I'm usually supportive of Jon Stewart and I like Colbert too, but I want to offer a few thoughts on their rally at the National Mall in Washington, D.C. And then there are those feisty tweets about the rally by none other than Keith Olbermann, to which I'll refer very briefly below.
The runup to the Restore Sanity event was predicated, I think, on the notion that if we could only get the extremists on both sides to pipe down, we could have a civil conversation about matters that are important to individuals and to the country as a whole. That's unavoidable as a justification of Stewart's brand of comedy -- he can't appear to support one political party or movement exclusively. He talks to people as if they were rational adults with the capacity to appreciate the silliness of political posturing and cheap rhetoric. While I don't for one minute credit the notion that an overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens are rational adults -- too many of them seem poised to vote for manifest imbeciles, ignoramuses, bigots, homophobes, and wild-eyed promoters of secession or worse to make that supposition believable -- if one doesn't posit something similar at least as an ideal or goal, we might as well admit that we can't hope to govern ourselves, that the grand experiment of the Founders was pointless. I don't suppose many of us would be pleased to make such an admission. Churchill's witticism about democracy being "the worst form of government except for all the others" still resonates with us.
One brief segment of Stewart's The Daily Show during the runup was instructive -- a series of vignettes in which six people chosen to go on a bus tour to the rally fail to transform themselves for the cameras into the sort of hacks and ogres whose ranting makes for good political fare. (Nice people may go to the theater just as Ian McKellen says, but they don't make for very good theater themselves.) Staged as it was, the series made Stewart's point: whatever the percentages, many people, at least, aren't ultrapolitical goons or raving fanatics; they're willing to treat their fellow citizens like equals and would prefer not to savage or dehumanize them. They have decent manners, want others to like them, and don't care for confrontation or violence. That characterization applies to the people in my own circle, and honestly, I haven't run into any full-on crazies lately (outside my television screen).
Still, if you don't mind a bit of contradictory meandering, another segment of the same show seems equally instructive: the one in which Stewart's editors put together an audio-video montage of all those supposed extreme-talkers on the left and right, neatly equalizing them. The trouble is, they are not anything like equal. That is where I must agree with the audacious KO, Keith Olbermann and his persnickety tweets about the logic underlying Stewart's rally: Olbermann and Company are not the equivalent of the motor-mouths coming at us from the extreme right. Outspoken liberals sometimes exaggerate and make much of little, but the right-wingers fabricate without conscience or remorse; liberals are in general eminently sane and humane, while the rightists are little more than squirming bags of appetite, irrationality, and, at times, even bloodlust. They betray no signs of consistent lucidity.
In this sense, the Great Middle Hypothesis is flawed because it posits that you can calculate a genuinely moderate position between two extant extremes raving at you through your TV box or laptop screen. If you follow this notion, you'll end up doing rhetorical battle with both hands tied behind your back. If you denounce or mock the patent absurdities of the other side, you'll be labeled an extremist, and of course (as KO reminds us) that other side will by no means "tone it down." It will just scream louder and play the bully with ever greater ferocity. Whenever the far right sounds reasonable, it's merely a tactic, sort of like a boxer's feint just before he clobbers you. Fundamentally, these people's worldview is cruel, paranoid, and illogical; for them, reason never is, nor can it be, anything more than a ruse. We forget that at our peril.
So while I like Jon Stewart and appreciate his wit, his persistent calls for middle-America-style "sanity" and moderation seem to me too easily transformed, tamed, or translated into our fabled liberal wishy-washiness in the face of an ill-intentioned opponent. Nice people are petrified of being labeled radicals, while rightists embrace such definitions. They have that over low-talking, reasonable libs. All of this is why I'm careful not to put too much intellectual stock in the rhetoric of civility and moderation, even though I don't want to dismiss it.
But I'm just a predatory dinosaur with huge, jagged teeth. What do I know about civility? What do you think?
Here is what I would like to know...
ReplyDeleteWhere exactly does one go to find the extremes on the left? Is MSNBC representative of that extreme? Exactly how extreme is Keith Olbermann, Ruth Maddox, or Ed Shultz? How exactly extreme to the left are they in comparasion to Glenn Beck? Rush Limbaugh? Or even Sean Hannity and or Bill O'Reilly?
