Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Jon Stewart’s Civility Fetishism
Today Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert head to the National Mall in Washington, DC to host the "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear." If we are to believe Facebook, they'll be joined by more than 200,000 of their closest friends. More than 800 satellite rallies are planned in 65 countries around the world.
While I admire the comedic duo for their persistent and principled criticism of our dysfunctional political climate and believe this mass mobilization is a terrific idea, Stewart's "call to reasonableness" is hamstrung by a fundamental flaw. In concocting a "Million Moderate March" Stewart has clumsily conflated volume with content, style with substance. In doing so, the fake news enthusiast risks trading in his sharp scalpel of critique for a clunky cudgel of false equivalence.
Stewart and Colbert have used humor to engage a whole generation in politics. Their ratings on Comedy Central are on par with Fox's Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, and they're attracting younger audiences than any other news source. In a recent poll, 46% of respondents had heard about their rally, nearly as many as the 56% who had heard of the House Republicans' "Pledge for America."
Yet in the run-up to the Rally to Restore Sanity, Stewart's ever-growing audience has been dished up a hefty dose of civility fetishism. While many are tired of the obnoxious and the obstreperous dominating the political news cycle, the ‘truthiness' of the matter is that the villains of history have all too often cloaked their iniquity in civility, convincing us the inequality du jour is simply the new normal. In fact, it has taken quite a bit of civil-and uncivil-disobedience to undo the damage unleashed by the zealous civilizers of the past.
In his original call to action, Stewart lumped together the Tea Party Movement with 9-11 Truthers and anti-war groups like Code Pink. Later Stewart dubbed Belgian protesters demonstrating against state austerity measures "lunatics" on par with Tea Party activists who screech from the screen, "The only good communist is a dead communist." But by equating high-pitched tone with extremist politics, he plunks an unreasonable correlation at the center of his plea for reason. This logic touts the tone and tactics of the messenger in order to discount the message. Apparently, if you sport a suit and advocate unequivocally unreasonable practices like waterboarding, but do so in a friendly, down-home way using "your indoor voice," you may well escape Stewart's incisive wit. However, should you dip your hands in fake blood and attend a congressional hearing in order to make the completely reasonable argument that foreign wars are wasting precious lives and squandering scarce funds, you can expect to have the comedian slot you in the nutjob category.
Actually, there are quite reasonable reasons why protesters have become louder and more creative with their tactics. Over the last few decades, the slow, cold institutionalization of protest has dulled the knife-edge of dissent. Obtaining permits to exercise one's First Amendment rights have become par for the protest course. Mass mobilizations on the National Mall have fallen into the humdrum rut of gathering, rallying, marching, and scattering. Meanwhile, the wheels of democracy have been greased by an ever-increasing flow of special-interest cash, proliferating the perception that our elected leaders have become pawns to their donors. In order to get attention from these leaders-as well as from the mass media-activists have been forced to amp up their volume and their innovation. After all, if it isn't new it isn't news. All this has led to the high-decibel activism Stewart and his supporters have come to loathe.
Don't get me wrong. Today's rally is a welcome retort to the recent "Rally to Restore Honor" at the Lincoln Memorial. Stewart could use the event-which may well outdraw the Beck-Palin-Palooza-to offer a finer-grained analysis of which of "the loudest voices" are truly marring politics in the US. And the timing of the rally-a mere three days before the election-is impeccable. The key is what happens in the aftermath. Will the rally get the largely liberal audience pumped up to vote? Will the event coax self-proclaimed sanity restorers to rally for a day only to hop back onto the treadmill of everyday life? Or will it give people a taste of what it's like to take the streets for something they believe in, thereby opening a path for future political activity? If people walk away from the rally disappointed, seeing it as a rudderless stunt better suited for the television studio, will holding the event actually demobilize dissent?
One thing is for sure. Stewart and Colbert have the wits and the star-power to put together an entertaining escapade. This twenty-first century dynamic duo has a knack for slicing through the fog of dreary political predictability. If anyone can pull this off, they can.
78 Comments so far
Show AllBoykoff wonders if Stewart's rally will "get the largely liberal audience pumped up to vote". The question that Boykoff does not ask is: pumped up to vote for whom? To the best of my knowledge neither Stewart nor Boykoff have urged Americans to vote for independent leftist candidates who would replace the murderous policies of the Democrats and the Republicans.
