My letter to Jon Stewart

Having reviewed both points of view I tend to agree more with...


  • Total voters
    44
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
839
Jon Stewart covered the Tucson shooting in a monologue that you can see here.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-10-2011/arizona-shootings-reaction

I sent him a letter. Here it is.

Dear Jon,

I respectfully disagree with your monologue on the Giffords shooting. I think your response swings wide because of the viewpoint of your show.

Jon, your persona (the Daily Show's counterpart to the Colbert persona) is often accused of being a cynic. On the contrary I think the "Jon Stewart" character represents something innocent and idealistic - in a good way.
He thinks politics really does work like we were all taught in 8th grade civics: informed citizens actively involved in democracy. A congress that passes bills through good-faith negotiation and civil debate. It's that idealism that lets him be genuinely disappointed and outraged that our politics are often more petty, corrupt, and stupid than Schoolhouse Rock made it seem. The JS character judges government and media by the measuring stick of his undimmed ideals. That motivates him to call out people like Jim Cramer, while a truly cynical "journalist" like Wolf Blitzer wouldn't even see a story there.

That outsider perspective has its blind spots however. One of them is when you create a false equivalence between liberals and conservatives.
At your Rally To Restore Sanity you said the political conversation had been dominated by extremists on the left who think 9-11 was an inside job and extremists on the right who thought Obama was a socialist. And you urged "both sides" to "tone it down." As Bill Maher pointed out, there are no Democratic leaders who think 9-11 was an inside job. "But Republican leaders who think Obama's a socialist? All of them: McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them!"

The Tucson shooting represents the failure of the "both sides are bad, if only everyone were nicer" view of the R2RS.

The Tucson shooter was not a Tea Partier, but he was motivated by ideas that have been current within the paranoid far right for decades, like concern with world government and new currency.

The Tucson shooter represents the latest data point in a chain of killings.

1. David Adkisson, the murderer who shot up a Knoxville church in July 2008 because he believed "Democrats and the media" were ruining the country.

2. Richard Poplawski who killed 3 police officers in April 2009 because he believed Obama was going to take away his guns and Zionists controlled the government.

3. Scott Roeder, an anti-government and anti-abortion extremist, who killed abortion doctor George Tiller in May 2009.

4. Byron Williams, the felon who was caught in July 2010 on his way to shoot up the ACLU and the Tides Foundation (the latter had long been the subject of Glenn Beck's chalkboard conspiracy-theorizing). Williams said Beck had been "breaking open hideous corruption" and was like a "schoolteacher" to him.

Where is the left wing equivalent of these criminals?

Where is the left's Tea Party? Where are the signs: "We left our guns at home... this time"? "The tree of liberty must be renewed with the blood of tyrants"? Where are the leftists who brought rifles to rallies and political events?

Who is the left's Glenn Beck? Who broadcasts every day of the week with paranoid conspiracy theories that an elderly Eastern European Jew secretly controls the government and collaborated in the Holocaust? That the President secretly hates America and wants to hurt it? That symbolism and anagrams reveal his fascist or socialist leanings? That economic collapse and/or the actual End Times are around the corner? That FEMA is setting up concentration camps? That ACORN was set up to be Obama's Praetorian guard?

Where is the left's Sharron Angle, telling voters: "if this Congress keeps going the way it is people are really looking toward those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around and I’ll tell ya the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out."

Where is the left's Sarah Palin? "Don't retreat, reload" and saying the government wants to set up "death panels"?

Where is the left's Dale Peterson, posing with and firing a shotgun during his campaign ad to be, of all things, an agricultural commissioner? Where is the left's Rick Barber, saying he would impeach Obama and having Thomas Jefferson tell the Tea Party to "gather your armies"?

Where is the left's Michele Bachmann saying she wants her constituents to be "armed and dangerous" and saying "we are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country."

Where is the left's Joe Wilson or Jake Knotts, yelling at the President in Congress and calling him racial slurs?

Where is the left's Jesse Keeley, Gifford's Republican opponent who urged voters to come shoot M16s with him at a campaign event?

Jon, the three pillars of fascist behavior are submission, conventionalism, and aggression. When the leaders of the paranoid, far right spew their hatred and are not checked or silenced, then their rhetoric is conventionalized and legitimized. Suddenly, Glenn Beck is a mainstream point of view. It then takes only one crazy person like Byron Williams to submit to authority and actualize the fantasy of vengeful aggression that is implicit In Glenn's daily preaching ("they" hate "us," but "we" surround "them" - go get 'em!).

The Jon Stewart character (and perhaps you, the actual Jon Stewart) instinctively wants to rise "above it all," refrain from pointing fingers, chide all sides equally, and urge everyone to "tone it down."