Then you have thousands of armed militia training for the day that they have to take the country back on the right....where are the armed leftists?
You have the prolife folks protesting in front of abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors. Where are the one issue extremists on the left who shoot CEO's who's companies pollute the environment and or process animals cruelly?
All these pro Ayn Rand folks running around with their quotes...where are the Karl Marx quotes from the left?
What extremism that does exist in this country is on the right. What little extremism on the left is nothing more than a bogeyman that isn't real.
But out of politeness and some stupid sense of fairness we always talk about extremism on the right and the left...
Show me the extremism on the left....
The reality is that there is no left wing in this country. There is no anti war movement, no anti capitalism, no anti big business, no labor movement in this country.
The right wing extremism has made the middle, has made sanity their polar opposite...
The extreme right wing sees moderation as their foe....compromise as evil that must be destroyed.
Democracy is compromise....
I understand. I think you said this well. This election has nothing to do with reason.
ReplyDeleteThe term you're looking for is "the fallacy of false equivalence."
ReplyDeleteThis side has rabid, slavering attack dogs who've slipped their collars. That side has cocker spaniels sleeping peacefully inside the house. Therefore, BOTH sides are deploying fanged, four-legged weapons of pedestrian destruction to wreak havoc on the neighborhood!!! (Film at 11)
Nameless...that's it!
ReplyDeleteOf course I also want the 1-800 number for the wild extreme left wing so that I can call them up and join!
Yes, that's the fallacy in question, thanks. It's been incredibly effective for a long time when it comes to shaming liberals into silence and even getting them to adopt positions that dishonor their core values. I'm with the "outspeakers" on this one -- denounce, mock, humiliate, and outmaneuver the cynical bastards, don't compromise with them on their terms.
ReplyDeleteI find mindless extremism repugnant whether it be from the left or the right. It appears that the right is the poster group for mindless extremism but I may be a bit biased. I think that civility is important because it goes hand in hand with reasonableness. That doesn't mean not speaking up assertively but it does mean not engaging in the passing of insults and name calling.
ReplyDeleteI've always found that when I speak in anger, I rarely make as much sense as I think that I do at the moment. I'm a far more dangerous opponent when I maintain a level of control over my emotional state. I'm not concerned with being perceived as a radical; my only concern is with walking away from the debate satisfied that I have made a far more well reasoned argument. Besides, nothing annoys some foaming at the mouth right wing nut job than being met with reason.
Being civil doesn't mean being a doormat; it means being savvy in the art of dispute.
Oh, you're just a dino after my own heart! My thoughts exactly (minus some choice words, which are not in the mild-mannered Dino's vocabulary, as we well know).
ReplyDeleteWe're talking a false equivalency to boot if we compare KO to rabid right-wingers.
I adore Stewart, I do. He is one of the smartest and funniest people on teevee, but, let's face it, he is a safe centrist with an occasional veer to the nearby left. His call for civility was high-minded and much needed in light of the extremism arising with an alarming speed on the right. But there is no similar extremism from the left to even seriously consider talking about (and no, contrary to the wingers' delusions, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are not left-wing extremists).
Stewart's call for civility from "both sides" is similar to advising a couple, where one partner is abusive toward the other, to just get along and be nice. It glosses over the issue of abuse and the power differential in the relationship, effectively silencing the victim and further legitimizing the abuse. Because what chances are there that the perpetual abuser will heed the call to play nice? On the other hand, the victim feels shamed for bringing up the abuse and objecting to it; furthermore, s/he feels responsible for it -- if s/he only tried harder to be good and nice, the abuse would not happen.
Not so.
While comparing liberals in the US to victims of domestic abuse may seem too extreme (yes, the internal censorship kicks in again), it really is not when we consider how outmatched, overpowered and de-legitimized liberals are in this country. Not unlike the abuse victims.
However, change does not come about through being nice and asking pretty please, since those in power hardly ever* feel benevolent enough to share it with others.
So even though Stewart's rally and its message of civility were "cathartic," as one commenter on HuffPo said, it is time now to return to our previously scheduled agitating. Bring it on, KO.
*An understatement.