It is also disingenuous for Stewart to declare that all political discussions must be held in a calm and reasonable manner. To advocate for such a plan totally ignores the reality that many Americans have a very good reason to be angry at the establishment as it has caused so many needless deaths in the Middle East while also making sure that universal health care was never going to be considered as an option in this country. Do Americans not have the right to be angry by demanding that Americans be paid a viable living wage in this country? Stewart plays right into the hands of the Obama administration as they certainly hope that Americans remain basically passive because the last thing they wish is for Americans to dare to exercise their First Amendment rights by protesting in the streets especially if that might mean, despite Stewart's discomfort, doing so in a vociferous manner.
As a bumper sticker has accurately noted, if you are not outraged, it means that you are not paying attention.
Erroll, your post is spot on... especially about how passivity plays right into the hands of the ruling class - in this case represented by the Obama Administration; weak-kneed simpleton liberals believing the color of the leader's skin somehow ensures great compassion, peace, and human rights.
John Pilger speaks to this idea of passivity as well with his classic argument about the corrupt swine who are capable of "making the unthinkable normal."
How many working class Americans know that it took decades of workers' civil disobedience to get working class Americans things like weekends and safe working conditions (things that were won by workers, not given out by politicians)?
Those activists would have never won you weekends off work and safe work places if they had limited their activities to civility.
Black people got their heads cracked, gassed, bitten by dogs, fire hosed and thrown in jail. The ones not so lucky got shot, blown up with dynamite or lynched. They were willing to pay the price to get their rights back in the sixties. Do you think people today are willing to pay the price?
flunkdaddy sez: "Do you think people today are willing to pay the price?"
Not a chance in hell. And our so-called "political leaders" of both parties know this. Which is why we have the situation that we have today in the US of A.
Glad you cleared that up for me.
Heck, Obama equated the outrageous and imbecilic protests of the right with the largely civic advocacy of the left in his state of th union address.
Hi Jules,
John Stewart's goofy humor is meant to be a safety valve for our anger. Always deflating and deflecting, Stewart's the limited hangout court jester of the system. Our criminal oligarchy loves this clown. Notice Stewart's silence about his criminal brother, the very "civil" Larry Leibowitz, head of the NYSE.
Good point!!
When Stewart degrades Code Pink and European workers' attempts to stop banksters' crimes he shows his true colors...part of the oligarchy.
he also degrades the 9/11 truth movement
Thank you.
He's quick to deliver jabs at the Wall Street players/flock because it satisfies the suckers' rally that constitutes his audience, but he'll never expound on how much he actually profits from it, and how is brother is a figurehead of the criminal enterprise. And you'll NEVER hear him address the issue of the overarching fraud that is our monetary scheme.
Yes, Linh. You have nailed it precisely.
"Court Jester of the System"
Brilliant! Spot on!!!
Excellent analysis!
I missed Stewart's interview with Obama last week, but I assume not one word was mentioned about Obama's failure to prosecute war crimes or his continuation of Unitary Executive powers.
I watched it, and thought it was about the best interview with Obama I have seen. No he did not mention anything about prosecuting war crimes or Obamas continuation of unitary executive powers, but he did press Obama on the timidity of some of the things he has done like healthcare.
I came away with a much better understanding of Obama. In his own words he basically describes himself has the ultimate insider. He works within the confines of the system, and makes no attempt at railing against it. He basically said we got the health care plan we did because that is what the system, the insiders, the lobbyists would allow.
So for the rest of this term, and if he gets a second term, apply that frame to anything he says he plans on doing. As far as I can see you are NOT going to see anything too radical out of this guy, FDR he is not.
Anybody who listened to the content of Obama's 2008 campaign speeches would have gotten this same understanding of Obama.
For eight years Dubya faithfully did "what the system, the insiders, the lobbyists would allow".
When Social Security gutting is put on the table after the election Obama will "do what the system, the insiders, the lobbyists will allow".
'In concocting a "Million Moderate March" Stewart has clumsily conflated volume with content, style with substance.'
This is indeed a fundamental flaw.
The clumsy conflation of volume with content, style with substance is US Democracy; US debate.
It simply stares us in the face now.
The USA as an entity needs to be looked at carefully. Fundamental changes are needed. Either they are made to happen or they will happen whatever is made. The second option is unthinkable in that it will cause amazing hardship.
The required changes are, and will remain, politically impossible. So far as I can see, the second option is unavoidable.
Requiring people to speak in soft tones ignores an important part of current reality:
The corporate media folks...even though they speak in reasonable tones...have their message hugely magnified by their presence in every home, on every radio station, in every neswpaper.
