As we rapidly approach the end of an utterly forgettable 2014 with our eyes firmly set on what (we hope) will be a much better 2015, there's plenty of yearning and heartbreak over the year that was. Unfortunately, it seems that those who write, either for a living (the media) or as a hobby (bloggers) can't help but force us to take a trip down memory lane, for better or worse, in a ham-fisted attempt to remind us what they think was important and how we're not placing enough weight on those items.
I'm referring, of course, to the increasingly prevalent 'Year in Review' features that every newspaper, TV Station, web-site and blogger feels the need to release. Usually, they're liberally sprinkled with content from their own organs which, in reality, means that these histograms are nothing more than some chest-beating masquerading a walk down memory lane. "Remember the time we wrote about...." and what-not.
Maybe it's nothing more than my proclivity to look-forward rather than backwards but I think we've reached the point where this tradition needs to come to an end.
Yes, it is important to understand history in it's context so that we can learn from our mistakes (and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it) but many of these year-in-review pieces discuss news items of such recent history that any context they may develop over time is stripped away in the immediacy of partisan wailing and gnashing of teeth.
While it's very easy, journalistically, to take a look back to one of Obama's many rounds of golf in 2014 it's very difficult to place any true perspective on it. It's also silly to say that the ACA is sure to be Obama's legacy when we're not even sure if it's going to survive the decade.
The same holds true for The Texas Tribunes (apparently) comprehensive and (supposedly) authoritative tome on the Perry "Legacy". In reality, this is a silly exercise in journalistic ego-building trying to set a road-map for historians who will probably ignore the thing anyway. The fact is, it's impossible to define what is (and is not) a politician's legacy while he (or she) is still occupying the office.
Part of the problem, I think, is the inability of society to take the long view. Currently, we live in an instant gratification world spawned by the Internet and (still relatively) easy credit. It's partly the fault of the general public that we require of our media (and newsish sites) to provide us historical context now.
The truth is that whatever legacy is ultimately affixed to Perry in the historical canon will evolve and emerge over the period of many years as the full effects of his policies and leadership will be realized.
So let's call for an end to the 'year that was' stories and start focusing instead on the year that might be. We can have no effect on the events that already happened but we can influence those that will. I think the latter is a much more productive use of our time than is the former.
