- Aug 12, 2009
- 39,378
- 18,692
- 1,590
The Rachel Maddow/Jon Stewart Interview Revealed Some Things About Jon I Didn't Like.
As I watched the interview a little while ago I shook my head in great disappointment in Jon. How could he get it so wrong? So I turned to one of my friends and had a chat with them and the said the following....
"The failure of Jon Stewart's "Can't We All Just Get Along" argument lies in the fact that we've already BEEN where he's saying we need to go. It didn't work out too well. It didn't work out well because the right wing doesn't WANT to get along. They want to win. They.Want.It.All
We've lived in a world where the so-called left abandoned the broadcast field to the right-wing and all its myriad toxins. That's what the 80's and 90s were, as well as the majority of this decade. It is a fact that for every hour of "liberal" broadcasting, there are ONE THOUSAND hours of right-wing hatecasting in our country.
With no opposition, the right-wing talking points vomited forth daily by the Limbaughs, Savages, Schlesingers et al. ad nauseam became, de facto, the way the nation saw the issues in those decades. Does anyone recall that the incoming '94 Repig freshmen named Limbaugh an honorary member? They didn't do that because he's cute. They did it because he played a major role in shaping and controlling the dialogue and discourse in this country. He was able to do that because there was almost no one (with the exception of Mike Malloy, who has soldiered on through it all; if Stewart heard Malloy he'd probably start having kittens with crocheted tails) opposing them.
So along came "Crossfire," with a pair of democrats giving as good as they got. It was quite popular for awhile. Then Jon Stewart came on, declared them "dicks," "Crossfire" was gone, and liberals were silenced again on cable. Jon Stewart is recycling that schtick again, only this time he's getting some pushback.
There's pushback this time because an itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy few liberals have actually gotten some broadcast time. And they, in their varied ways, are giving as good as we've gotten for decades. In short, they're handing the right-wing what the right-wing's been dishing out with impunity for years and years. Apparently, Jon Stewart doesn't like that.
But again, the problem lies in the fact that Stewart's thesis is just plain wrong. If you take Maddow and Olbermann and Schultz off the air, Fox will not become more benign, more benevolent, less malignant and toxic. They and Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Beck etc. will continue to spew. The ONLY way to combat that is to oppose them on their own ground, in their own medium, and give the American people a choice between competing points of view.
The other side are bullies. It really IS that simple. One NEVER beats a bully by speaking gently to him in soothing, dulcet tones accompanied by a gentle refrain of "Kum-by-yah" in the background. When you do that, the bully punches you in the face, takes your milk money, spits on you and kicks dirt in your face.
I for one, have long been tired of eating right-wing dirt. I do what little I can to be part of the pushback. It's a wonder to me that some people who call themselves "liberal" and "progressive" want to keep eating the dirt. Then again, why should I wonder? When the Children of Israel sought freedom and wound up in the desert, there were plenty who advocated going back to Pharaoh. After all, they reasoned, Pharaoh gave them three hots and a cot.
As I watched the interview a little while ago I shook my head in great disappointment in Jon. How could he get it so wrong? So I turned to one of my friends and had a chat with them and the said the following....
"The failure of Jon Stewart's "Can't We All Just Get Along" argument lies in the fact that we've already BEEN where he's saying we need to go. It didn't work out too well. It didn't work out well because the right wing doesn't WANT to get along. They want to win. They.Want.It.All
We've lived in a world where the so-called left abandoned the broadcast field to the right-wing and all its myriad toxins. That's what the 80's and 90s were, as well as the majority of this decade. It is a fact that for every hour of "liberal" broadcasting, there are ONE THOUSAND hours of right-wing hatecasting in our country.
With no opposition, the right-wing talking points vomited forth daily by the Limbaughs, Savages, Schlesingers et al. ad nauseam became, de facto, the way the nation saw the issues in those decades. Does anyone recall that the incoming '94 Repig freshmen named Limbaugh an honorary member? They didn't do that because he's cute. They did it because he played a major role in shaping and controlling the dialogue and discourse in this country. He was able to do that because there was almost no one (with the exception of Mike Malloy, who has soldiered on through it all; if Stewart heard Malloy he'd probably start having kittens with crocheted tails) opposing them.
So along came "Crossfire," with a pair of democrats giving as good as they got. It was quite popular for awhile. Then Jon Stewart came on, declared them "dicks," "Crossfire" was gone, and liberals were silenced again on cable. Jon Stewart is recycling that schtick again, only this time he's getting some pushback.
There's pushback this time because an itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy few liberals have actually gotten some broadcast time. And they, in their varied ways, are giving as good as we've gotten for decades. In short, they're handing the right-wing what the right-wing's been dishing out with impunity for years and years. Apparently, Jon Stewart doesn't like that.
But again, the problem lies in the fact that Stewart's thesis is just plain wrong. If you take Maddow and Olbermann and Schultz off the air, Fox will not become more benign, more benevolent, less malignant and toxic. They and Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Beck etc. will continue to spew. The ONLY way to combat that is to oppose them on their own ground, in their own medium, and give the American people a choice between competing points of view.
The other side are bullies. It really IS that simple. One NEVER beats a bully by speaking gently to him in soothing, dulcet tones accompanied by a gentle refrain of "Kum-by-yah" in the background. When you do that, the bully punches you in the face, takes your milk money, spits on you and kicks dirt in your face.
I for one, have long been tired of eating right-wing dirt. I do what little I can to be part of the pushback. It's a wonder to me that some people who call themselves "liberal" and "progressive" want to keep eating the dirt. Then again, why should I wonder? When the Children of Israel sought freedom and wound up in the desert, there were plenty who advocated going back to Pharaoh. After all, they reasoned, Pharaoh gave them three hots and a cot.