They are continually shouting their message...be passive...consume...how about that Lindsay Lohan, etc ad nauseum.
The reggae song says...we must shout down the walls of Babylon.
I almost stopped reading at
"While I admire the comedic duo for their persistent and principled criticism of our dysfunctional political climate and believe this mass mobilization is a terrific idea,"
These statements are sheer twaddle.
1. "persistent and principled criticism" The only persistent thing about Stewart and Colbert is their very clever manipulation of facts for their own gain and the illusion of being progressives - which they are not. The only "principle" which is constant is the use of ridicule.
Frequently, they are friendlier to the right-wing guests than to progressives.
2."mass mobilization" As the writer himself points out, this "mobilization" could easily, just as likely, be a corporate distraction to make people complacent and/or discouraged.
Two examples;
A few years ago, Jon Stewart had Jeremy Scahill on his show to talk about Blackwater. Stewart acted as if Scahill was wasting his time and told Scahill that his book was nothing new.
Colbert audaciously skewered Bush, but when Obama came into office and began enlarging Bush's agenda, Colbert went to Iraq and pretended to join the army in what is one of, if not THE worst illegal and illegitimate wars of aggression in this arrogant nation's history. He couldn't seem to bury his nose far enough into Obama's ass.
So, here we have another political science teacher who cannot or will not look beyond the superficial game playing which is marketed as a "significant" event.
Birdbrain Alley...
I agree with your comment.
As I commented at the Medea Benjamin article the other day: I've never had cable TV, so over the years I've only seen Jon Stewart and TDS in Internet videos. I've seen many bits of hilarious, witty observation and biting social and political satire.
Still, I don't see Stewart as a risk-taking, radical, iconoclastic, subversive comedian like Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Richard Pryor, Bill Hicks, etc.
Though I take your point about Colbert being more conciliatory with the current maladministration, I don't think Stewart would have dared to give that in-your-face performance for the Beltway correspondents and Elected Misrepresentatives the way Colbert did.
My crap detectors are humming with negative vibes for several reasons. It's one thing to do political satire that raises serious points and questions through comedy. But holding a public event is more ambiguous and ambivalent.
It's not quite a "real", straightforward political protest; it's actually pitched as a kind of "meta-protest"-- a protest about a nefarious element in the way political discourse is currently conducted.
But it's not a professional equivalent of "guerilla theater", nor is it quite the sociopolitical prank or stunt which propelled Michael Moore to fame. The rally isn't targeting politicians at all, just "crazy" and "uncivil" public citizen conduct associated primarily with the Tea Party.
It's like staging a "Rally to Restore Cleanliness" to address littering, public nuisances, and citizen behavior that allegedly detracts from the "quality of life".
But it's not a spoof or put-on, like "Pat Paulsen for President" if you'll pardon the prehistoric reference.
I'm skeptical of an event that claims to be more than just a diversion or entertainment, but equally disclaims being a sober, serious undertaking with a legitimate purpose.
The most distasteful aspect of "The Rally to Restore Sanity" is that it really does seem to be a tribute, or homage, to Nixon's concept of the "Silent Majority" of "sane" citizens who respect authority, work within the system, and stay home (to watch TDS) instead of publicly criticizing the government and airing related grievances.
Stewart's target demographic isn't the classic "Silent Majority" exemplified by Archie and Edith Bunker, though. Rather, he's appealing to the cool, hip Silent Majority. (Please substitute whatever synonyms for "cool" and "hip" are currently in use.)
In short, what's the point? To demonstrate how effed-up political discourse is in our Through the Looking-Glass dystopia? If so, this event is part of the problem and redundant at best.
"Obedient Servant"
I really like how you connected this to the "Silent Majority" of then and now.
However,
I will not pardon your "prehistoric reference" to Pat Paulson because I cannot pardon you for reminding me of something I enjoyed, unless you insist, and then ,of course I would pardon you because you obviously deserve to be pardoned for being insightful and since it would, sort of, be the opposite of what this nation seems so hell-bent on celebrating.
God Save the Queen!
This is a good criticism of the dynamic duo in this case.
AD
Thanks to you both for the Pat Paulson remembrance. When I read Obedient Servant's first reference to Paulson, I thought of the Smothers Brothers' political satire (their show kicked off the perennial Paulson campaigns) and the price they paid in constant censorship battles with the network and the show's eventual cancellation. Their satire had genuine bite, and with that came consequences. Pleasant and funny as they always were, I can't imagine them holding a rally just to "restore sanity" by encouraging civility. I can imagine them holding an upbeat rally to remind people what this country is supposed to stand for, though, and at its best, it's absolutely never been civility. Our best moments have always involved passion, and that's messy.