Apart from the fact that the Left HAS nothing to tone down, why would the Right tone THEIR rhetoric down? Stirring up the angry and crazy elements in our politics has worked for them politically. Just as it was under Clinton, our Democratic President represents a meal ticket to a new generation of far-right pundits, and an election bonanza for a new crop of Republican Congressmen. Sarah Palin is your new Ann Coulter and Jim DeMint is your new Newt Gingrich.

The organized campaign of hatred and fear that the Tea Party represents has taken over the Republican Party.

Not only did you ignore the evidence linking the Tea Party to nascent political violence but you sought to absolve them.

Jon, as you said in 2005 about Katrina: "When people don't want to play the blame game, they're to blame."


TLDR: I like Jon and his show, but his reaction is in the same mold as his Rally To Restore Sanity, that "both sides" are responsible for our poisoned discourse.
 
Great letter

Though in Jon defence it is likely he was waiting for the dust to settle and more facts surrounding the shootings to become clear. For someone whom has enough influence to be able to finally shame the Republicans into finally passing the 9-11 health coverage was something encouraging to see.
 
I disagree that Jon Stewart created a "false equivalence between liberals and conservatives", both then and now. This was discussed in detail in the thread regarding his rally. He even clarified it on one of the shows after the event due to the criticism he received from some quarters.

You can't very well fault the multitude on the right who are guilty of using "vitriol", propaganda, and hyperbole on such a frequent basis while blithely ignoring the handful on the left who use the same tactics. It would have given the far-right the ammo they need to vilify him and to peremptorily dismiss his arguments for doing so.
 
To answer some of your questions, should we start with a movie made about killing George Bush?

Your starting point is a British film that American cinemas refused to even screen?

I hope you're done

But you're probably not

You can't very well fault the mutlitude on the right who are guilty in using "vitriol", propaganda, and hyperbole while blithely ignoring the handful on the left who use the same tactics. You would make yourself liable for charges of being hypocritical regarding the matter, and rightly so.

It's a multitude versus a handful. And that handful is ineffectual. And it's deliberately marginalized and disowned by its mainstream counterpart.

You don't see Greenpeace claiming responsibility for the Democrats' 2006 electoral victory. Or Chuck Schumer having to genuflect to, I don't know, Noam Chomsky?
 
Everybody who can possibly be convinced already knows how many people are guilty of doing it on each side and the difference in magnitude between the two groups. The only ones who don't are the handful who believe everything the far-right spin doctors say. And you aren't going to have any luck convincing them, regardless of what Jon Stewart says or does. They are always going to claim that "liberals" do it too as their rationalization to not stop, even if every single person who was not as right as them never used hyperbole again.

To put it another way, the conservatives brings guns to political knife fights.
 
I agree with Tac (the new I agree with Nick methinks). Yes the Repubs are going to extremes (why change a formula that has worked since '94, with their faux "Contract for America" {lit. trans. we hate America and all it stands for but if we were honest we wouldn't be voted in}). Yes they encourage fringe groups like the Tea Party (a corporate owned astro-turf group, who have brought in gullible following of the kind of people they want to keep servile). Yes they do everything in their power to keep America weak (all the better to keep it at the behest of their paymasters, major corporations and the oligarchy). Yes they have no interest in the 99.99995% of the population that wouldn't vote for them if they only knew.

America should not be pandering to them (and this is not me as a Lefty speaking, this is me as a person who doesn't like America being messed around by a group of shills and compulsive liars), or tolerating them. It should be saying to the Republican party "either you clean up your act pronto, or you're out on your ear buddy" (mainly by heavy restrictions on corporate donations, ending of the politicisation of electoral offices {the ones controlling the elections}, instituting a proper democratic process {i.e. one man, one vote or if you're going PR one man, 3 votes}, and ensuring that any politician breaking the rules is immediately banned from all public offices for life, any party hosting multiple specimens of the same scum {I'll be generous and say 5} also get proscribed permanently with all assets seized). And then they can turn around to the Dems and say "if you get 1/10 as far as that lot, we'll take you down the same dark alley never to be heard from again" (well I do believe the bunch of fuzzy righters in the Democratic party would do the exact same if they could get away with it).

I'd love to see it happen, but I can't see it, as I know the politicians (of both parties) will never their access to brown paper bags, their cushy jobs with pensions, their board seats on being ejected, their chance to screw those they don't like over, etc. But I can hope can't I?
 
Your starting point is a British film that American cinemas refused to even screen?
It's characteristic of a rabid left-wing that for eight years wanted to murder George W. Bush. It seems the left suffers a bout of amnesia about their radicalism once their guy gets in office.
 
I like his monologue; it doesn't matter whether I agree with its content or not. I disagree with your letter because I believe it misses the point. He's just reacting personally - if publicly - and he is as entitled to react personally as anyone else.

I believe his points have more validity than yours because he is stating a personal reaction whereas you seem to me to be touting personal opinion as fact (mixed with actual facts to boost credibility - rhetoric aside). I don't believe you can ever tell someone their personal reaction is wrong because it's what they're feeling, and my guess is Mr. Stewart was perfect ingenuous in his expression of those feelings.