Chris Hedges nails it:
ReplyDelete"The American left is a phantom. It is conjured up by the right wing to tag Barack Obama as a socialist and used by the liberal class to justify its complacency and lethargy. It diverts attention from corporate power. It perpetuates the myth of a democratic system that is influenced by the votes of citizens, political platforms and the work of legislators. It keeps the world neatly divided into a left and a right.
The phantom left functions as a convenient scapegoat. The right wing blames it for moral degeneration and fiscal chaos. The liberal class uses it to call for “moderation.” And while we waste our time talking nonsense, the engines of corporate power—masked, ruthless and unexamined—happily devour the state.
The loss of a radical left in American politics has been catastrophic. The left once harbored militant anarchist and communist labor unions, an independent, alternative press, social movements and politicians not tethered to corporate benefactors. But its disappearance, the result of long witch hunts for communists, post-industrialization and the silencing of those who did not sign on for the utopian vision of globalization, means that there is no counterforce to halt our slide into corporate neofeudalism. This harsh reality, however, is not palatable. So the corporations that control mass communications conjure up the phantom of a left. They blame the phantom for our debacle. And they get us to speak in absurdities.
The phantom left took a central role on the mall this weekend in Washington. It had performed admirably for Glenn Beck, who used it in his own rally as a lightning rod to instill anger and fear. And the phantom left proved equally useful for the comics Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, who spoke to the crowd wearing red-white-and-blue costumes. The two comics evoked the phantom left, as the liberal class always does, in defense of moderation, which might better be described as apathy. If the right wing is crazy and if the left wing is crazy, the argument goes, then we moderates will be reasonable. We will be nice. Exxon and Goldman Sachs, along with predatory banks and the arms industry, may be ripping the guts out of the country, our rights—including habeas corpus—may have been revoked, but don’t get mad. Don’t be shrill. Don’t be like the crazies on the left."
There is more.
The right lies, engages in name calling,distorts the truth and otherwise perverts reality. Doing the same only makes the left as lunatic as the right, leaving people to choose from two lunatic factions, not really much of a choice at all. I have a Facebook friend who drives me nuts because he is constantly shouting about the need to inflict destruction on the Tea Party, except he uses that vulgar name popularly ascribed to the TP by some. I find his behavior childish and his attack mode ineffective. The best revenge for a wrong done unto you is getting even, not out shouting the other side.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the left's ineffectiveness is because we're too civil, I think it's because we're far too disorganized. We want everything and we want it now. I was appalled to read another FB friend's complaint that he didn't think that he should have to call or write his congressional representatives in order to get legislation passed that he supports. He appears to think that voting is the only action that a concerned citizen needs to take. I believe that if you've never contacted your elected officials, never worked a phone bank, never handed out campaign literature or knocked on doors, then you haven't really done very much except complain.
I don't believe in shying away from a fight; I believe in winning. The right is full of a lot of noise but even if they win this battle, they haven't won the war. I say this with love for my fellow liberals, but for heaven's sakes we need to grow a backbone and stop whining about how mean the right is and worrying about how to respond to their attacks. Instead of playing defense we need to play offense, write our own agenda and stick to it. A trick that I learned when I was teaching was to speak quietly because it forces people to have to shut up in order to hear what you're saying. I use it to great effect in a courtroom. It's an advantage to mislead opposing counsel to believe that you are indeed the "honey" that he addressed you as when you were riding to the courtroom in the elevator. I always like to smile when I deliver the kill shot. "Revenge is a dish best served cold."
TAO:
ReplyDeleteThe reality is that there is no left wing in this country. There is no anti war movement, no anti capitalism, no anti big business, no labor movement in this country.
Spot on.
Nameless:
That side has cocker spaniels sleeping peacefully inside the house.
Ha! Don't let those floppy ears, adorable snouts, and soft goofy paws fool you. The spaniel beasts are among the most ferocious in nature. Beware of their awesome power.
Sheria, good points. I have to admit to being uncertain where the line is (if there is one) between calls for civility and pressure for conformity and complacency.
Yes, I agree that calm and well-reasoned argument is a preferred mode of action, yet I'm afraid that there are situations when it's not enough. It seems to me that any major victory for "the people" (women's right to vote, civil and workers' rights, etc.) was hard won through a stubborn and disobedient, certainly un-civil at times, struggle with the powers-that-be.