"Our best moments have always involved passion, and that's messy."
Well said.
I beg your pardon indeed, Birdbrain.
I only wrote "prehistoric" because I assumed only the old heads who comment here would even remember Pat Paulsen. I remember him affectionately.
I didn't want to root around on Google to check whether I overlooked a more recent example of a comedian or otherwise apolitical celebrity throwing their hat in the presidential campaign ring.
Paulsen's run remains memorable.
oh how you geezers do go on...
i was at mr. kellys in chicago and a slightly hipper audience booed mort sahl for his right-wing crap....i see him as more a dennis miller type than a lenny bruce.....
anywho.... how 'bout that will rodgers?!!
Yes, it does. I remember his campaign slogan - "We cannot stand Pat!"
I also remember the excellent Smother's Brothers show as well. Their cancellation said a lot about what you can never get away with on commercial TV.
Stewart is no visionary. Neither is Colbert. Even if they are sincere and their agendas are not scripted, they are still unimaginative moderates at best. Most likely, they are useful idiot puppets paid large sums of money to neutralize dissent and maintain the status quo. You're not going to see the president on any program which would present to him/her any authentic dissidence. Why is it that people still look to the tube to provide them with direction? Toss your televisions, folks.
At a time when it could not be more true that people today know the price of everything and the value of nothing; these events are just one more example of delusional Americans confusing surface with substance. These "protests" against those on the left an the right who would seek to, "harsh my mellow man" are just a pathetic expression of a people who want nothing more than to live unmolested by reality in a constant state of blissful distraction and self-gratification.
Jon Stewart went on Larry King and told the truth. When King asked Stewart what his march was going to accomplish, Stewart said that the march was 'The Daily Show in another venue', plain and simple.
In other words, Stewart is just advertising himself. He has no other motive for the march than to promote his show and himself.
Honestly, how can we take either Stewart or Colbert seriously when neither ever mention the Israeli occupation and blockade of Palestine and the US complicity in that pogrom. Seriously, lumping Code Pink with the Tea Party - looks like someone's looking for a larger audience to me.
Stewart and Colbert are just clowns, comedians, and entreprenuers and can't be taken seriously in a political venue, just as Beck et al cannot be taken seriously either. As was an earlier poster, I was disenheartened to see Colbert go to Iraq, supporting an illegal act of agression. Until then, I viewed Colbert a little higher than Stewart.
But now, they're both just celebrity clowns, playing their audiences like monkeys on a string.
Largely agree, though I can't deny enjoying many of their performances... [swinging from my vine]
At the same time I think, if there ever is going to be a helpful message, or a optimistic tone that can get through to the mainstream, liberal-leaning public, which will too often acquiesce to its imposed condition, seeking 'safe', or 'sane' avenues to improve its essentially flawed situation, its going to be people like Stewart and Colbert, or at least I hope so.
Basically, if it isn't these two, who are the options? Because as far as I see it, they're all the general public has on cable TV that won't fill their ear with utter garbage, hate and pablum. Sure they're apologists for a lot that is wrong, but they're not Glen Beck, and they're not Bill O'Reilly, and there's no hugely popular comedians or entertaining commentators (or far too few) who's leftist cred is so amazing that I'm familiar with. Produce a highly entertaining, and gleaming example of our values, and America will watch. And as far as I can see the socialist rhetoric and leftist purity endorsed by much of the hard-left probably isn't going to cut it.
Monkeys are monkeys, and the vast swath of humanity, by not fully appreciating their own monkey nature, displays it consistently through their reactionary nature. So I say let's just be glad that the monkeys are swinging on Stewart's and Colbert's strings instead of someone else's.
–SS
Stewart and Colbert, much ado about very little.
Two Obama apologists, who throw puny jabs at Obama here and there, for good measure, just to demonstrate that we live in the Greatest Country in the World.
"If we are to believe Facebook, they'll be joined by more than 200,000 of their closest friends."
I took a look at some of the pictures of the crowd. Apparently, all their friends are white and affluent. Not at all surprised.
...and they all have free bus rides to D.C., compliments of Huffpo.
Another criticism of Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart is lumping Code Pink in with these Tea Bag loonies. Please! But then add to that a question. What and who is the 9/11 Truth Movement? Robert Fisk might well qualify if that means anyone who has skepticism about the official version of what happened in those attacks on Manhattan and the Pentagon. If that's the case then that too is inappropriate to put them in with these Tea Bag fruit cakes.