I respectfully suggest you may have overreacted a little.
 
Everybody who can possibly be convinced already knows how many people do it on each side and the difference in magnitude. The only ones who don't are the handful who believe everything the far-right spin doctors say.

I disagree, I think Jon deliberately takes this stance because he does not wish to appear political or non-neutral. Either because of the consequences/baggage of that or because he thinks it is inappropriate for the show.

Either way when he paints himself into that "everyone should take a deep breath" corner, it looks like he is blissfully ignorant of everything he covers in the other 90% of his show.
 
I agree with Stewart.

For the sake of the argument, I'll even say I agree with you that the right is more intolerant, vicious, flamboyant, etc... than the Left. However, does that not mean that Left can't tone down their own rhetoric as well? Sure they can, and they should. It's rather naive to say "oh, hey, you need to calm down, but we are just fine." No, if you want the other side to calm down the rhetoric, you need to lead by example.
 
It's characteristic of a rabid left-wing that for eight years wanted to murder George W. Bush.
This is exactly what I mean. The far-right will likely never give up their hyperbole. It works too well to their own political advantage.

I disagree, I think Jon deliberately takes this stance because he does not wish to appear political or non-neutral. Either because of the consequences/baggage of that or because he thinks it is inappropriate for the show.
You mean a show with a clear "liberal bias" which is vilified by the far-right on a nearly daily basis, even though they do poke fun at Democrats when they deserve it? Right...
 
This is exactly what I mean. The far-right will likely never give up their hyperbole. It works too well to their own political advantage.
This is the Democrats' Reichstag fire and right now it seems they're loving every minute of it. If I was a Democrat in Congress right now, I think I'd be less worried about the paranoid schizophrenics and more about the DNC leaders that see the opportunity in having their party members shot in the head.
 
I think the premise of Tac that the left has nothing to tone down is quite demonstrably false. While the right's main stalwarts of intolerance are more visible at the current moment, the left is not without them as well. Both sides have contributed to the polarizing rhetoric and vitriol. You live in DC long enough you start to hate both sides and your once optimistic outlook turns numb.

Do not forget that you can find many insane ramblings on both redstate and huffingtonpost by users there.

The rest of your letter doesn't matter. Start from a false premise that the left has done nothing to fan the flames of the discord we are seeing, and when that is easily dispatched, there is nothing left to buttress the argument.

(Or What Moss Said : I don't think it matters if one side is "more" guilty. Arguing that probably has the same outcome as if one argues with their wife over who is more right. Whatever happens, I'd be sleeping on the couch, no matter how right my claims were. Take the high road)
 
This is the Democrats' Reichstag fire

Oh yay.

I agree with Stewart.

For the sake of the argument, I'll even say I agree with you that the right is more intolerant, vicious, flamboyant, etc... than the Left. However, does that not mean that Left can't tone down their own rhetoric as well? Sure they can, and they should. It's rather naive to say "oh, hey, you need to calm down, but we are just fine." No, if you want the other side to calm down the rhetoric, you need to lead by example.

Surely if Obama and most Democrats "tone it down" any more they'll be comatose or communicating in sign language?
 
This is the Democrats' Reichstag fire and right now it seems they're loving every minute of it. If I was a Democrat in Congress right now, I think I'd be less worried about the paranoid schizophrenics and more about the DNC leaders that see the opportunity in having their party members shot in the head.
I think you are confusing the Democrats with the Tea Partyers. Not everybody thinks the ends justify the means, and would prefer to use violence instead of reason to achieve their political goals.
 
I like his monologue; it doesn't matter whether I agree with its content or not. I disagree with your letter because I believe it misses the point. He's just reacting personally - if publicly - and he is as entitled to react personally as anyone else.


The distinction you seek to make between Stewart holding an opinion "personally" and making some sort of statement as a public figure, I find to be a distinction without a difference. He said what he thinks, I think he's wrong.

stormerne said:
I believe his points have more validity than yours because he is stating a personal reaction whereas you seem to me to be touting personal opinion as fact (mixed with actual facts to boost credibility - rhetoric aside). I don't believe you can ever tell someone their personal reaction is wrong because it's what they're feeling, and my guess is Mr. Stewart was perfect ingenuous in his expression of those feelings.

I respectfully suggest you may have overreacted a little.

I don't "mix opinion with fact," I substantiate my viewpoint with facts. And it's not like I exhausted the supply of facts. For example in the list of politically motivated violence I could have included the man who divebombed an IRS building with his plane in February 2010. In the list of right-wing political statements I could have included Mitch McConnell's deliberately cagey remark that he 'takes Obama at his word' that he's a Christian not a Muslim. I could have included the poll that showed a majority of Republicans are birthers who think Obama is secretly a Kenyan.
 
Back
Top Bottom