I guess what confuses me is, well, Jon Stewart -- or more accurately, his (what I see as, in my confusion perhaps) conflation of civility of discourse with ideological lukewarm-ness.
I was moved by his closing speech and the zipper traffic (if that's what it's called) analogy, but as somebody somewhere pointed out, that "I go, you go, I go, you go" path would be woefully ineffective during, for example, the Civil Rights movement.
The problem with that analogy, and Stewart's reasoning in this case, is that it assumes that Americans, like cars stuck in traffic, are moving -- and want to move -- in the same direction.
It is clearly not so.
In our political reality, "I go" would mean, for example, keeping separation of church and state in place, while "You go" would abolish it. "I go" would mean giving women the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, while "You go" would imprison those who dared to assert that privilege. Et cetera.
The civility and polite taking turns that Stewart advocates are kind of nice (and I mean it), but often, if not always, an illusion, sometimes a dangerous one, in the real world of politics. Because if "You go" on the next turn, it may actually mean that I and my rights (and yours, too) will be obliterated.
Elizabeth, I think that we agree. The confusion lies in how one defines civility. I don't think that it means complacency. I think Dr. King, for example, always behaved with great civility, but he certainly wasn't complacent. When I speak of civility, I mean reasonableness. Name calling and lies are never reasonable and I don't see any logic in adopting those tactics although the right seems to employ them at will.
ReplyDeleteCivil disobedience, the model of Ghandi and King, is not submissiveness or fearfulness of disagreement. The "you go" and "I go" discussion structure is for debate but it doesn't mean that you ever surrender the principles and ethics that are non-negotiable. Dr. King certainly employed efforts at dialogue with some success but he never capitulated on his core values.
I think that the civil rights movement is a good model. The consistent use of nonviolent resistance was a powerful statement, meeting violence with steadfast but nonviolent resistance focused the eyes of the world on the civil rights movement and garnered the support of the world as well. The overwhelming characteristic of the civil rights movement was determined reasonable argument. It was a monumental revolution of ideology but not a war.
In spite of the angry hate spewed forth by some Americans, I haven't despaired that the majority of us can move forward and find common ground. I grew up in an American that told me on a daily basis that I and all of those who were my people, were stupid, worthless, ugly, lazy, and inferior. I grew up in an era in which most doors were closed to me, where my people were strung up from trees, and a 14 year old boy was beaten to death by grown men for being too familiar with a white woman. A few Tea Party crazies don't scare me. Neither do I believe that they can or will take over America. While I don't believe that racism is a thing of the past, the racism of today is like a walk in the park compared to that of 40 years ago.
In spite of myself, I still have an optimism that most of us can learn to communicate with each other and find enough common ground to go forward. Perhaps it's because there is no real alternative. What do we do if we don't communicate, if we don't engage in civil dialog? Do we try to destroy the opposition? How do we do that? I know that there are some wackos on the right who are all too eager to exercise their 2nd amendment rights to not only bear arms but to shoot them. If those of us with a bit of sanity don't work on civil discourse, then we leave ourselves with that most uncivil of alternatives--violence.
There are a lot of crazies on the right but there are also people who are conservatives who don't foam at the mouth and who are capable of having a civil conversation. I think the significant attendance at the sanity rally is an indicator that there are a lot of people who just want to get on with the business of living in this country.
Elizabeth,
ReplyDeleteThe dinos are definitely down with Elizabeth, too -- thanks for the Chris Hedges piece; it's "spot on." I think the spousal abuse comparison is very good -- the most likely scenario is that the abuser gets angry over the exposure and becomes even more abusive. To a bully, everything is an occasion to continue being a bully. That's the Buddha nature of bullies, ness paw?
Tao,
Yes indeed -- Ubi sunt? Joltin' left-wing Joe has left and gone away....
Sheria,
I think we pretty much agree here and all of us (choice words aside) are probably decent even to those we don't like. Your MLK Jr. mention is apt since he always managed to be both civil and productively confrontational at the same time (though it probably didn't hurt that Malcolm X was making his own, very different, blunt declarations -- I view the two men as part of a dialectic), but I also think that when you employ phrases like "mindless extremism," "name-calling" and so forth, you may be invoking the same phantom extreme left as Stewart and Colbert.
