Jon Stewart Rally: Just an Exercise in Gen X Self-Indulgence? [Archive]

View Full Version : Jon Stewart Rally: Just an Exercise in Gen X Self-Indulgence?

B0LSHEVIK

1st November 2010, 17:57

In the depths of America's decline, Liberals couldn't muster up a get-together for anything better than a mock-in meant to prove we're less stupid than the other side.

Maybe what’s happening in America today will seem funny to some other culture in some future time -- how it happened that in the depths of America’s decline, Liberals, the great opposition to everything mean and ruthless in this culture, couldn’t muster up a get-together for anything better than a mock-in. Led by a clown.

I confess, I couldn’t hack it. I came to the rally -- saw those two pastry chefs from the Mythbusters show get all the Liberal Elites to hold a post-modern human wave, an ironic human wave allowing all the self-conscious Liberal Elites to play like Real America, while salvaging their vanity because it was all ironic and post-modern… And to make sure that everyone knew they were not really human-waving but rather meta-human-waving, the Mythbusters duo deconstructed the human wave. And all the Liberal Elites smiled and laughed knowingly, because all 150,000 were in on the biggest inside-joke wankathon in American history. And that was it for me -- I was outta there.

A century-old ideological movement, Liberalism: once devoted to impossible causes like ending racism and inequality, empowering the powerless, fighting against militarism, and all that silly hippie shit -- now it’s been reduced to besting the other side at one-liners…and to the Liberals’ credit, they’re clearly on top. Sure there are a lot of problems out there, a lot of pressing needs -- but the main thing is, the Liberals don’t look nearly as stupid as the other guys do. And if you don’t know how important that is to this generation, then you won’t understand what’s so wrong and so deeply depressing about the Jon Stewart Rally to Restore Sanity.

That’s what makes this rally so depressing and grotesque: It’s an anti-rally, a kind of mass concession speech without the speech -- some kind of sick funeral party for Liberalism, in which Liberals are led, at last, by a clown. Not a figurative clown, but by a clown -- and Liberals are sure that this somehow makes them smarter and less lame -- and indeed, they are less lame, because they are not taking themselves too seriously, which is something they’re very, very proud of. All great political struggles and ideological advances, all great human rights achievements were won by clown-led crowds of people who don’t take themselves too seriously, duh! That’s why they’re following a clown like Stewart, whose entire political program comes down to this: not being stupid, the way the other guys are stupid -- or when being stupid, only stupid in a self-consciously stupid way, which is to say, not stupid. That’s it, that’s all this is about: Not to protest wars or oligarchical theft or declining health care or crushing debt or a corrupt political system or imperial decay -- nope, the only thing that motivates Liberals to gather in the their thousands is the chance to celebrate their own lack of stupidity! Woo-hoo!

(http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/AP-Photo.jpeg)
It’s the final humiliating undoing of Enlightenment Idealism that made Liberalism possible -- imagine if Jefferson, Diderot, Montesquieu, Madison et al reduced the entire Enlightenment’s struggle against the old feudal order to “I’m against the monarchy because the monarchy’s stupid…but then again, Rousseau makes a fool of himself with his Romanticism, and Tom Paine is so serious with his ‘Rights of Man’, the Revolutionaries are just as crazy as the Monarchists, so rather than join either side and risk opening myself to mockery, I’m just going to stand back and laugh at them all and say, ‘Really? Independence? Everyone is created equal and has the right to pursue happiness? Really, TJ? You sure you want to say that about Bluebeard? Really?” [LAUGH TRACK]…

It’s not Stewart’s or Colbert’s fault, let’s be clear on that -- they’re the only ones doing their job here. They’re the only ones fighting this battle, and the only way they’re surviving is by elaborately pretending they’re not really fighting anyone’s battle over anything, they’re just having a laugh -- it’s the same rationale that jesters used in medieval times, and Stewart and Colbert play the same role as the jesters did then…and we’re also playing our role as powerless peasants reduced to self-mockery and snickering at our Masters behind their backs. It’s not their fault that Liberalism today has as its highest priority not looking stupid -- and that its premiere rally is framed in such a way that everyone who came to this rally is somehow indemnified from looking foolish precisely because it’s not really a political rally, it’s more like a mockery of a political rally -- in a self-consciously smart sort of way. And the Daily Show Democrats who gathered celebrated themselves for this amazing achievement: that they didn’t make fools of themselves standing for something that some other guys could then use to mock them. That’s the biggest sin of the other side, the Tea Partiers especially, at least as the Daily Show fans see it: they look silly, and worse, they’re not shamed into suicide from looking silly, the way Liberals would be shamed into OD’ing on Ambien if they opened themselves up to that sort of mockery.

