Professional fools are an ingrained aspect of our image of the medieval royal court system. Fools, more commonly known as jesters, were permitted to be asses for the amusement of heads of governments. While professional and respectful conduct was expected of most members of the court, the Fool existed to give an image of laxness. The king would not want people to think him an overly serious figure. Of course, the jester too had restraints. Many fools found their end after a misplaced joke on the wrong aristocrat.
The function of Jon Stewart in the eyes of many young people is to satirize the court, to make light of those in power and their media lapdogs. For awhile, this comfortable narrative of his position might have approached truth. However, Jon Stewart has yet again let this maverick pose slip. In a CNN interview covering the results of the American midterm elections, Stewart was asked if he voted, to which he responded, “I just moved. I don’t know even where my thing is.” Later, on The Daily Show, Stewart took out time to grovel at the feet of America’s greatest sacrament. Especially given the poor outcome for Stewart’s side, he thought that joking about not voting was nothing to joke about. He reasserted the importance of voting and apologized for being “flip” about such a serious matter.
First, I’d like to address the unimportance of Stewart’s choice to vote. Like him, I live in New York, though certainly a more red area of upstate NY. Even living around the few Republican lifeforms that inhabit NY, it is patently absurd to think Stewart could have somehow swayed the election away from the Democrats. New York, like Texas, is never flipping to the other side of the Color War. Moreover, the decision of one individual in deciding the results of any election is the great myth which fuels participation in this representative democracy. He and voters like him think far too much of themselves. They believe the story, told to them by the electoral system, that their vote does indeed matter. In all, vast likelihood it does not.
Second, it is the job of the comedian to be flip. Stewart’s apology displays a subservience undue to a funny man post-Lenny Bruce. Stewart claims to be a devoted fan of George Carlin, and no doubt he is, like all comedians. George Carlin is a man who delivered one of the most blistering, debilitating rants against America’s democracy in his special “Back In Town”. He attacks the public’s obedience and inability to produce better results, then sees fit to end his rant and his special with a line about the superiority of masturbation to participation in the system. Stewart is of course his own man with his own opinions, but does he think Carlin was somehow being flip and disrespectful? Was Carlin responsible for the Republicans retaining the Congress in the 96 elections?
The difference between Carlin and Stewart is that Carlin was not beholden, he kept nothing as sacrosanct and by the time of his death had at one point offended the sensibilities of every demographic on the planet. He railed against the entire American political system and he did not apologize. Carlin is a comedian. Jon Stewart is a Fool. Stewart will go on with an air of being the rebel, the outsider until it might possibly impose a negative image on the establishment. Voting is no laughing matter for the politicians Stewart regularly entertains on his show. It is their livelihood. Most of their careers will be spent telling people to vote, rather than helping them. If Stewart wants to remain in with this crowd, he must respect the careers these professional hype men have made for themselves — even if he’s smart enough to see past it. It’s why he had to apologize this week. It’s why he had to beg for forgiveness for disrespecting Harry Truman, one of the great American mass murderers of the 20th century. Liberals can challenge actions like the dropping of the nuclear bomb until they realize that America IS the nuclear bomb, that the stars and stripes they pray to are kept above the rest of the world by mass violence. Then they will march in the streets next to the Republicans they claim to fear so much.
Is it any surprise then, that Stewart has also come out in support of a draft? Bemoaning declining youth involvement in their nation’s best interests, Stewart proposes, “There should be a draft where every young person has to do one year of something — military, public works — something so that we all feel invested in the same game, because that’s the part that we’ve lost.” This is a man who at least claims to have opposed America’s Iraq War, who criticized the Bush administration for its reckless foreign policy. This was all a veneer. Stewart really wants young people, otherwise known as his audience, to obey the orders of the nation state.
Stewart is a Fool. He will apologize to the King and his Court for disrespecting their most holy of political processes and go back to smashing pies in people’s faces as if that makes him different. He is in reality an integral part of the mechanism which maintains the legitimacy of the warfare state. His opinions differ in only boring, trivial minutia from your average Neocon. He must apologize because he realizes he doesn’t just mock the system but himself. He will never have to apologize for his comments on the draft. He will never have to apologize for his worship of Harry Truman. Frankly, as a fan of comedy and honesty, I wouldn't want him to. Stewart has his beliefs and I want him to be open about them. I want to know who the warmongers are and who the fools are. I know now, like I never knew before, that he is a jester for murderers. Analysis of his comedy above that level is an insult to Carlin and to every revolutionary mind that made American comedy more than just a late night TV gag.
