Thank You, The New Yorker

When I received The New Yorker's politics issue in my boite à lettres a few days ago I turned directly to The Talk of the Town section,which is my usual commuter reading material. However, after getting a few sentences into the editors' 5 page article, The Choice I stopped in my tracks, on the verge of goosebumps and short of breath as I walked toward the metro station.
The editorial, which is written in frank and factual speech, avoids seeming sensational yet remains inspiring and incindiary. The editors acutely write about "Wall Street's long-running pyramid schemes" and our contry's national debt which has nearly doubled, "approaching ten trillion dollars", under the current government.
Also refreshing to see in such a wide-read publication are the accusations that "the Bush Administration manipulated, bullied, and lied the American public into this war and then mismanaged its prosecution in nearly every aspect." The article goes on to cite the cost of the war (more than six hundred billion dollars), the cost of lives (4,000 Americans dead, 30,000 wounded, tens of thousands Iraqi lives claimed) and the war's real result: "the displacement of four and a half million men, women, and children.
In my regular readings of The New Yorker throughout the campaign, I have witnessed their fairly unbiased and objective reporting on politics. However, The Choice and the editors that wrote it do not hesitate to state clearly their opinions on the gravity of the current political situation and it's major players. Of McCain they write that he has "moved remorselessly rightward in his quest for the Republican nomination" and that " a willingness to pander and even lie has come to define his Presidential campaign." As far as his reaction and plans for dealing with the financial crisis the article points out that "McCain , who has never evinced much interest in or knowledge of, economic questions, has little to say about the crisis" and goes on to call the candidate's proposed suspension of his campaign in response to the crisis "an empty diversionary tactic."
In contrast, the article praises Obama for providing "a convincing, rational, and fully developed vision" of what reform would look like under his leadership. Obama is also praised for his proposals regarding energy and global worming issues which the magazine contends "represent the most coherent and far-sighted strategy ever offered by a Presidential candidate for reducing the nation's reliance on fossil fuels." As opposed to McCain's belief in the benefits of offshore drilling, which analysis shows would have little or no effect on gasoline prices.
This election, and it's affect on our future, is beginning to live up to the hyperbolic analysis the media has given to it from the beginning. In The Choice the editors outline what is really at risk; Roe vs. Wade, affirmative action, barriers between church and state, the continued use of the death penalty, all of shich would be a threat under a conservative supreme court whose solidification would be within the Presidents power as three appointments will likely be made under the new administration. There is also the extreme irony of McCain's anti habeas-corpus stance, which Obama stands in direct oposition to, supporting rights of U.S. held prisoners. The New Yorker, referring to Obama, sums up "The judicial future would be safe in his care."
Throughout the article, distinctions (as well as their connotations) between the two candidates are made clear. McCain is a soldier, while Obama is a statesman, McCain's policies would do nothing to improve our image or popularity abroad whereas Obama, "a man of mixed ethnicity, at once comfortable in the world and utterly representative of twenty-first century America-would...reverse our country's image abroad and refresh its spirit at home." Whereas McCain is "impulsive, impatient, self-dramatizing, erratic, and a compulsive risk-taker" Obama maintains a "pragmatic calm" and has succeeded in returning "eloquence to its essential place in American politics." The article best sums up the differnce between the men in writing, "it is Obama's temperament-and not McCain's-that seems appropriate for the office both men seek."
This article was enough to get me back to blogging after a bit of a break. The power of this well-written and honest assesement at such a crucial time, and the effect of an obvious breach in objectivity, but a necessary one, is testament to the integrity in journalism and the respect that The New Yorker has for its audience and for Americans in general. I applaude the editor's for this article, which will certainly be a part of the history that is made with this election.