There just aren't any mindless left-wing radical extremists in America. (We're no fun at all anymore, are we!) There are plenty of mindless right-wing radical extremists, as evidenced by their frequent allusions to violence and their sandbox bully insistence that they need to "take back" the country FROM THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE.
When someone flat-out tells you that he wants to disregard the Constitution and replace it with his own religious principles, calling that person an authoritarian and a religious fanatic isn't equivalent to, say, certain right-wingers calling Barack Obama a Kenyan Muslim Socialist Promoter of Death-Panels. The latter is a phantasm fueled by paranoia and race-hate; the former is the simple, descriptive truth. That is all I mean -- not childish name-calling for the sake of name-calling.
It is seldom abusive to tell the truth, and it is seldom abusive or wrong to eviscerate a liar, hypocrite, or fanatic in round unvarnished terms. I like to quote Blake: "Always be willing to speak your mind, and a base man will avoid you." Okay, maybe that doesn't work so well on the Internets, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it.
One part of civil discourse is the perhaps cruel but necessary function of ruling some people out of order on the basis of the immaturity and ignorance of their statements. If you can't shut them up, you won't be able to have a rational discussion about anything. Let's recall for a moment the "debate" over healthcare access reform a while back. Democrats appeared to embrace the concerns of a gaggle of (partly astroturf-fueled) psychotics at town hall gatherings. That didn't work out so well, and very nearly derailed the whole process. Many Republicans, of course, were delighted with that state of affairs -- doubtless the crazies and shouters were doing the Lord's work, in their view.
By the way, I don't think "teabaggers" is necessarily obscene or vulgar (I know it's gay slang for a certain sex act; but then, it seems as if just about everything is some kind of slang for a sex act these days, so....) I think of our dear brothers and sisters the silly-wingers as wearing Minnie Pearl straw hats with some teabags hanging off the side. As seen on TV. Which makes them kind of cute, really.... I mean, until they vote. Voting is not so adorable, at least when they do it.
Sheria, thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, I do think we agree, though... I'm not quite sure yet.
ReplyDeleteThe call for civility has to be understood in a larger context of values, I think (and I suspect you won't disagree). One can entirely civilly and with the straightest of faces advocate, say, extermination of Jews. In fact, it's been done in the past.
Civility in the service of evil is not a virtue, but a vice, and should be seen as such. Conversely, lack of civility when associated with a noble impulse and cause, cannot be seen (in my eyes) as wrong, although it may, at times, be counterproductive (which is what you are saying, if I don't misunderstand you).
Dino:
There just aren't any mindless left-wing radical extremists in America.
Sad, isn't it. I've been trying my best, here and there, to revive this non-existing tradition, but with little success so far.
"Always be willing to speak your mind, and a base man will avoid you." Okay, maybe that doesn't work so well on the Internets, but it's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Thanks for the laugh of the day. Poor Blake, little he knew what the Internets would do to those willing to speak their minds. Base men are attracted to truth-tellers like bees to nectar (other insect analogies are equally or more appropriate).
On that subject, see the Daily Show's Look Who's Stalking segment -- hilarious and involving gay-slang-for-sex-acts attempts!
Elizabeth, thank you for an opportunity to organize my thoughts on this topic. I sometimes forget the limitations of words. When I use the term civility, I equate it with reasonableness; advocating for the murder of millions based on ethnicity is not reasonable; therefore no matter how polite the discourse proposing this atrocity it is far from civil behavior.
ReplyDeleteDino, I agree that the public discourse from the left has not been characterized by the extremism of some members of the right. However, I do personally know some lefties who are as volatile as a molotov cocktail and about as useful. I don't think that there is a reasonableness gene that is inherent to all liberals. My general statement was that I find extremism repugnant and I do. BTW, I don't consider Malcolm to have been extreme; he simply spoke truth in more direct terms than some appreciated.