Ah, yes, saw this on facebook. Tripe. Has anyone considered the fact that maybe, just maybe, Jon Stewart believes in democracy to some degree or another, knows he's a role model, and genuinely doesn't want young adults holding him up as a paragon of anti-voting? No? What'd you say? He's just a fucking tool of the evil state? Okay. . I don't have a single bit of patience for Stewart or Colbert or the class of ignorant liberal ideologues they're raising -- and I have even less patience for voting -- but I have, with one exception, essentially negative patience for C4SS. Some ideologues are even worse than others and your particular brand has worn out its nonexistent-to-begin-with welcome in my god damn brain. Also, I'd expect the an-caps of all people to understand that Jon Stewart is a brand, and the things he does have monetary repercussions (is that not all you care about?) far greater than any George Carlin was ever responsible for. Oh, and, vis à vis Truman? Learn some history (real history, from historians, not the idiots who line your echo chamber) and learn not to make absolutist statements with the safety blanket of hindsight.
Sure, I can ... I'm positive I've thrown this viewpoint out elsewhere on hubski but I couldn't find it. Let me stress -- you're not supposed to disagree with Stewart or Oliver or whoever. We can all agree gay people are just fine. And the environment should be protected. Etc. I agree with Jon Stewart's stance most of the time. I rarely if ever agree with the way he goes about propagating it. Unfortunately, I have many friends who get their news primarily from the Daily Show. Smart friends. Friends who could presumably devote some brainpower to reading real, thought-out, not made for TV ideas; understanding the intricacies of, say, Hobby Lobby, or the Iraq War (it was wrong! Jon Stewart says so! Why was it wrong? Er... because it didn't work? -- true, but also the worst possible correct answer and a disservice to the study of history). Instead they watch Jon Stewart a few times a week -- and become ideologues. People who defiantly know something without knowing why they know it. People who will not change their minds, even though their opinions come with only the most paltry, 30-second Daily Show soundbite evidence. I can't have more than a surface-level conversation with anyone I know about, oh, asset forfeiture, which Oliver apparently covered the other day. They don't actually know anything about asset forfeiture. Just a quotable from Jon Stewart. So while asset forfeiture is often abused and wielded badly, the nuances of the situation are absolutely lost. I'm sure Stewart will do something with Ted Cruz' tweet about net neutrality today or this weekend. I'm sure the college-age liberals I know will laugh at Cruz and think happily to themselves about how great it is that they agree with Stewart and the side of progress and so on and so forth. I doubt they could tell you a damn thing about net neutrality, though. Just that Republicans are wrong about it. This attitude does not help anything. It does not raise a class of people who are ready to lead this country well, rationally or without bias. It does not promote knowledge and thoughtful discourse. It will not foster a better world -- you do not change the mind of a Republican on net neutrality by insulting him because of the preconceived notions that Stephen Colbert put in your mouth. It creates a culture of pseudo-intellectualism and a blind belief that liberals and progressives are on the side of history and can't do anything wrong. Let's be clear: liberals have done a lot of damn things wrong. So have conservatives. You won't hear that on the Daily Show. And you certainly won't hear an explanation of why everything is wrong. It's entertainment, not wisdom.
If anything I see Stewart/Colberts role has less to do with showing that liberalism is "Correct" and more to do with showing how ridiculous politics are when we take a step back and look at them through a different lens. I think it's also quite odd that you don't think that Stewart will happily lampoon a "liberal" in the same way he does with a conservative. Just as an example: I think “chickenshit” is appropriate in this environment. As they say, “They took the beatin’.” You’re sort of baffled by it. They had a very distinct strategy which was: “We’re not going to make any decisions six months out so that we don’t put any pressure on our vulnerable senators from the red states.” So they were basically saying, “We’re not going to try to provoke people that already hate us anyway and are motivated to come out,” so their strategy was a defensive one of, “Let’s go in a crouch and hope they don’t kick us too hard in the face,” rather than going on the offensive and trying to motivate people who would actually care about them and vote for them. Stewarts game isn't "LOL CONSERVATIVES DUMB WE SMART GOOD JOB" it is "Why in the world are we letting these people run our country? How do we make things better?" This polar view of The Daily Show has existed since almost it's inception (Post Kilborn anyway) and it's ridiculous. They are mocking the onslaught of media and entertainment that make up lies and use their authority to declare an opinion fact.It creates a culture of pseudo-intellectualism and a blind belief that liberals and progressives are on the side of history and can't do anything wrong. Let's be clear: liberals have done a lot of damn things wrong. So have conservatives. You won't hear that on the Daily Show. And you certainly won't hear an explanation of why everything is wrong.
