Out of Many / Many More

Introducing Jon Stewart

November 16th, 2010 | Category: Conversationalist, Keepers, Media
Jon Stewart has something to say.  This matters because Jon Stewart is very extremely politically powerful and when he has something to say he invites America to the National Mall to hear it.  The last time he put his foot down, Tucker Carlson was out of a job and CNN was left with an open afternoon slot.  Crossfire was hurting America, Stewart argued and America listened.  They chose substance over spitfire with Stewart’s satire leading the way.  Three days before the November election, Jon Stewart assembled over 200,000 Americans to restore sanity in the American political process.  Days later, 45 million fewer Americans voted than in the previous election.
Holding a rally in support of political sanity is like arguing against a thunderstorm.  No amount of logic will prevent hail from falling or wind from blowing.  There is no sanity to restore because there has never been sanity in any political system.  This is an obvious point but one that Stewart misses.  Unfortunately it is not only Stewart who misunderstands things because he is broadcasting this misunderstanding to millions of devoted fans.  Taking it even further, the man held a rally for it!  This matters; it is the political equivalent to global warming deniers.  The difference is that global warning deniers vote.
If Jon Stewart sold this message in 2008, Vice President Palin would be deciding split votes in the Senate.  The 45 million voters who participated in 2008 and not in 2010 are mostly young and impressionable and they are the precise reason Barack Obama is our president.  In 2008, the choice between Democratic and Republican candidates was clear and obvious and propagated by pundits as well as The Daily Show.  Voting was a direct action that led to the kind of change everyone craved.  In 2010, the complications of making systemic change paralyzed voters.  This is clear because eligible voters a) attended the Rally to Restore Sanity and b) didn’t vote.
The millions of Americans who support Jon Stewart and defend his message argue that the current system is immune to structural change because it is insane.  Implicit in this message is a nagging suggestion that voting doesn’t matter.  Stewart’s rally subverted the election with his personal message: restore sanity first and then we can get to the actual issues.  Why else would he schedule it 3 days before the election?  It is as if his definition of sanity would inspire the same people who invented the Death Panels argument to be more honest.  Is that sane?  The difference between the parties that was so clear in 2008 remains unchanged.  One party sacrificed its authority to fix fundamental problems and inequalities endemic in America today.  The other party fought against those changes with lies.  The only way to defeat the insanity Stewart targets is to vote.  We can yell our sane voices hoarse; we can write sensible rally signs, or we can vote.  Simple as that.
Jon Stewart argues against the equivalencies that define partisan media.  These arguments (if one side is for it, the other against it) confuse the issue.  Facts are ugly and divisive and there is no way to sugar coat them.  George Bush’s memoir proudly declares that the phrase “Damn Right” officially authorized waterboarding as US Policy.  Waterboarding has been declared torture by US and international law for over 50 years.  Those are the facts.  Jon Stewart suggested in an interview with Rachel Maddow that the framing of those facts spoils the discussion.  ”I wouldn’t suggest [the argument against torture] was that this was bad for the country but that [President Bush] is a bad man.”  We are now off-course and discussing something else entirely; rather than question the ramifications of President Bush’s potential war crimes, we are now concerned by the bad names people might call the President.  Is this sane?  Rarely will the facts be so clear when discussing something so important.  The President’s memoir admits the crime.
Jon Stewart gets to argue that the system is insane without admitting his role in it.  That may not be insane, but it is dishonest.  He gets to have his cake and eat his cake.  In the Rally, Stewart created an equivalency between Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck.  Both men are unlikeable, popular, rich, and shout ugly and divisive things to an agreeable audience.  It is a false equivalency; however, as Keith Olbermann doesn’t hold rallies.  The real equivalence is between Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart.  They’re both rallying at windmills.

beck_stewart_rallies_labels_red

The two loudest cable TV commentators recently decided to fix America.  This fall, millions witnessed a pair of huge political rallies in support of two equally esoteric principles.  Each rally drew hundreds of thousands of confused supporters where God and Sanity (respectively) were declared vital components to the American political process.  Unfortunately, when all was said and done no one knew what either side was talking about.  This essay is dedicated to Jon Stewart, who should have known better.

Normally he is satirizing an old point, but when Jon Stewart has something original to say, big things happen.  The last time he put his foot down, Tucker Carlson was out of a job and CNN’s afternoon lineup was left wide open.  Crossfire was hurting America, Stewart argued, and America agreed.  Recently, Jon Stewart let his other shoe drop in front of two hundred thousand Americans (and millions more on TV).  It was a major undertaking; restore sanity to the broken American political process.  Three days later, America responded with confusion.  Somehow the Republican Party, boasting the lowest approval rating in recorded history, recaptured control of the House of Representatives.

Holding a rally in support of political sanity is like arguing against a thunderstorm.  No amount of logic will prevent hail from falling or wind from blowing.  There is no counter-argument to a lightning crash.  There is no sanity to restore because there has never been sanity in any political system.  This is an obvious point, but not to the millions of fans of the Daily Show.  What are they looking for and what is Stewart’s point?  Nobody knows.

Jon Stewart is rallying for something that does not exist.  There is no utopian Grecian Senate that deliberates over the issues of the day in cold and stoic colloquies.  He is making a very public and compelling mistake that is dragging millions of potential voters away from the polls.  The 45 million voters who saw a clear distinction between the Republican and Democratic candidates in 2008 decided to sit out the 2010 mid-term elections.  To put this in perspective: if those 45 million voters decided to sit out in 2008, Vice President Palin would be deciding split votes in the Senate today.

Why is the media forgiving Stewart’s confusion?  They remember Tucker Carlson.

Jon Stewart is funny and smart and he is also confused.  He satirizes partisan media for establishing a false equivalency between left and right.  If Obama is for this, the Republicans are for that.  If Glenn Beck is against this, Keith Olbermann is for that.  This equivalency is impossible because neither side is having the same conversation.  Keith Olbermann is arguing that America needs a public option and Glenn Beck is arguing that Obama is Hitler.  Obama is arguing that tax cuts for the richest Americans will explode the deficit while Republicans argue that Obama is Hitler.  This example is real and it reinforces the idea that our political conversations are indeed insane.   But what problem is Stewart trying to solve?

Facts are ugly and divisive and there is no way to sugar coat them.  Stewart recently sugar coated a really ugly fact.  George Bush’s memoir proudly declares that the phrase “Damn Right” officially authorized waterboarding as US Policy.  Waterboarding has been declared torture by US and international law for over 50 years.  Those are the facts.  Stewart suggested in an interview with Rachel Maddow that the framing of those facts spoils the discussion.  ”I wouldn’t suggest [the argument against torture] was that this was bad for the country but that [President Bush] is a bad man.”  We are now off-course and discussing something else entirely; rather than question the ramifications of President Bush’s potential war crimes, we are now concerned by the bad names people might call the President.  Is this sane?  Rarely will the facts be so clear when discussing something so important.  The President’s memoir admits the crime but Stewart refuses to pursue the issue because doing so would be partisan, leading to conflict and perpetuating the insanity.

Jon Stewart gets to argue that the system is insane without admitting his role in it.  That may not be insane, but it is dishonest.  He gets to have his cake and eat his cake.  In the Rally, Stewart created an equivalency between Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck.  Both men are unlikeable, popular, rich, and shout ugly and divisive things to an agreeable audience.  It is a false equivalency; however, as Keith Olbermann doesn’t hold rallies.  The real equivalence is between Glenn Beck and Jon Stewart.  They’re both rallying at windmills with an army of fans behind them.  Meanwhile, the powers-that-be go on about their business undisturbed.

Comments are closed.