Well, here's my post that I promised in the last go-round reacting to the selection of Time Magazine's Person of the Year -- and my low regard for the choice of Russian President Vladimir Putin dovetails nicely with another media issue that I've noted this week.
Regarding the choice of Putin, Time claims that he is a major player on the world stage who is greatly shaping our future. Bunk. Well, partially bunk. Putin's nationalistic fervor held his once-fractious nation together and his KGB roots allowed him to ruthlessly consolidate power. With those accomplishments behind him, he's turned his attention to reasserting Russia's role in the post-Soviet, post-Communist world. All that's granted.
But there's this, also. Russia would be thriving now because of high oil prices even if it were ruled by Mickey Mouse. He's been unable to prevent the creep of NATO to his country's doorstep. His military remains a shambles -- flying some decades-old bombers near western territory earlier this year drew some raised eyebrows, but that was about it. Haven't heard of those bombers since. Maybe they're down for their 30-year overhaul.
Russian political influence has not prevented the election of conservative prime ministers in Germany, France and the Ukraine, and energy blackmail has failed to deter former Soviet republics.
Putin, overall, has had a major impact within Russia, but not outside the country.
Gen. David Petraeus, meanwhile, has changed the course of history. World history. The future of civilization.
What bothers me most about the Time selection of Putin is that by reading their top five, it's pretty clear they really would have rather selected former vice-president Al Gore. Instead, fearful of the reaction, they placed the environmental hero second. Meaning they're chicken.
It's a reasonable query as to why they would pick someone in Gore whose impact was felt more the previous year when his "An Inconvenient Truth" film on global warming was playing in theaters nationwide. But what really goes to the credibility of the entire magazine is they're not printing what they really think. Time Inc. is based on the highly insulated island of Manhattan, which is separated from the rest of the United States more than Guam is. Time editors and the people in the circles in which they walk probably go years without seeing a man or woman in a military uniform. Petraeus just was not on their radar. Gore is. So is Putin. JK Rowling and Hu Jintao, the other runners-up, are non-sensical (though Hu could very well be a legitimate contender next year). Just goes to show how out of touch the editors are. They're a joke.
My estimate is that while Putin is, and will continue to, offer us some short-term challenges, he is the last gasp of a dying empire. In 20 years from now, Russia will be a much different place than it is now, and Putin will be a footnote in history.
But if in 20 years freedom and liberty still flourish in Europe and the Americas, and democracy in any form takes a foothold in the Middle East, then David Petraeus will be greatly responsible -- as will be the men and women he leads.
---
More blasts for my colleagues in the media.
One of the trends I'm observing is writing or saying something as analysis in hopes that what they're saying will be so. This is a bit different from what we normally see, where a columnist, for example, writes something from their perspective that might be totally wrong factually and conceptually, but that's how they see things.
What we're getting now is designed to shape the future.
Cases in point:
-- The Wall Street Journal carried an editorial Tuesday entitled "McCain's Surge: Why he's making a primary comeback." Uh, what primary comeback? RealClearPolitics.com, which I strongly suggest visiting for polling data because they aggregate all the polls for a clear picture of what's taking place in primary states, has graphs of the polling of the various candidates. McCain, far from surging, continues to gain support in very low figures and his line is either flat or falling. There is nothing to suggest that McCain's candidacy is surging in any way.
-- Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, an unabashed evangelical conservative who has supported Mitt Romney from the get-go is fully aware that the rise of Mike Huckabee has damaged his boy's candidacy, and has led the GOP establishment's anti-Huck charge. I'm not much on Huckabee myself, but Hewitt's show has devolved into unlistenable three-hour diatribes against the former Arkansas governor. For well over a week now, he's been discussing the Huckabee downfall. While Huck's numbers have just started to drop in Iowa, and he never really has gained traction in New Hampshire, there is no sign of a collapse of support elsewhere.
-- I came across a column in, of all places, the Indianapolis Star (though it seems to have originated with the Washington Post Writer's Group) with a title that was appealing, "Public United, Politicians Divided." Those four words, in that order, express something I really believe in and give me cause to blog. Writer Marie Cocco starts well by saying there's nothing worse than a presidential primary campaign during the holidays. But her idea of where the public is united loses me pretty quickly. "They think the Iraq War was a mistake and that the United States should start getting out." That might have been our mood early this year, but not now. "They think the economy is lousy and that the country is on the wrong track." Probably true, but if you were to engage people on the topic, they'd probably concede that the economy is handling its current issues. Judging from her Iraq comments that she leans toward the Democrat side of the ledger, she doesn't seem to notice that her party's leaders are among those leading us down the wrong track. "They want the government to find a way to guarantee health insurance to everyone and they overwhelmingly believe the bipartisan effort to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is a good idea." In fact, what we agree on is the current health care system stinks, but we disagree on how to fix it, with most people falling AGAINST more government intervention. And that we are more than willing to pay for health insurance for indigent children, but not those who have means, which is what the expansion would have done.
You can't sit there and dream of something and make it so just because you say it is, or will be. There is no case to be made for a McCain comeback. Hewitt will probably be right in time, but whether Huckabee's drop will be fast enough to save Romney is questionable. Cocco is living in a bubble just like the editors of Time. Though she'd probably have enough guts to choose Al Gore as her Man of the Year.