It was this same lack of ironic self-awareness (or rather, this absence of any sort of mockery-avoidance technology) that led my generation to pillory the hippies and progressives -- that’s why we were South Park Republicans before we were Daily Show Democrats: because back then, standing for liberal values meant something, and that made you look lame. Only now, when Liberal ideals have vanished into mythology and all they stand for is “not as crazy or stupid as Republicans” is it safe to camp out with the Democrats. They put nothing on the line ideologically, which perfectly jibes with this generation’s highest value. And that makes it perfectly safe to go to something like a large political rally like Stewart’s -- you side with a hollow movement stripped of ideology or purpose, and then you gather to celebrate your own hollowness at a rally whose one promise is “You won’t open yourself up to mockery if you attend this rally” and whose goal is to show how not-stupid “we” are compared to the mockable activists on both the right and the left -- the Beckites and the Code Pinkers.

I’ve come to the conclusion that this has been the Great Dream of my generation: to position ourselves in such a way that we’re beyond mockery. To not look stupid. That’s the biggest crime of all -- looking stupid. That’s why they’ve turned Stewart into a demigod, because he knows how to make the other guys look really stupid, and if you’re on the same team as Stewart, you’re on the safe side of the mockery, rather than dangerously vulnerable to mockery.

http://www.alternet.org/news/148690/jon_stewart_rally%3A_just_an_exercise_in_gen_x_sel f-indulgence/?page=2

REDSOX

1st November 2010, 18:14

John stewart is a funny guy and is show is entertaining up to a point. However politically he is just a liberal social democrat who mourns the passing of roosevellian new dealism

Ele'ill

1st November 2010, 18:22

Jon Stewart needs to get his shit together and quit this 'moderate comfort zone' crap.

His show creates vast amounts of complacency within the 'liberal progressive' camp and his rallies- regardless of how many people showed up are a spectacle- not a movement.

He had several hundred thousand people show up to the rally and those were several hundred thousand people that did absolutely nothing towards progress.

If you need a police escort to keep your march on track and to keep you safe you're doing something wrong.

His motto might as well be "We don't want to change anything!"

Ugh

Robocommie

1st November 2010, 19:12

Jon Stewart isn't the point guys. He merely represents the broader social forces and political dynamics at play right now. The article rather brilliantly points this out. Jon Stewart's success is largely because he's keyed into the cynicism and self-indulgence of the current generation of American progressives, he's not causing it.

Read the article, because it's dead on and really quite savvy. I came here specifically to post the link but somebody beat me to it.

La Peur Rouge

1st November 2010, 20:49

My god, read some of the liberals' comments.

GPDP

1st November 2010, 21:35

My god, read some of the liberals' comments.

You should read the article at its original source. The comments there are actually very positive. I agree, though, liberals can be smug and insufferable as fuck when directly criticized. Not surprising, since they have no real argument to their defense.

Anyway, awesome article. I never thought of looking at the rally in such a way. It really does demonstrate how ideologically-bankrupt my generation is. We don't stand for ideals, only image.

punisa

1st November 2010, 22:55

GPDP

1st November 2010, 22:58

Robocommie

2nd November 2010, 00:03

For the people who attended the rally, it basically boils down to "politics are boring and stupid, let's do a mock rally to demonstrate how not-boring and not-stupid we are!" For Stewart, he's basically telling everyone who's rightfully angry about the way things are to chill the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

Honestly I wouldn't say that's really the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXmbzLI3pnk

