Changing Times

 

 

People who live in times of the collapse of an old order and the rise of a new, sometimes can see it clearly and sometimes they can’t.  I am convinced that we are on the cusp of a period of rapid change in our country, largely driven by the fiscal debacle.  If most of the media were not bitter partisans of the old order, I think more people would see it.  Ed Driscoll nails it in a conclusion to a brilliant column:

Between Detroit’s bankruptcy, the multiple bankruptcies in California, the acquisitions of Newsweek, the Boston Globe and most famously the Washington Post at fire sale prices, the media inventing racism-driven stories out of whole cloth, leftwing sexual predators and misogynists either running for office or already in office in major cities on both coasts, and a gaffe-prone president trying desperately to implement his agenda piecemeal through executive orders, we may very well be witnessing the wholesale collapse of the large portions of the century-old “Progressive” model. But because old media has so much invested in that model, they’re far too close to see anything approaching the big picture, and would be far too scared to admit what they’re seeing to their readers, even if they could. Too bad, as Matt Welch wrote last year at Reason, that history is written by the losers.

Go here to read the rest.  A game of “Let’s Pretend”, as charming as it is, never lasts forever for children.  The same is true for societies.

 

6 Responses to Changing Times

  • I know in this post you are relating change mostly to economics; whether you see economics the bottom line of culture or culture the base for economics I don’t know.

    The title of the post says, along with Bob Dylan, the times are changing:

    Come writers and critics
    Who prophesize with your pen. Keep your eyes wide
    The chance won’t come again

    Come senators, Congressmen
    Please heed the call Don’t block at the doorway
    Don’t block up the hall

    For he that gets hurt
    Will be he who has stalled. There’s a battle outside
    And it’s ragin’

  • Why are we taught by conservatives of the merit of private enterprise and that unlike government picking winners and losers, a business will do what is efficent and productive and what delivers a quality product for the consumer, but for some odd reason the private corporations that run “the media” are the sole exception to this economic truth?

  • Because you fundamentally misunderstand the conservative position Kurt. Conservatives do not deny that individual businesses frequently make bad decisions. That is why we have bankruptcies and going out of business sales. However, we also understand that government running businesses is almost always a disaster in addition to having the government wielding economic might for purely political ends which is always a threat to freedom. In regard to mainstream media, their lack of success in the current market is self-evident.

  • Don,

    But the mainstream media has been accused of liberal bias long before its recent troubles (which many business journals blame on the rise of the internet). Barry Goldwater talked about the liberal media in 1964. Why didn’t its financial woes start long ago if it was making decisions based on politics rather than good business practices?

  • Because they were the only game in town Kurt. When Uncle Walt, to the deep disgust of my union member father, said “That’s the way it is.” at the end of his broadcasts, our tv could get in a total of two stations. Technology has broken the monopoly that the mainstream media used to enjoy. The hilarious thing is they still act as if they enjoy that monopoly, which has hastened their march into the dustbin of history.

  • Kurt;
    Conservatives that I know do not think private enterprise can pick the winners and loser or that a business will always do what is efficient and productive. They think the individual business may or may not be productive and efficient and it is the Free Market that will determine the winners and losers. The Free Market will determine the most efficient and productive businesses. The Free Market is just us, individually, buying products that meet our needs at the least cost to us (individually) – this is the Theory of the Invisible Hand proposed by Adam Smith. In macro-economic terms the market will efficiently move capital, labor, and land into the most productive endeavors. But on the micro-economic level there will be inefficiency in the market – too many laborers within one sector of the market which will drive down wages in that sector whereas in another there is not enough laborers so wages will increase and it will cause laborers to move from one sector to the other in search of higher wages. I will limit myself to three issues with government directing who will be winners and losers. Government has not been proven better at picking winners and losers than the collective “us” acting individually in our best interests as demonstrated by history (socialism or communism). If government picks the winners and losers then we as individual lose choices and as such we lose freedom. Government tends to be inefficient and not as productive as individuals and businesses acting in there own interests because of special interest groups influence.

    Kurt, it appears that either you are mixing up terms and definitions or do not understand the terms. I hope the above helps. You need not agree with it, I am just explaining the theory (the best I can).

    God be with you!

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .