The following is a selection of letters on the WSWS coverage of the post-election crisis in the US.
A rather unknown book was written about four years ago entitled “Winner Take All.” It was written by two ethics professors. I never read the book, but I saw an interview with the authors as they discussed their central beliefs as outlined in the book. I have brought the concept up to as many people I know who work in the professional fields for $25,000 a year. I also mention it to people who make much less. Your published article on the media and how much money many of the national news media leaders make was superb work by the author. It has been an issue that has stuck in my mind for some time. I have often thought about the large salaries of most of these national news broadcasters, and how much they benefit from the status quo, and how much objectivity they have lost as they have become one of the “Winner Take All” leaders in the media.
The “Winner Take All” concept includes people like Michael Jordan. I've lived long enough to have seen days when such a division of incomes would have been unheard of, and not acceptable to the American people. It is most unfortunate to so many people who have normal salaries, or those underpaid, when they try to find housing, only to find out the few have driven up the cost of living so high they can't find affordable apartments or housing within major cities, and often must live in outlying areas.
Without these unrecognized individuals many people could not succeed as they do. It is unfortunate that harm is done to them (and myself). It is also obvious, as the writer mentions, that these high-paid media officials are not going to go against the status quo. They are not going to usurp their own interests for the establishment. When Norman Mailer mentioned on the “Today Show” that President Clinton was merely a Rockefeller Republican, the weekend anchor (whose name escapes me at this point) commented dryly that “I don't see him as such. But it's obvious everyone has their own opinion.” It was obvious that the older Mailer recalled other times when some American presidents at least embraced a social-democratic platform. And a 27-year-old anchor that grew up when Reagan was president hardly recalls more egalitarian times.
Thanks again. I enjoy looking to your publication for alternative views I can't usually find in a media that in all 50 states never deviates from the other media outlets.
16 December 2000
Dear WSWS editors:
I would like to thank you for making available an alternative to the media here in the United States. All I have seen during this time of the dark days of our disenfranchisement is the most amazing capitulation by our politicians and the selling of America by the media. I did not in all the weeks of this debate see the American media seek to analyze or solve the election dilemma in a neutral way. There was no reporting, only debates in which the Republicans had not only the last word, but also the legitimate word. Indeed, Americans have been living in these last few weeks in that land “through the looking glass” where everything is its opposite ... and sadly they are asleep.
As a citizen of this country I do not know whether I am more concerned that the Republicans would attempt and succeed or that the people of this country had such a short attention span and lacked critical thinking skills to the extent that they were apathetic in the process.
The language and sentiment that I am hearing in the media and seeing on various chat links on the Internet are so horrendous that a thinking person can hardly abide reading what is expressed ... let alone engage any people displaying such ignorant parroting in a dialog. The language is full of denigration and stoppers. The dialog ignores facts. The proponents deny reality, e.g., the action of the Republicans in the Miami-Dade count shutdown. These actions I saw with my own eyes on C-Span and on other clips. Truly if Jesse Jackson had engaged in even half those actions, he would be speaking to us from prison today. What we have here is a language of oppression. The same used by battering husbands to keep their wives under control. The same used by authority to intimidate. It is the language of bullies on the playground. How this has become a hallmark of American communication is mysterious to me ... and heartbreaking. Does one need to look too far to understand the undercurrent of violence here?
I personally cannot accept George Bush as the legitimate president of the United States. However, more importantly I must find myself busy in the work in the coming years of doing my part to educate and become part of a growing resistance to this horrible, horrible precedent that has just been set. Most Americans have just shot themselves in the foot, they just haven't felt the pain. I know very few people who are in the class that will be benefited by the election of George W. What I do see are hundreds and thousands of people who voted on the two issues of abortion and gun control. So many people led astray by the religious right. I guess we must fight for and defend our freedoms now. We have been too leisurely accepting the status quo as just that.
It is my fervent wish and desire that we can accomplish the reestablishment and the security of a Democratic America. It is an ideal that is within our grasp. I do not mean that we have yet attained it ... but we can.
I thank you for your honesty and your skills in reporting.
15 December 2000
I read an article on your site almost every day. It surprises me that it is the only site I've found which recognizes the gravity of what's happened in the last month: bold, transparently anti-democratic moves from the highest official authorities in the United States. Keep up the good work.
Dover, New Hampshire
15 December 2000
George Bush is not the president of the American people. He was chosen almost single-handedly, by the US Supreme Court, led by the chief justice seeker, Antonin Scalia. We will not “get behind ‘our president' and work for the good of the country.” He is not our president. I fear for America. The far right will have in place all the power they need to end democracy in the United States. If indeed Bush appoints three justices to the Supreme Court, they will be of the ilk of Scalia and Thomas. And that amounts to a Nazi or fascist America. Our only hope will lie in the will of the masses to rise up to oust that form of government. But alas! The people are too blind and too brainwashed to see what is happening. Bush did not win the popular vote, nor did he win the electoral college. He was hand picked by the Supreme Court and handed the state of Florida so that he can be a front man for the right-wing agenda.
Almost 4,000 people on death row will almost certainly die at the hands of this chief executioner from Texas. None of them will have the Court to look to for any hope. More crimes will made capital and more people will be sentenced to die in the purging process to establish the agenda. The people do not matter to them. Their only quest is power, not to govern, but to dictate.
15 December 2000
I am so disappointed to see the lack of concern the Democrat representatives have towards their loyal supporters like myself. I do not see any fire in the Democrats. They are wimpy, and I am losing respect for my party. I look at corrupt CNN, and MSNBC all the time and almost every Democrat that appears on a TV talk show will not say anything negative about this fraudulent election, or the highly corrupt right-wing Supreme Court. If George W. lost the election there would be a smear campaign a mile long with Trent Lott and David Duke leading the way. There is no voice of concern from the Democrats. Thank God Jesse Jackson has the guts to fight back, for he appears to be the only Democrat that is not intimidated by the Republicans. Next time I may vote for the Green Party.
Soccer mom K
15 December 2000
P.S. Why don't the Democrats have some national talk show radio programs to discredit Bush like Rush Limbaugh has done to Clinton for the last eight years?