And now I thought we might have a moment, however brief, for some sincerity, if that’s OK.
... This was not a rally to ridicule people of faith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith), or people of activism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activism), or look down our noses at the heartland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyover_country), or passionate argument, or to suggest that times are not difficult and that we have nothing to fear. They are, and we do. But we live now in hard times, not end times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_time). And we can have animus, and not be enemies. But unfortunately, one of our main tools in delineating the two broke. The country’s 24-hour politico–pundit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-hour_news_cycle)' perpetual panic "conflictinator" did not cause our problems, but its existence makes solving them that much harder. The press can hold its magnifying glass up to our problems, bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen. Or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire, and then perhaps host a week of shows on the "dangerous, unexpected flaming-ants epidemic!" If we amplify everything, we hear nothing.
There are terrorists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism), and racists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism), and Stalinists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism), and theocrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy), but those are titles that must be earned! You must have the résumé! Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Party-ers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement), or real bigots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry) and Juan Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Williams) or Rick Sanchez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Sanchez) is an insult – not only to those people, but to the racists themselves, who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate. Just as the inability to distinguish terrorists from Muslims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim) makes us less safe, not more.
... [Gestures across the Mall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Mall) and toward the Capitol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Capitol).] Americans don’t live here or on cable TV. Where we live, our values and principles form the foundation that sustains us while we get things done – not the barriers that prevent us from getting things done. Most Americans don’t live their lives solely as Democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29), Republicans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29), liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States) or conservatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States). Americans live their lives more as people that are just a little bit late for something they have to do. Often something they do not want to do. But they do it. Impossible things, every day, that are only made possible through the little, reasonable compromises we all make.
... We know, instinctively, as a people, that if we are to get through the darkness and back into the light, we have to work together. And the truth is, there will always be darkness. And sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel isn’t the Promised Land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promised_Land). Sometimes, it’s just New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey).[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity#cite_note-34)

— Jon Stewart
As he says, he's not out to villify passionate argument or deny that things are hard or that people need to shut up. What he's trying to say is restore what he sees as a serious breakdown in the level of civility in political discourse. The narrative Jon Stewart is presenting is that the left and right are both going politically insane, demonizing their opponents in the media to the expense of the actual issues. While there is a lot of that going on, it has the effect of making both the left and the right equivalent to one another and implying that the only truly rational stance is in the excluded "rational" middle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity

The rally's stated purpose was to provide a venue for attendees to be heard above what Stewart describes as the more vocal and extreme 15–20% of Americans who "control the conversation" of United States politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity#cite_note-AFP-3) The point is that people become crazed when discussing politics and demonize each other, which is counterproductive. A return to sanity is intended to promote reasoned discussion. News reports cast the rally as a satirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire) response to Glenn Beck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Beck)'s Restoring Honor rally (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally) and Al Sharpton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton)'s Reclaim the Dream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reclaim_the_Dream_commemorative_march) rally.Basically, the idea is that it's the fringe crazies who are clouding the issues and we all need to calm down and see that we can disagree without being mortal enemies. Very noble ideal and all, but it overlooks a lot.

As for why Comedy Central would front the money for the rally, it's probably to capitalize on the buzz. It makes both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report into even more of a cultural fixture and it's only bound to make ratings for the shows even better. And honestly, there is something special going on about these shows. I say this with all honesty and without cynicism or sarcasm, that in 50 years the Daily Show and the Colbert Report will be seen as a cultural phenomenon, one of those rare things in television entertainment which comes along at just the right time and becomes more than just a TV show. To a very large demographic, the shows have extraordinary appeal. I think there's a lot of reason for that, not all negative. But the shows have become more than just a fake news comedy show, and become something legitimate.

Basically, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert both occupy safe positions as court jesters who can mock the proud and strong and get away with it, they can point out the emperor has no clothes in a way that corporate media can't. That doesn't, however, change the fact that they're very much liberal-centrists.

Amphictyonis

2nd November 2010, 00:21

Anything in TV/Radio with an outward political message or not is meant to reaffirm the current system. MEDIA has been the bourgeoisie's best weapon of control. They frame the issues, they set the stage, they create our reality not only through the economic system they perpetuate but via countless subtle and not so subtle ways of substantiating and normalizing this reality. It's all very Orwellian. Our entire reality in America is created from the perspective of the ruling class. These clowns job's are to 'corral' us back into the pre framed box. To frame the issues. Pretty much the same role Obama has played.

It's a false dilemma crafted by the bourgeoisie. One giant red herring. We live in a bourgeois matrix and we need the magic socialist glasses to see it ;)

7Lwlx3GnLGs

RadioRaheem84

2nd November 2010, 00:55

I don't get it. People are supposed to believe that the former Soviet system was a giant mess with ample propaganda, but we do not even question our own media which is full of the same stuff.

Media watch dog groups are rampant and people are now keen to the propaganda methods of mass marketing. We know a product is not going to fulfill our deepest desires when we see an ad on TV. We may want it, sometimes bad, but we know the thing is lying to us.

We have a massive military that dwarfs the size of many countries put together.

Yet, we still, repeat still, think we live in a free country and that none of it is due to imperialism.

punisa

2nd November 2010, 11:54

RadioRaheem84

2nd November 2010, 17:14

Well the recession is officially over, yet unemployment is still with us.

People are going to forget about all this until the next major catastrophe happens.

Robocommie

2nd November 2010, 18:42

Well the recession is officially over, yet unemployment is still with us.

People are going to forget about all this until the next major catastrophe happens.

Don't be so sure, these things never go away. They leave indelible marks in the national consciousness. The Great Depression changed American culture forever, for example.

There is not, however, any guarantee that the memory will affect people in a way we want.

Barry Lyndon

2nd November 2010, 19:07

Robocommie

2nd November 2010, 19:12

A little visual aid to what John Stewart means when he says that

But really, that's not what he's saying.

Barry Lyndon

2nd November 2010, 19:23

But really, that's not what he's saying.

It is what he's saying. He's saying that if you engage in angry rhetoric over these outrages, and demand more then half-assed piddling reforms, you are just as bad as those who have fantasies that Obama is a Muslim Communist.

The reason Stewart can be so detached and unmoved by such suffering, and be dead set against any attempt to change such awful realities, is because he belongs to the elite liberal class and reflects their outlook.

RadioRaheem84

2nd November 2010, 19:49

It's true. His staff told Medea Benjamin to go fuck herself.

Since then they've totally lambasted the Code Pink Movement.

I never knew what they were all about so I assumed from watching the Daily Show that they were an annoying liberal groups without a clear message.

I finally went to their website and boy was I wrong. Medea Benjamin is a really smart and articulate leader. She studied Econ at the New School! She defended Hugo Chavez against the imbecilic attack of bow tie wearing douche Tucker Carlson. Her organization fights spending on war and militarism in favor of it going toward social needs.

WTF is so wrong with this group, Stewart? Just because they vocally lash out at Cheney and Condi Rice at public meetings?

Stewart wants us to STFU and have "civil" discourse when all this shit is happening around us?

The guy is a douche plain and simple. Besides he's already admitted that most of his staff is libertarian. I bet the rest are idiot centrist liberals who think their shit don't stink.

Lucretia

2nd November 2010, 20:55

Like the tea partiers in general, these Stewartites are driven by a legitimate concern even if they haven't properly identified it. The problem isn't with the "tone" of political discourse, or whether it is polite or impolite. If I might speak on their behalf, their real issue when they complain about politics being driven by animosity and enmity is that political discourse in this country has become one big personality-driven spectacle--an exercise in avoiding the issues while slapping vicious, if not vacuous, labels on people with whom we think we disagree. In other words American political discussion is dominated by tribalism.

Of course, simply making that observation is not enough. The important issue is WHY American political discourse, at least in the mass media, is a substance-free exercise in obfuscation. Might it be that when it comes to matters of substance, there is very little that the two branches of the American capitalist party can debate about?

By the way, what was up with that utterly ridiculous remark Stewart made about Marxists subverting the Constitution? Who are these Marxists, and which part of it are they supposedly trying to subvert? Free speech? Freedom of the press? Habeas corpus? Private property rights?

RadioRaheem84

2nd November 2010, 21:01

Probably private property rights, from his delusional standpoint.

B0LSHEVIK

3rd November 2010, 00:04

Also during the 'rally to restore sanity' Stewart mentioned how both sides had gone to extremes, the left having called Bush a war criminal, and the right naming Obama a Hitler-Islamo-Socialist-Foreign-Spy-Communist-Fascist-antichrist-etc. But Stewart (in typical liberal fashion) forgets that Mr. Bush's war in Iraq was an illegal war under internantional law, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died from it. I wont even go into the civiilian toll and use of illegal munitions in both theatres of the GWOT. Obama on the other hand, is obviously not a fucking marxist; a spineless capitalist, perhaps.

The corporate media (mainstream press whatever) is not meant to tell the truth, or do investigative reporting; on big matters at least. There are some sources better than others, but overall, its the same spin. Think about it, embedded journalists? Retired Generals as TV hosts? War industry conglomerates (think GE) owning several major markets of media, while also profitting from endless unnecessary wars? No conflict of interest perhaps? Not according to our bourgeois judicial system.Thats what we got. Orwell was wrong on his idea that the state would censor and control media (think his experience in Spain), instead Huxley was more precise, the truth is drowned out in garbage.

PS, love that 'American Capitalist Party' line, nice, hehe.

Comrade Marxist Bro

3rd November 2010, 01:51

Robocommie

3rd November 2010, 01:58

Haha, yeah bro, like, Obama is totaaaally a Keynesian, but it's totally cool bro, I mean, Africa is chilling and shit.