We are just coming off the midterm elections, too, where the Democrats got slaughtered. I believe you used the term “chickenshit” to describe the Dems, and “Red Wedding” to describe the midterms.
I guess I'd want to see some sort of longterm analysis of the Daily Show before I would believe what you said. It doesn't square with my memory. If you tote up the numbers, I suspect Stewart has spent like 80 percent of his airtime mocking the Republican/Tea Party agenda. Ditto Fox News etc versus CNN. In any case, the point I wanted to make got a bit lost -- making fun of people at all is never going to fix the country. Teaching teens and young adults to scorn other points of view is a fucking shame. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Stewart will point out all the massive holes in Obama's "internet as utility" idea, while he's simultaneously mocking Ted Cruz (as he surely will). Maybe he'll have a real, scholarly discussion about the issue, and present all the options. We'll see.
I don't know, he's a comedian, he does comedy things. He's got 22 minutes to make people laugh. 22 minutes vs the 24 hours of fox/cnn/msnbc/etc. The writers on the show usually have a list of news stories, think about what is funny about them, then write a joke and hopefully they can find some old footage they can poke fun at too. I don't think they are even thinking about equal time, because that takes away from the funny. But he is known to have deep discussions with authors, politicians, and pundits which are available on comedy central's websites for interviews that run longer than the show. The ones with Bill O'Reilly are particularly good http://thedailyshow.cc.com/guests/bill-oreilly he's done these with Ron Paul and other Republican and Libertarians too.
But does Colbert/Stewart/Oliver actively promote the notion that what they are saying is wisdom, and that watching their shows provide a good foundation on issues? You and I know both know that the shows are entertainment in the end, but many people do not. My question is if that is because of their misinterpretation or because it is the image actively put on by these shows. If it's the former, then I'd attribute it more towards people wanting the information as quickly and easily as possible (see: Twitter) and not entirely faulting the shows themselves. However, I'm unsure which issue is the greater issue for these shows.
I think they do to an extent. The holier-than-thou attitude -- I haven't watched any of the shows in ages, but I recall Stewart on many occasions taking on a sort of righteous moral stance about various issues. Part of his shtick is, "I'm better than the real news anchors on the right." Which puts him on the same playing field, and fools a ton of people (or allows them to fool themselves ... it's human to seek affirmation for your ideas, not confirmation). I don't blame him. As I said above, he's a brand. His face and voice and persona, and Colbert's, are worth tons of money. He is paid to act the way he does, and fool people along and insult Republicans along the way. S'fine. But when my liberal friends trash Fox News all day every day and refuse to acknowledge the degree to which all of us^ are getting our news from biased echo chambers ... nope. Not having it. ^I include myself in this, though for about five years now I've been doing my absolute damnedest to escape bias and get news from every source possible. Feels like a losing battle sometimes. Has mostly made me skeptical of everything and very bitter.
The idea that George Carlin or Lenny Bruce are some kind of sacrosanct comedians is laughable to me. Carlin regularly made fart and poop jokes (have you SEEN Dogma?) and Bruce eventually went to comedy clubs and READ A NEWSPAPER to the audience. Maybe Mark Russell will be more up this guys ally. The fact is Carlin and Bruce were wrong about a lot of things, but they were comedians. Either Stewart gets to be in this category with them, or you don't get to compare them to Stewart. Also do you notice how Stewart is calling for a draft not only of military but of Public Works? Lots of countries do this, and you know what I agree. I WISH we had this. I wish we had a year where people drafted to build homes, feed children and shovel old lady's driveways. To parallel this idea with the Iraq war is just being purposefully oblivious to the entire thing he said.