I think that is where the solution is. Let's start taking a local approach to fixing the economy. Let's take a page from Reagan's "trickle down economics" package, but work it in reverse. Let's start buying locally, from small businesses and local farmers whenever possible, even if the cost is a little more. These people will then need more workers, will buy more products, and will invest more in the local economy. This makes the local economy, wherever it is, more attractive to others. People move (housing purchases, promoting growth), people open new businesses, people have more to spend on discretionary items, like movies, electronics, home projects, and similar. More products and people are needed from nearby locations to feed this growing economy, which benefits the next town, city, state. It trickles up to the rich and powerful, making for a strong GDP, a strengthened dollar globally, and a sense of pride and ownership in America and its products.

You may think me naive, but there are many organizations that prove this works in third- and second-world countries by providing what are called "micro-loans" or "micro-financing." The concept is the same; you loan someone in, say, Africa $100 US. They use that to open a, say, clothing store in their local village. That $100 goes to purchasing products, paying wages, and renting/buying a location. The people then have some place to buy clothes, which establishes the business. They soon need more product and more workers, so the money pays wages and buys product. Which then gives those people more money to buy other things (food, livestock, tools, vehicles), and the cycle feeds on itself and the entire area prospers from one $100 loan.

While America is not a third- or second-world nation, the economics work the exactly the same. If you have more money to spend, typically you do. Which provides the places where you spend it with more money to pay wages, to buy more goods, and to invest in the local economy. This in turn provides more money to those businesses that the first business works with so they can continue the trend. And the end result is that your local economy is strong, which ensures you have a job, can buy goods and services, and can keep buying from local businesses. Which makes the state's economy stronger, and the nation's, and finally the global economy

In the end, I think the media and the politicians need to start looking for simple, moderate, workable solutions like these, and reporting them. Make policy that helps it happen. Imagine how you would feel if the next time you turned on the news or read a report, it lead with "Economy stabilizing, trends are positive," "Global view on America bullish," and "Fewer lives lost, battles going well." Imagine if the next time a political person was in the news it was saying, "Bipartisan committee proposes economics plan all are confident in," or "Both sides working together toward stronger and better health care plans for all," or "Both sides agree on infrastructure changes." What if the press reported things as they are rather than using shock tactics and red journalism? What if we had even a one week moratorium on anything relating to pop stars, "celebutantes," and the latest drug overdose?

What a wonderful world it would be! One in which Americans would feel more proud, would feel more hopeful, and would work toward a better future. Call me naive if you want to. I can take it.