RadioRaheem84

3rd November 2010, 02:24

Oh that Is Obama a Keynesian video was priceless!

Liberals are so smart! So much smarter than those dumb ass right wingers! LOL.

Pretty Flaco

3rd November 2010, 02:52

Is it really so awful to admit that we're all as stupid as the next guy?

B0LSHEVIK

3rd November 2010, 03:07

LOL.

WTF? People are really that stupid? And thats supposed to be the 'intelligentsia' whom so look down on us communists. Hehe, fucking products of the US education system.

Ele'ill

3rd November 2010, 03:08

What needs to happen in a very public manner is for his weak liberal wishywashy nothing stance to be shot down- in person- by some of the top public speakers from the radical community.

I mean the amount of media buzz around this pisshead is making me physically ill- oh good there's a messiah walking the earth that pulls one-liners against everyone- what's his stance? Ok he doesn't have one.

It would be far too easy for his entire bullshit empire he's built to be verbally assasinated in broad daylight in front of millions if he actually had some sort of political stance.

He caters to liberals that feel untouchable by anything. War? they take a stance against it because it's a cultural cool- not because it's unjust. Poverty? They think it's generically 'bad' but would make homeless jokes as if they've seen more of the world than half of the houseless who lay drug addicted or crippled in their own freezing piss.

This fuckwittery has to go-

Ele'ill

3rd November 2010, 03:15

I'll tell you right now what he'd say- again- "I run a comedy show"

Yes, then stop reporting on the news

Criticize fox which is a spectacle injected tabloid for reporting the news then turn around and do it yourself- but with less of a political agenda.

He's a spoiled brat or he's forgotten his roots.

GPDP

3rd November 2010, 03:16

"I don't know what his economic policies are."

Well, at the very least I'll give him credit for knowing that Keynesianism is related to economics.

As for the rest of the schmucks, they need to turn off the Daily Show for a day and pick up a goddamn book.

Robocommie

3rd November 2010, 07:10

It is what he's saying. He's saying that if you engage in angry rhetoric over these outrages, and demand more then half-assed piddling reforms, you are just as bad as those who have fantasies that Obama is a Muslim Communist.

The reason Stewart can be so detached and unmoved by such suffering, and be dead set against any attempt to change such awful realities, is because he belongs to the elite liberal class and reflects their outlook.

I see your point, and I see the truth in what you say. My leftist friends and I have been lambasting this shit for days now. I think the thing is though, I'm not sure to what extent Stewart is consciously supporting liberal hegemony. The language he uses seems to indicate at least to me that he truly believes this is the problem. Just looking around this board now and then is enough to show you how perfectly well-intentioned people can contribute to some really stupid arguments simply by not being aware enough of the discourse and it's implications.

Why, some posters, and I shall not name names, base their entire posting careers on such behavior! :D

ckaihatsu

3rd November 2010, 13:14

Excuse me, I'm not from USA and this sounds all very very confusing.. can anyone explain to me this - how does a comedy show host attract 200,000 + people for a "political" rally?
When comparing it to Europe, I sometimes really think that US is a whole different planet :lol: Is Atlantic Ocean that large? :ohmy:

We have to realize that we're living in a post-2008 world -- no longer a post-2001 world. The rolling bubble has stopped at the nation-state itself and we're in a kind of Twilight Zone right now while the consciousness of the world catches up and figures out what the fuck it wants to do with this project called 'civilization' at this point. Recent events in France, etc., have put some options in the glass case for the world's public to consider, but they're not buying yet. At the same time we saw, crystal clear, that Wall Street has *zero* "leadership" in this kind of situation, because when *their* project hit the fan they had to come crying to the nation-state and to the public to be propped up.

So -- to answer your question -- the world's economy is in massive retrenchment at the same time that there is a world-historic amount of liquidity sloshing around. In this kind of environment even sketches on paper napkins get their own market capitalizations, as long as they're done in pen.

