A newspaper serving President George W. Bush's hometown -- Crawford, Texas -- has gotten all iconoclasty again by endorsing Senator Barack Obama in their October 5th edition. The tiny weekly Lone Star Iconoclast made national and international headlines four years ago when the editors climbed out on a journalistic limb to endorse Democratic presidential candidate, Senator John Kerry -- in contrast to their original endorsement of G.W. in 2000.
In the 9/28/04 editorial, "Kerry Will Restore American Dignity," Iconoclast editors W. Leon Smith, Don M Fisher and Nathan Diebenow repeatedly said of Bush: "He let us down," citing a number of ill-conceived Bush policies that betrayed a "hidden agenda" miles apart from the original campaign platform of compassionate conservatism. The ill-conceived Iraq War earned the lion's share of criticism. "We were duped," the editorial admitted, referring to the newspaper's initial support of the Iraq Invasion. "Blind patriotism can be a dangerous thing." The editorial also expressed grave concerns that
. . . the Bush administration has destroyed the American economy. Compared to Bush on economic issues, Kerry would be an arch-conservative, providing for Americans first. He has what it takes to right our wronged economy. The re-election of George W. Bush would be a mandate to continue on our present course of chaos. We cannot afford to double the debt that we already have. We need to be moving in the opposite direction.
In "When Principles Stampede the Herd" (British Journalism Review), Iconoclast editor W. Leon Smith described the process of debating and writing the editorial with his two assistant editors:
Just before going to press, we considered one last time whether publishing such a rawedged editorial deep in the heart of Bush Country was the thing to do, but quickly decided that it must be published. To do otherwise would be dishonest. It became an act of principle.
The backlash was swift and harsh. Smith described how the newspaper's circulation of 920 dropped dramatically as irate subscribers canceled their subscriptions. Most of their local advertisers pulled their ads. However, as the news traveled around the world, subscriptions gradually grew to about 2,600 from readers who wanted to demonstrate their support. Still, said Smith
. . . the newspaper has suffered a continuous, vehement local backlash, with boycotts of the newspaper and of any business or organisation that supports the newspaper. There have been personal threats against members of our staff, while some individuals have mounted a concerted effort to put the newspaper out of business . . .
. . . the ratio of positive to negative reactions, with the former outstripping the latter almost ten to one, was gratifying. But an element of hate, overt and vicious, seethed from the bowels of the Bush cult.
During the past four years, there has been a shift in the United States away from a decent respect for the opinions of those with whom one disagrees. Several avid Bush supporters have told us that the days when newspapers publish editorials without personal repercussions are over. The American neo-conservative movement, more reminiscent of mid-20th century European fascism than honest conservatism, has no place for those who do not blindly adhere to their dictates. To think otherwise is tantamount to treason.
The ugly, threatening hate-filled rhetoric that pervades the McCain-Palin campaign rallies suggests nothing has changed in that regard. Too many Americans check their history lessons at the door, entirely eager to embrace a re-packaged brand of McCarthy-ism. (Perhaps I give these Americans too much credit by assuming they ever studied that era of history in the first place.)
But like the Dixie Chicks in the wake of their "politically incorrect" comments, the newspaper forged on -- newly resolved to take a stand for The First Amendment -- and they revamped their paper to appeal to the wider audience they were now attracting.
In the October 5, 2008 edition, the same Iconoclast trio published a presidential endorsement entitled "We Trust Obama."
They admit to having some policy differences with Obama, which sometimes prompts a colorful turn of phrase: "We will support 'clean coal' only when Al Gore uses his teeth to pick up the clean end of a dog turd." Still, they are impressed with Obama's unprecedented inspiration of "citizens young and old and across religious and ethnic lines" during the primary process. They agree with Obama's philosophies that "those who receive the greatest material benefit from America should bear the greatest burden of maintaining her," that "America is at her best when she helps her neighbors get ahead," and that conflicts can best be resolved by listening to opponents in an effort to build upon common ground. With respect to the economy,
The junior senator from Illinois has shown us that it is not the world that must change. America must change. For decades, we have listened to money lenders like Alan Greenspan as if we wanted to return to those Paleolithic days before Joseph’s "Seven Years of Plenty and Famine." The next president must do more than let Jesus take the wheel; he must be willing to throw the free market money changers out of the temple.
Republican candidates John McCain and Sarah Palin, on the other hand, exemplify "anger, cynicism, desperation, and disrespect."
A reader may reasonably find this endorsement to be fairly pedestrian, stylistically, but Wait! There's more! Like a cool bonus feature on a DVD, Nathan Diebenow, treats us to his "first draft" version, a satirical McCain/Palin pseudo-endorsement with such zany outtakes as:
-- "Consider Sen. John McCain for President of the United States if for no other reason than to hasten the complete annihilation of the American Empire."
-- "To be fair, McCain is not the fifth horseman of the Apocalypse; he just shines their hooves."
-- "The Lone Star Iconoclast thereby endorses the McCain/Palin campaign to bring about the utter demise of America through the executive branch."
A tip of my hat to the Lone Star Iconoclast and its Iconoclanistas. May you continue to fight the good fight, and thank you for your courage to publish dissenting opinions in the face of intolerance.