November 2, 2004

Tonight (Monday), I have to say, I am not looking forward to tomorrow (Tuesday)…

No matter what the result of the election, I feel a sense of loss going in. I have had the good fortune of remarkable freedom in my life and work. But in this year of the election, I have found my right to voice my opinion curtailed… far more so by those with whom I agree than with those whom I am at political loggerheads.

It is not unlike the speed with which journalism, including entertainment journalism, has accelerated to, leaving little time for real reflection. It's as though no idea is strong and clear enough to overcome the inevitable slings and arrows coming from whatever side disagrees.

The anger of the anti-Bush voters towards the Bush voters is being attributed by some to coastal establishment snobbery. But conversely, one cannot question the anger against Bush voters without being accused of being an anti-intellectual aggressor.

The anger of the Bush voters towards the anti-Bush contingent is loaded with claims that being against Bush is to be against morality, religion and America. But conversely, one cannot talk about morality at all without being attacked for being driven exclusively by a non-intellectual blind faith.

In the seventies, they called this Mutual Assured Destruction.

Tolerance of others is, in my opinion, the central value of any democracy, even if few have the courage to practice it without restraint. And the strength of a democracy is proven not when we accept the right of others to agree with us, but when we respect their right to disagree.

There has been no room for any level of dissent on either side lately. The stakes are too high and the margins too thin. Any inch given is the inch that might lose the election. Of course, any inch not give might be the inch that could have won the election… but people don't think like that.

The problem is, it is hard to recover from this social fascism. Scars are left. Finding the bravery to fall back from hard fought positions to more moderate ones is a great challenge. "See you next time" becomes the standard instead of "Let's see what happens and consider our disagreements in four years, when it matters."

The same is true in the film journalism universe. No one is going to hold a grudge against someone who attacked Surviving Christmas. But you don't want to be threatening reaction to someone's $100 million-plus movie… that is unforgivable, even if the basic principle is exactly the same… even if you are one in a large crowd.

I try, how I try, not to be too dogmatic. But it is hard. One of the key lightening rods for me in recent years has been the callous use of power within entertainment media. For a long while, this concern centered around Ain't It Cool News, a group of nice movie-loving guys who never took responsibility for the power that Hollywood perceived in their site, all the while taking every apparent advantage of the benefits of that perception. The site has matured somewhat as its leadership has aged and become more involved with the industry and the power perception has waned with that mellowing.

My attentions in this area have become quite pronounced in recent months regarding The New York Times, which seems to have lost its concern about getting entertainment news stories right in favor of getting them fast and controversial. Infinitely more dangerous than Ain't It Cool could ever be, the lessening of standards at the Times is, as always, a sign that lowered standards have become the norm. And the next group of wannabe rebels will have to lower the bar even further.

I would rather be the loyal leadership rather than the loyal opposition… but one can not always choose their path. Even if the fight is somewhat futile, the power of one voice to call attention to the failures of the machine is one of one of the charms of this country in which I believe. (And the seduction of being given too much power - becoming the machine - is one of the pitfalls I most fear.)

I fear for what will happen to this country tomorrow night. I do not fear the government's reaction. I fear the reaction of the two sides, the winners and losers. If Bush is re-elected, the raging anti-Bushers are likely to either shrink into depression, which is horribly sad, or act out in ways that are futile and damaging. And if Kerry is elected, given the strong focus on fighting against Bush and the limited number of positive ideas focused upon in any election this close, I fear for his effectiveness. I pray that he, if elected, can find another gear of strong political leadership that we have not seen in the process of this election cycle… not strength as it has been defined against Kerry, as the strength of a hawk, but strength to speak clearly and unapologetically in his true political voice. If Kerry is not strong, we will face another highly divisive election in four years… "see you next time." Payback is almost always tragic.

What I so desperately hope for is leadership that can, indeed, bring this country closer together… free to disagree… free to be angry… free to speak out… free to embrace the true democratic ideal of a government by, of, and for the people. No one can represent all points of view. But a great leader can invite everyone under the tent. I haven't seen that from either candidate in this election. And that scares me.

So do us all a favor, if you are reading this in America and have the legal right to vote… go out and do just that today. For all we can really do is to take responsibility for our own actions and bring as much to the discussion as individually possible. And so any building begins.

Good luck to us all. And may our future bring growth and challenge.

E-ME: Tale a stand.