Fundamental change
By Robert T. Smith
web posted November 18, 2024
There have been several dividing lines that have led us to our current sociopolitical situation. The retrospective before and after pictures can seem clear in hindsight. A common theme in these dividing lines can be found in this quote attributed to Noam Chomsky: "[H]e who controls the media controls the minds of the public."
As a generality, prior to the 1990s the media consisted of a monochromatic offering of thought. To those self-anointed figures in control of the mainstream media, this was the general agreement of the social discourse that could be relied on to have an orderly society. The Walter Cronkites, Dan Rathers, and David Brinkleys of the world whose words were the gospel formation of society's conversations.
As examples, arguably at the very moment in time we had won the Vietnam War by then having eliminated over 80,000 Viet Cong communist leaders through the Phoenix Project and then by destroying the Tet offensive, "Uncle" Walter Cronkite came on the television and said the war was lost, and so it was. The economy of Jimmy Carter's 1970s was not due to his political decisions, it was the citizens' malaise. Ronald Reagan was simply an uninformed B-list actor who would get us into a nuclear war and not the intellectual President who brought down the former Soviet Union and drove the economy to a huge expansion of wealth for all.
A clear dividing line would appear to have arrived with talk radio in the form initially of Rush Limbaugh. No longer did the mainstream media entirely control the narrative. Tens of thousands of listeners who had previously only thought differing thoughts from the mainstream media now had a voice. As any product that has a willing consumer, "conservative" talk radio flourished as a vexation to the establishment mainstream media and their preferred political party, the Democrats. The Democrats had controlled the house of representatives for 40-years prior to 1994, coincidentally and arguably because of the proliferation of the alternative of thought from the new media, the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in the form of Newt Gingrich.
As this dividing line dichotomy has ripened now for a couple of decades, to many it seems our country's current sociopolitical discourse is tumultuous. We now can live in almost two different versions of reality, mostly divided by political affiliation and where we get our information or news. The old-established media versus the new media.
As a related example, a retrospective clear dividing line came in the form of a presidential candidate who clearly stated and meant to fundamentally change our country. The desire to fundamentally change is not to love or even like something, in this case the USA. With the mainstream media propagating his election, he and his ilk set out to do just that, fundamentally change the country. In opposition was the new "conservative" media who did like/love their country and did not desire the fundamental change offering. This divide continues to exist to this day.
In broad generalities, one side believes our country was founded on evil in the form of racism, sexism, xenophobia, conquest of native American's, ad infimum, and remains evil to this day and therefore must be fundamentally changed. In broad generalities on the opposing side are those who believe in our country's exceptionalism, not perfect but a force for good.
The problem the mainstream media and their benefactor political party now have is that many no longer believe them. We have just witnessed this dividing line of social discourse in the form of the re-election of Mr. Trump. According to the mainstream media and those who obtain their information from the mainstream media, Mr. Trump is a criminal, Nazi, a racist, xenophobic, ad infinitum. According to those who obtain their information from the alternative media, Trump is a patriot and fighting for their country's virtues. To either side of this equation there is no middle ground to meet, halfway to what they believe is a bad idea is still a bad idea. Fundamental change or exceptionalism hangs in the balance. 
Robert T. Smith is an environmental scientist who spends his days enjoying life and the pursuit of happiness with his family. He confesses to cling to his liberty, guns and religion, with antipathy toward the arrogant ruling elites throughout the country.