Also too often both here and in other cases too many people get into this garbage of creating what are really fallacies of the false equation with saying even in a general sense that the left or at least progressives have people who on the whole are just as loony as the right wing. The problem with that is that the whole basis for the right wing ideology has historically been certain people need to have power over others rather than people need to rule themselves as idealists on the progressive side would have it. One idea is clearly the extreme opposite of the other. But the idea that some people simply should be in power over others, which where the right wing comes in is extremely ethically wrong. But the opposite or the Thomas Paine idea of "power to the people" is extremely ethically right. To equate the two is silly on the face of it and as such no maybes or perhaps about it. We have to get out of this every thing's so complicated mode. That's the way we progressives blow it. We also have to engage people's moral values, the real ones the values of a level playing field, of compassion, and of doing for others. Those are pretty straightforward and to the point.
Too many of our so-called progressives are meek and gullible beyond belief. They ask the pseudo tough questions, but not the really tough ones. That's why questions about 9/11 discombobulate their wobbly minds. I've written an article about this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26350.htm
I used to enjoy the Daily Show, but Jon Stewart is beginning to annoy me. It looks like he's making fun of people who actually >>give a damn<<, e.g. civil rights/anti-war/anti-globalization protesters, etc.
Stephen Colbert had one bright shining moment at the White House Correspondent's dinner a few years ago when he excoriated Bush & Co. to their faces, but, you know what, after today they can both bite me.
In case no one has truly noticed, Stewart is simply a mainstream Democrat, and his "civility" is transparent code for business as usual. He is never critical of Israel, never critical of the American empire's wars (unless we should be more efficient about it), and has such sophisticated views (expressed on his show) as, "Castro is a bad man."
He is a leader of nothing, and the crowd will be decidedly more liberal than he is. Gosh--why does this sound familiar.
Got hope?
---------------------------------
I would rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don't want and get that. -- Eugene V. Debs
Actually I have been inspired by this nonsense. Today I donated to the Campaign for a Mass Party of Labor and asked what else I could do.
Good gawd! There are days when the growing disillusionment of comments here and their radical (almost) rejection of diversionary and pacification distractions really are encouraging.
But then I remember that CD denizens cannot be assumed to represent more than a tiny fraction of the American public.
Yesterday, I read a foolish article on another liberal site explaining why Jon Stewert was good for progressives and the reasons were totally idiotic. I had this to say in my reply.
"3. Recasting liberalism as mainstream"
I disagree. Obama and this Congress have already given liberalism a bad rap for the rest of this decade I'm afraid. Nothing Stewart does will change that.
"4. Energizing young people"
With more young people out of work and struggling to keep out of debt troubles, I don't see how Jon Stewart will be able to help them when they can't afford cable or satellite.
Stewart and Colbert are COMEDIANS people.
(As are Beck and most of the Fox Partisans, albet unintentionally and also are most of MSNBC, unfortunately)
If they ever become the one-sided pompous screaming partisans of the likes of Obermann or Beck, I will simply stop watching them.
I watch these shows simply to enjoy that fact that someone else find the entire US Political system hoplessly ludicrous, and enjoy the relief that I am not the only one who finds the USA slowmotion downfall humourous. ( but then, I also tend to laugh inappropriately at funerals)
Obama is the one who is guilty of excessive and inappropriate civility. He should have been the one to bring the GOP to account for their past, and present crimes.
Jon Stewart is now formally "accepted" by the elite after interviewing the CON MAN.
Dump him.
More George Carlin types rapidly needed.
------------------
George Carlin ~ The American Dream
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q
Bill Hicks types even more so.
I learned long ago, when talking, whether to one individual or a roomful of people, if the person is talking quietly the listener(s) will be quiet and listen more closely. The more important elements of these interactions are 1) the person talking must be saying something of value, and 2) the people listening must care about the message.
I'm not sure about that. The listener might look like he is listening carefully, because he is straining to hear. If you have something to say, you should be loud and animate - so people notice and hear you.
Stewart and Colbert are EXACTLY like OBAMA! REALLY Not at all like they first appeared to be. Not at all interested in any real change....apologists for and enablers of the permanent ruling class they work for....courtiers for CASH!!!
clever careerists ...slyly gifted with intelligence and good timing but also .....morally very mediocre and mendacious!! they perfectly explain.... the thesis of Chris Hedges brilliant new book, a must read....THE DEATH OF THE LIBERAL CLASS!
and the are secret comedians!