And, as usual, the entire world looks to the U.S. as its own 15-year-old progeny -- "What's the U.S. gonna do? Oooooooo, maybe something cool -- they even invented the word 'cool', didn't they?" In this Twilight Zone setting the political superstructure -- and even much of the underlying economics -- are stripped away to reveal characteristic *social* roles and narratives here, since mass culture as we're used to seeing it is at a standstill. The U.S. is now back to 'New World' status, an excrescence of Europe, and a novelty at most. In capitalist terms it *is* a 15-year-old, having *regressed* in age from its former maturity, and is just kinda *there*, though at the same time still oddly having more of a potential future than the rest of the world's population.

bloodbeard

3rd November 2010, 15:55

It’s the final humiliating undoing of Enlightenment Idealism that made Liberalism possible -- imagine if Jefferson, Diderot, Montesquieu, Madison et al reduced the entire Enlightenment’s struggle against the old feudal order to “I’m against the monarchy because the monarchy’s stupid…but then again, Rousseau makes a fool of himself with his Romanticism, and Tom Paine is so serious with his ‘Rights of Man’, the Revolutionaries are just as crazy as the Monarchists, so rather than join either side and risk opening myself to mockery, I’m just going to stand back and laugh at them allI like this quote, it's spot on. I recently read an article about an evolutionary theory that liberals are smarter, based on the reasoning that being liberal is an evolutionarily novel thing, and displaying evolutionarily novel preferences make you smarter. Of course, the comments left by the liberals, following the article, were all in agreement with it and started getting hard-ons for themselves, patting themselves on the back because they are so much smarter than the conservatives, and how they always knew that, and so on.

Rusty Shackleford

3rd November 2010, 16:07

http://www.pslweb.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14710&news_iv_ctrl=1261

'Sanity' rally an attack on activism
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
By: Jonathan and Radhika Miller
Comedian calls for unity and cooperation
On Oct. 30, popular television comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert hosted on the National Mall their much touted “Rally to Restore Sanity/March to Keep Fear Alive.” The event was a satire of political rallies from the perspective of Stewart’s liberal newscaster persona and Colbert’s parody of a right-wing TV pundit.

The joint event was called in reaction to a very busy year in Washington, D.C., that has seen large demonstrations by both the left and right wings. Stewart wanted a “Rally to Restore Sanity”; Colbert, in his role as foil, immediately answered with the “March to Keep Fear Alive,” which did not exist except as a comedic stunt.

According to the rally website: “Ours is a rally for the people who’ve been too busy to go to rallies, who actually have lives and families and jobs (or are looking for jobs)—not so much the Silent Majority as the Busy Majority. We’re looking for the people who think shouting is annoying, counterproductive, and terrible for your throat; who feel that the loudest voices shouldn’t be the only ones that get heard. …”

Stewart thus threw all political rallies and activism into one category, equating the Tea Party and Glenn Beck with the “One Nation” rally that was spearheaded by labor and civil rights groups.

Unlike most political events, the “Rally to Restore Sanity” was mostly musical acts—featuring the Roots, Sheryl Crow and Kid Rock, Yusuf Islam, Ozzy Osbourne and the O’Jays—punctuated with some short comedic bits by the headliners and a closing address by Stewart.

Party for Socialism and Liberation members distributed flyers and sold newspapers in the crowd, which was estimated at around 150,000 people, a respectable but not overwhelming turnout in comparison to other events on the Mall, especially considering the mainstream media promotion of the event.

Attendees seemed eager to see a show by their television heroes, and echoed the overall sentiment for “sanity” and “fear” with cleverly worded signs, like “What Do We Want? Moderation! When Do We Want It? In a Reasonable Time Frame!” and “Political reality is an oxymoron,” among other even less serious efforts. One woman summed up the entire event when speaking to her child: “It’s not really a political thing. It’s just a big party.”

Unity and cooperation with whom?

Stewart, in his closing remarks, called for “unity” and “cooperation,” likening peoplein the United States to cars stuck in traffic that can only move forward by making concessions to other drivers.

In doing so, he equated the left and the right as equally “insane.” The message was, if it were not for so much “extremism,” we might get things done. It was an echo of the usual ruling-class nonsense about “reaching across the aisle” and not “playing politics.”

There are several problems with this view. It is possible that Stewart’s message is based in a mistaken, though sincere notion that the problems of the United States can in fact be solved through moderation and civil discourse. The question that must be asked is: Who is the “we” to whom Stewart refers? Saying that “we” must all cooperate sounds good and sensible, but it ignores the very real class divisions that exist.

Making fun of the Democrats and Republicans for not cooperating ignores the fact that there is more unity than division between the two capitalist parties who are united in their interest in defending the system. At the same time, calling for unity presupposes that there is a commonality of interest among workers and capitalists and that all we have to do is talk things over calmly and each side give a little and then we will all be happy.

Objectively, the Rally To Restore Sanity was an attempt to laugh away legitimate grievances among progressives and to defuse the growing anger at the failures of the Obama administration to bring about real change by making fun of extreme right-wing elements such as the Tea Party and equating Tea Party extremism with progressive activism.