Reasonableness is speaking with truth and integrity, and that makes the discourse a model of civility. I have no problem with a rigorous and heated debate but I think that meeting uncivil behavior with uncivil behavior merely makes for a fight, not a debate, and nothing is gained except more anger. There are some from whom I advocate walking away because any efforts at persuasion are like trying to teach a pig to sing.
I do believe that there are times when civility and reasonableness are no longer an option. I ascribe fully to Dr. King's assertion, "A man who won't die for something is not fit to live."
If today ends as the pundits predict with a major Republican victory, what's next? Do we become the party of no? Do we condemn our neighbors as the enemy? How do we go forward if our entire focus is on the extremist elements and our rejection of that extremism? I don't like or believe in the Tea Party platform; however, they aren't going to magically disappear. So how do we effectively neutralize them? I don't have an answer, but the first step is finding some areas of dialog with those who aren't bat shit crazy. When you totally demonize the opposition, there is no possibility of resolution.
Sheria, truer words were never spoken. I agree with you about Malcolm X too – I used to teach his writings at my alma mater years ago, and found him cogent as well as forthright. "The Ballot or the Bullet" is a fine example of his style and thinking.
ReplyDeleteMaybe one big task for Democrats and their representatives after today, especially if the outcome isn't good, is to import some basic historical consciousness into the discussion of issues and initiatives -- this is something that's sadly lacking in modern American politics, and it's one reason so many people get sucked into voting Republican in the first place. It's sometimes hard for people to see a bad idea for what it is when they don't know it's been tried repeatedly with no success.
It's sometimes hard for people to see a bad idea for what it is when they don't know it's been tried repeatedly with no success.
ReplyDeleteDino, I just had a conversation with my sister on this topic. I confess that I'm feeling a bit cynical and my take on it was that maybe we should allow the Republicans to incorporate all that they promise--less government, deregulation of everything, slashing of social programs, maintain tax breaks for the wealthy, and the building of idols to the God of Capitalism. I'd like to see how that works out.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteThe Republicans would deregulate deregulation itself, if they could figure out how to do that. But seriously, sure, I suppose it's true that sad experience is the only teacher for people who won't read the instruction manual, so to speak.
Conservatives are classic overreachers -- they will not be able to restrain themselves from advocating foolish policies for five minutes, let alone two years. And they will most likely lose -- and deserve to lose -- a great deal of public support quickly.
Sheria, I too was thinking the same thing. Perhaps a full-blown Republican rule is what our fellow citizens need to finally open their eyes.
ReplyDeleteAs I drove from my effing (thank you, Nameless Cynic ;) polling place today, I listened to interviews with voters on that commie radio network, NPR. The interviewees were all enthused about voting for Republicans.
One young woman, a Jennifer from Indiana, said that she's been unemployed for several months now and has no health insurance -- and that's why she was going to vote for Republicans. In 2008, she voted Democratic, but she laughs at herself now for doing so. She's firmly convinced that Republicans are the ticket to her future prosperity.
And I thought, my dear, be careful what you wish for (actually, I thought something along these lines, but less civil and unrepeatable in polite company).
But if that's what Americans want, that's what Americans get and there is no arguing with them.
I will never cease to be amazed by the fact that the citizens of the most advanced country on Earth are repeatedly convinced to vote against their interests. After 23 years of living in the US, I understand it less with each passing year -- but I appreciate all the more the power of propaganda that keeps this phenomenon so firmly entrenched in the US political life.
Dino, I hope you are right. One likely scenario is Boehner & GOP Co. doing a lot of political posturing, knowing well that it would be without real policy consequences (e.g., repeal HCR, slash government programs, etc.) since their ideas won't pass the Senate or get Obama's signature.
But in the process they will create an image of the GOP as the party of fiscal responsibility and All That's Good and Decent, as opposed to the nasty, wasteful Dems, and this will benefit them in 2012. We'll see.
On a related note, so far Sharron Angle in Nevada is in the lead, although there is still a long way to go to count all the votes. Angle beating Reid? It's stunning.
In my neck of the woods, chances are that the lying warmonger Mark Kirk will win Obama's senate seat. Mark Kirk, who in 2003 personally vouched, with all his "moral certitude," that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons pointed at the US and ready to fire. And this is frekkin' Illinois, which has been blue for ages (it seems)...