It’s fun to troll through the New York Times archives. For some reason I’ve always remembered a particular end-of-year editorial that summed up the year 1997. I remember reading it and wondering how it would read years later. Now I know.

Here it is, dated January 1, 1998. How times have changed – but in some ways, not.

The Year of Living Smugly

Perhaps the most striking thing about 1997 was its power to divert. The robust economy, the continued decline in crime and the blessed respite from terrorist violence on home soil gave the nation an opportunity to focus on intensely personal news events with little overarching import — the death of Princess Diana, the ”nanny” trial and the birth of American septuplets.

It seemed, in many senses, the best of times — even the prosperous, placid 1950’s had been overshadowed by the cold war. Now, the United States is the planet’s only remaining superpower. Its most ambitious hopes for furthering Middle Eastern peace or smoothing China’s emergence as an economic and political power may not have been realized, but 1997 was still a year marked by uneasy peace in places where the mere absence of armed conflict must be counted as achievement. At home, the stock market rose more than 20 percent for the third straight year, and it was no surprise that Wall Street traders ended 1997 by releasing balloons in honor of the new horde of millionaires the market had created.

Continue reading →

It turns out that the celebrity real-estate agent found dead a few days ago in her posh East Side apartment was murdered by her fed-up personal assistant. “It was that Linda just kept yelling at her, over everything,” a law-enforcement official said.

Coming this Sunday or next: a feature article on the front page of the New York Times Style section about the frustrations of being a personal assistant in Manhattan. “No doubt personal assistants all over Manhattan secretly applauded when they learned the identity of Linda Stein’s killer,” the article will begin. “But what is the life of a personal assistant really like?” The article will include several quotes from harried twentysomething personal assistants and at least one reference to “The Devil Wears Prada.”

You can bet on it.

I’m no fan of Mike Huckabee’s policies, but a comment in this article about his rising prospects in Iowa encapsulates what bothers me about political campaigns today.

Mr. Laudner said prospects beyond Iowa remained Mr. Huckabee’s chief hurdle among politically savvy caucusgoers. “If there isn’t going to be enough money to compete beyond Iowa and New Hampshire,” he said, “that goes to the heart of the viability question. That’s his No. 1 limit here.”

In theory, it should cost zero dollars to compete, or at least zero dollars beyond whatever filing fees are required to get on the various ballots. After all, it doesn’t cost any money to vote. In an ideal world, all voters would be informed enough to examine the various candidates, all candidates would get equal news coverage, and there would be no polls subtly influencing our choices (“I like Candidate X a lot, but he’s only polling 3 percent so I should vote for Candidate Y instead”). In theory, a poor person should be able to get elected president, given wide enough appeal.

In the early years of our republic, candidates didn’t run for election; they “stood” for election. It was seen as undignified to campaign. Of course, in the early years, the general public had much less influence on presidential politics. In half the states, the public wasn’t even allowed to vote for presidential electors. And it’s only in the 20th century that the public began having a say in presidential primaries. The wider the voter base, the more energy a candidate has to expend appealing to it.

One could argue that the influence of money isn’t that distorting, because money reflects support. For instance, maybe if Huckabee were a stronger candidate, he’d be getting more donations. But if a candidate appeals to a wide swath a poor people and opposes the interests of the rich, the rich potential donors aren’t going to give that candidate money and he won’t get any traction.

Still, it seems odd to me that it’s a given that a candidate needs a ton of money to compete. Why will Huckabee need money to “compete” beyond Iowa and New Hampshire? If he does well enough in those states, he’ll get favorable media coverage, which will influence the public.

Of course, I’m probably wildly out of touch with “the people.” I choose my candidates by following the news, not by watching TV ads. The undecideds, those who make a difference in elections, probably watch the ads.

Still, it sucks that things are the way they are.