Stewart’s call was for unity and rational discourse. However, such a call at a time when working people are under relentless, savage attack by the capitalist ruling class can only serve that same ruling class. The capitalists are not interested in unity. They are interested in quelling resistance to their plans. Rationally, they act in their own interests, sometimes by unleashing the forces of racism and fascism, other times through more moderate and democratic methods. Workers cannot unify with such people, nor have a civil discourse about social change with them.

Political change is only possible through struggle. The civil rights movement was not victorious because politicians put partisanship aside—African Americans defeated Jim Crow through decades of deliberate, passionate struggle. Workers only gained minimum wages, benefits and the eight-hour day by mobilizing in the streets, not through hoping capitalist politicians would put their differences aside for the benefit of the country. In each case, the grassroots struggle posed a significant threat to the power of the ruling class and the ruling class compromised—bent a little—in order not to be broken by the power of the masses.

To return to the traffic analogy, well-intentioned workers may be calmly waiting for their opportunity to reach the front of the line, but capitalists in Sherman tanks are rumbling up the shoulder and crashing through the median, paying no mind to anyone else in their attempts to get ahead. If a worker were to assert her right of way and try to block the tank, the capitalist would crush her; if a few workers cooperate, the capitalists will coordinate their tank attacks. All the workers in all their cars, though, can stop the tanks by working together.

Ele'ill

3rd November 2010, 23:16

That article is pretty much what we've been saying here on the forum- we should get a writing team together here on the forum and create a periodical-

B0LSHEVIK

3rd November 2010, 23:59

^ Yea, good article.

I dont see America coming together anytime soon. Not that I want that, I honestly despise a large portion of the country. And to be quite honest, I dont see how people like myself can reach a middle ground with the likes of Palin or Rand Paul; or even Obama for that matter. Im only 25, and I voted for Obama in 08, sincerely believing that he was different from the other Dems. That being said, I didnt expect a social revolution after his election, not at all, but even then he has disappointed me greatly.

John Stewart as the OP article mentions is a clown. He's there for our entertainment. We shouldnt be comparing him to the likes of any political figure, simply because he is not a political figure. It is sad however, that many 'liberals' look to John Stewart as a guide; this stands as a testament of the major failure of socialists like us to organize the country. We are in shambles, disorganized, split (still divided over the tendency wars of 20'-40's), and completely pathetic, at least here in America.

Tomhet

4th November 2010, 00:46

I've no time for Liberal nonsense, in all seriousness..

Ele'ill

4th November 2010, 18:16

John Stewart as the OP article mentions is a clown. He's there for our entertainment. We shouldnt be comparing him to the likes of any political figure, simply because he is not a political figure. It is sad however, that many 'liberals' look to John Stewart as a guide; this stands as a testament of the major failure of socialists like us to organize the country. We are in shambles, disorganized, split (still divided over the tendency wars of 20'-40's), and completely pathetic, at least here in America.

He's using his position as a 'clown' as a defense to his weak and nothing political ideas that he is quite obviously pushing forcefully.

I think that socialists in the states suffer more from the intentionally created barriers put in place by their enemies than by incompetent organizing although incompetent organizing is a close second and of course organizing requires the ability to crush obstacles not be stopped by them.

I'd like to hear more from the leftist community this year on what the next step is- to start from scratch and what the game plan looks like. I often think that leftists in the states are scared to death of failure. We need lots of failures.

We should start movements from the stance that they're an experiment full of good ideas- rather than they're the absolute answer to everything.

RadioRaheem84

4th November 2010, 18:44

There is fear in the States for leftists closeted or not, fear of ridicule, fear of marginalization, fear of the government, fear of failure.

Hit The North

4th November 2010, 19:00

John Stewart as the OP article mentions is a clown. He's there for our entertainment. We shouldnt be comparing him to the likes of any political figure, simply because he is not a political figure.

I agree with this. Stewart is a satirist and is, in fact, doing his job well. Getting tens of thousands out for what is essentially a stunt, is quite impressive. Watching it on the TV here is Britain, it was welcome light relief in the coverage of the mid-terms, where we've been force-fed a steady diet of the irrational rantings of the more charismatic members of the Tea Party. I mean, every time any of these bozos are on the TV, half the world laughs at America and the other half shits its pants. The idea that someone like Christine O'Donnel, a woman who begins a TV ad with the words, "I'm not a witch," can be taken seriously as a political candidate, is both highly amusing and highly worrying.

