And, let’s be honest, as Robert McCartney reports for
The Washington Post, most of these attendees have chosen sides. After repeating Stewart’s talking points about the media’s focus on conflict over substance, McCartney quotes one rally-goer as saying, ‘“I don’t think the Democrats are really willing to stand up for their message. If you believe in something like health care, you should go out and explain why you’re doing it, and be loud.”’
For the left-leaning crowd, attending a fake rally on the eve of a real election with major issues are at stake does nothing to prevent the downward spiral of political discourse. To those who were carrying satirical signs suggesting neither side has a claim on truth—or the absurdist ones that mock the very premise of protesting for a cause—what is the alternative? And what can you do to show that candidates who use your strategy can win elections?
As The New York Times’s David Carr observed, “media bias and hyperbole seem like pretty small targets when unemployment is near 10 percent, vast amounts of unregulated cash are being spent in the election’s closing days, and no American governing institution — not the Senate, not the House of Representatives, not even the Supreme Court — seems to be above petty partisan bickering.” Is this the cause that brought some 200,000 people to the mall, or was it just a proxy for the frustration of the left who are weary of political battles who wanted to feel political without, you know, being political?
It’s unreasonable to ask Stewart to be the one to try to help his fans mature from this ambivalent frustration to constructive engagement, of course. He is valuable as a critic precisely because he’s a satirist. Maybe we should ask Barack Obama why he has failed to do it, because that certainly was what he seemed to promise to do when elected in 2008. But I think the real question is for those who feel Obama gave false hope for a different kind of politics. Were they surprised that, after Obama won, politics was still tough? Is the answer that when the going gets tough, the tough get ironic?
The Tea Partiers may propagate misinformation, but they organize and their candidates win. Messages matter in elections, and so does money. But more than anything, what matters is hard work—nothing changes minds more than volunteers talking to their neighbors on behalf of a candidate. And logging on to Facebook when you’re procrastinating at work to “like” a candidate or make a political comment is not the same as devoting time in the evenings when you could be home recovering from a hard day’s work or doing something infinitely more fun than phone banking—like watching comedians make fun of politicians.
Stewart, who regularly skewers media for emphasizing style over substance, needs to ask whether he’s falling into the same trap. And his fans, who may be fed up with “screaming on the left, yelling on the right,” need to be challenged to do more than “care.” No one’s going to do it differently if there’s not a better way to win.
I could not agree more. Jon's critique of Obama to his face sounded very much like, 'We've already decided our position on a vast number of issues and we have the votes so let's forego any discussion and vote within the first 100 days. Then Obama can party for the remainder of his term." That's not very democratic. Also, it assumed that all Democrats are extremely liberal and would put party politics above own judgment. This rally can be viewed as a challenge to Glenn Beck only if it has a point. I walked away scratching my head.
As a hard-working educated American, I am annoyed that we gave free health care to people that don't want to work but I am happy that we have eliminated the spending caps and prior existing condition clauses. I'd call that a win.
#1 Posted by Ice Cream Sundae, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 02:25 PM
There is a significant difference between Beck and Stewart.
One is informing while entertaining while the other is misinforming while scaring the hell out of rural whites and seniors.
Fact check Beck and see how sad it is to witness how willing he is to say something completely false to scare real people into buying his "the world is coming to and end" theories.
Beck is a shock DJ that found an easy audience on a network that is hell bent on promoting one side. He's in heaven and his next act is to become a Christian leader.
Now that he's figured out how to tap into frightened Christians, he's going to stay very very rich no matter what happens politically.
#2 Posted by Larry Buttress, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 02:36 PM
"By relentlessly parodying the divisive tone of political debate without offering an alternative model for politicking, the event’s net effect is to make walking away from the political process seem like a rational decision. Or, even worse, a principled one."
I might have missed something, but I thought the "alternative model" was to debate policy without demonizing the other side?
"Thank you, Kid Rock, for giving us an anthem to self-congratulatory disengagement."
1. When does he sing that you shouldn't try?
2. If it is possible to stop war and poverty, how come no one's done it yet?
"If you want things to be different, though, you have to get involved in the process and, yes, choose sides."
Did you miss the whole "I disagree with you but I know you're not Hitler" thing? The point of the rally wasn't that you shouldn't passionately argue your point of view; it was that pretending that the other side (left or right) is evil is a huge turn-off to a lot of people. If all those people start making this point known, then politicians and the media will start to change their tone. Because it'll be better for business.
#3 Posted by Steven, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 02:38 PM
The lyrics you quote remind me of another song I hate, from Ten Years After:
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
So yes, Steven, the sentiment could be worse.
#4 Posted by Aaron, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 02:45 PM
I couldn't agree with 'Steven' more. Jon Stewart clearly doesn't encourage anyone not to vote or care. Stewart encourages "thought". Hard core conservatives and hard core liberals both "believe" in their positions and do not want to think about them. (And both groups REALLY don't like people who want to "consider" things.)