It is sad however, that many 'liberals' look to John Stewart as a guide; this stands as a testament of the major failure of socialists like us to organize the country. We are in shambles, disorganized, split (still divided over the tendency wars of 20'-40's), and completely pathetic, at least here in America.If the American left is in a shambles it is only because it necessarily reflects the shambles which the American working class is in. Its failure to impose itself as a political force, as a class-for-itself, seems to have been a prevailing tendency in American politics at least since world war two. This is an outsiders view, but levels of class consciousness seem very low in the US. I mean, the fact that many American workers define themselves as 'middle class' says a lot.

Ele'ill

4th November 2010, 19:04

Then you would agree that fox news is doing their job too- albeit considered more of an actual news source.

Hit The North

4th November 2010, 19:15

Yeah, Fox News does its job well.

On the other hand, the BBC here, being less honest, less brash in its opinion, more hidden in the way it skews its news agenda, may be considered to be doing a better job than Fox.

B0LSHEVIK

4th November 2010, 22:36

[QUOTE=Mari3L;1914644]He's using his position as a 'clown' as a defense to his weak and nothing political ideas that he is quite obviously pushing forcefully.QUOTE]

Well first of all, he is an entertainer. You want him to be political, and all he wants to do is make people laugh. I can gurantee you that neither Stewart nor the network care who tunes in to watch, so long as someone tunes in. In other words, Comedy Central/Stewart could care less which political tendencies watch them. They'll get their advertising money all the same.

I dont see him as pushing any 'agenda' of nothing. He isnt revolutionary, duh. I think he actually does a better service of pointing out some of the hypocrisy and stupidness of American politics. Besides this though, you're taking him too seriously.

RadioRaheem84

4th November 2010, 22:40

B0LSHEVIK

4th November 2010, 22:55

I do not buy that for a second. I think that Stewart has gone far beyond the realm of being merely an entertainer and has weaseled himself into the establishment a bit. He wants to hide behind the entertainer card when he is criticized but loves to offer his opinion in order to also steer public opinion. His agenda is one of liberal centrism and he dislikes "extremes" which also happens to include us in the mix.

Taking him to seriously? I think he takes himself too seriously when trying to influence public debate.

Are you guys serious? Everybody loves to offer their own opinion (thats probably why youre here) and everybody hates to be refuted. So you think that Stewart cares if half of his viewers are Republicans or teabaggers? I dont think he gives a flying fuck, like I said, as long as the sponsor money comes in with direct correlation to the ratings, they all could care less. Is he bourgeois? Yep. Thats not the question. But does he steer public debate? Not really.

But again, the argument that he is a negative political influence. I dont see anyone here asking Carrot Top to take a stand on health care. Or asking Connan O'Brien what he feels about the GWOT or bailouts. Nor does Colbert get the same press. He is a comedian, on a major capitalist network If a left winger goofs, he'll make fun of him. If a right wing nut goofs (quite frequently too) he'll get jived. He does simply what is required of him, to make people laugh. All while recognizing the boundaries of his own job. He cant openly declare himself a communist (even if he was), he would probably get fired. That event rally thing, was covered in 'strings.' I see what youre saying, but see what Im saying. Hes a clown who looks out for his job. I really cant blame him.

RadioRaheem84

4th November 2010, 23:05

B0LSHEVIK

4th November 2010, 23:17

Of course there is money, ratings and advertising involved in all of this but Carrot Top and Conan O'Brien do not exclusively rely on politics for their bread and butter and do not try to steer opinion on the matter. Stewart's agenda is everyone calm the fuck down and he includes us in the mix. It's that simple.

Is there a disconnect with what I said and what youre saying? I dont think there is. "Ridicules us in the mix....." is a perfect example. Thats exactly what I just said. Thats his job. And his agenda is more like, in the middle of a large auditorium with hundreds of people shouting over one another, he goes 'everybody shut up, and watch me do some cartwheels.' Attacking him is like blaming the jester in a medieval court for not 'keeping it real.'

On edit:

Oh and have you seen the state of American politics? Theyre something to be made fun of alright.

RadioRaheem84

4th November 2010, 23:34

Oh and have you seen the state of American politics? Theyre something to be made fun of alright.

Yes. It's a big joke.

Fulanito de Tal

5th November 2010, 04:40

Is it a coincidence that Stewart lead this bullshit rally and now CNN is reporting him as the number 1 late-night show? Oh, the plutocracy...

http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/04/daily-show-no-1-late-night-talk-show-among-adults/?hpt=T2