Human psychology works this way. Studies prove it. When faced with factual discussion about their positions people instinctively just yell louder. Isn't it about time we acted like the most intelligent species on the planet instead of just following instinct?
Lemmings anyone?
#5 Posted by TEK, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 03:04 PM
Jon Stewart is not a journalist or a politician. This is something he remarks upon when calling the media in general out on their own BS. He's a comedian with a comedy show. He was asked by his fans to do this, and he obliged. Now the pundits are all crying sour grapes over it because they expect more substantive political commentary from an entertainer?
If the satire bites a little too close to the bone, you as a journalists and political commentators have no one to blame but yourselves. You allow these one-dimensional quacks like Glen Beck to steal the show so to speak, and yet summarily ignore and marginalize the one guy who speaks out against it.
Take some responsibility for the sad state of political discourse in this country, instead of pointing fingers. Vigilantly fact check, and do what it takes to take the likes of Glen Beck to task for his outright lies and deceit. That is YOUR job, not Jon Stewart's.
#6 Posted by James, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 03:40 PM
The NPR memo just said that the prohibition on attending political rallies which are covered by NPR applies to the Stewart/Colbert rally. Given that it was a rally by comedians and ostensibly non-partisan, I can see the need to have the reminder.
#7 Posted by Thalia, CJR on Mon 1 Nov 2010 at 06:33 PM
Lester, it sounds to me like you're upset with Stewart and Colbert for not running a rally the way you'd've liked them to do it. What exactly is keeping you from running your own rally the way you think is right?
#8 Posted by rone, CJR on Tue 2 Nov 2010 at 04:38 AM
The media missed the message. It's supposed to be about dialectic, but you serve diatribe, because “if it bleeds, it leads,” literally as well as figuratively.
Cable “news” is fast food for the brain, causing intellectual obesity and leading to an increased risk of heart(ache) attack. HIgh cal, low nutrition content designed to maximize profits while diminishing understanding or worse, stimulating the reptile brain, raising a rash of fear for reactionary pols to muster into brainless masses who will vote against their own self-interest.
Stewart’s message was “we don’t like the institutional hot lunch you serve. We want a salad bar and some fresh fruit to go with all the processed ‘food’ you are serving. Yes, we could bring our own lunch, but we’re busy and THAT’S NOT OUR JOB; IT’S YOURS! Please do it better. “
Here are my suggestions:
1. Know your subject. No "jump ball, you decide." Have an informed POV.
2. Ask follow up questions. Why has it taken forty years for reporters to finally ask a Republican "and how do you propose to do that, exactly? What specifically will you cut?"
3. Do not cover any politician who won’t be interviewed, except to explain, as often as possible, how insulting and dishonest it is for a person to run for public office and not allow the press access for purposes of independently verifying the candidate’s positions and attitudes.
Good luck. Our future depends upon your success.
#9 Posted by Scott, CJR on Tue 2 Nov 2010 at 08:20 AM
It's worth reminding people that the dictionary definition of 'bigot' is roughly 'someone obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions or prejudices'. The politically correct have hijacked the term to pretend that it only refers to attitudes about 'race' and gender, similar to their narrowing of the definition of hate for the same ideological ends.
By the above definition, all kinds of nice people are political 'bigots'. Maybe even you and me . . . and a lot of people accusing their opponents of 'insanity' and 'extremism' at the Jon Stewart rally.
Good theme of irony and cool struggling with the involvement required by politics in the hip, post-modern urban mind. The next step might be that this set of mind is a correlative of the decline of specifically 'white' bourgeois liberalism as American politics moves toward ethnic bloc politics.
#10 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Tue 2 Nov 2010 at 12:37 PM
Stewart can be a frustrating nut to crack sometimes; and I say this after having watched his show nightly for about seven or eight years now.
I have always adored how Jon Stewart's selective cynicism often prefers to poke you in the eye or step on your toe in anticipation of a more lethal punch to the stomach farther down the line. However, his slow-to-build style of "are you sure you know what you're doing" comedy doesn't always scale adequately enough, and attempts to merge his grander ambitions of parody or message-sending are less likely to be of equal sting or impact.
Move too slow and the punchline feels dated; move too fast and the punchline has an air of being overly pedantic.
Stewart doesn't offer literal alternatives to his call to change the tone, change the style, or change the behavior of debate politics, because he doesn't often see it as his responsibility to do so. I would argue Jon Stewart sees his role localized to identifying hypocrisy in national media or politics, trusting that his cynical disposition alone isn't enough to change people's minds, but only enough to open the door and let in some more rational context. Curiosity is the thirst of the soul; and being cynical sometimes finds truth-telling a lost art among the over-sincere.
#11 Posted by Aaron B., CJR on Thu 4 Nov 2010 at 05:04 PM