Patterico's Pontifications

2/12/2015

Lefties Fear Jon Stewart Exit Will Mean Republicans Will Now Go Undestroyed

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:54 am



Google “Jon Stewart destroys” and you’ll get a sense of the depth of their despair. Will such “destruction” never happen again????

By the way, Jamelle Bouie, who I usually think of as a clown, has a reasonably thoughtful piece about Stewart in Slate. It addresses Stewart’s departure entirely from the leftist perspective, and gives far too much credit to Stewart for his attack on Crossfire and Tucker Carlson. But I like the way that Bouie discounts Stewart’s cynicism and “I’m just a comedian” shtick:

Jon Stewart, with his brand of left-leaning cynicism (sprinkled with occasional earnestness), is a bad example for the liberals who watch and love him.

The emblematic Stewart posture isn’t a joke or a witticism, it’s a sneer—or if we’re feeling kind, a gentle barb—coupled with a protest: I’m just a comedian.

. . . .

He’s influential. And for a generation of young liberals, his chief influence has been to make outrage, cynicism, and condescension the language of the left. As a comedian and talk show host, Jon Stewart has been pretty funny. But as a pundit and player in our politics, he’s been a problem. And while I wish him luck in his next move, I’m glad he’s stepping from the stage.

I have zero respect for Stewart as a political thinker (but some respect for his comic ability). As you know, the second he is actually put on the spot, he dodges with the “I’m just a comedian” bit (clown nose on) — while most of the time acting as if his political opinions are well-thought out and important (clown nose off). If you point out that, for example, when he had John Kerry on, he puckered up and kissed Kerry’s ass with the clinging tenacity of a remora — well, he dodges the criticism with the whole “we’re on Comedy Central” thing. So I always see the clown nose on Jon Stewart, because I know that if anyone ever calls him on the carpet, he’ll pop that sucker on instantly — and that means we should take him at his word when he claims that he is “just a comedian.”

To his young audience, he appeared to be far smarter than he actually is, because quick wit and comedic ability are often seen in our culture as indicative of intelligence — more so than boring stuff like reading books, learning about our history and political system, and thinking deeply about issues of power, corruption, and tyranny.

Stewart’s goal clearly was to be taken seriously — and he was, by people too ignorant to know better. And to the extent he was taken seriously, he made sneers based on unexamined conventional wisdom the hip norm in youthful political culture.

I’m pleased and a bit surprised to see Bouie making a similar point, and good on him for it.

64 Responses to “Lefties Fear Jon Stewart Exit Will Mean Republicans Will Now Go Undestroyed”

  1. i used to have contempt for him then he passed the sell by date even for that

    he’s like Nancy Grace

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  2. He had one joke, and it became an irritating sneer. When W left office, Stewart lost all his material.

    Patricia (5fc097)

  3. Greetings:

    Marquette used to have a basketball coach by the name of Al Maquire. After winning an NCAA Championship, he went on to do commentary on basketball game broadcasts. During one such game one of his co-workers brought up the fact that he had also taught history in college and asked how he managed that. It was easy was his reply, you just stay six pages ahead of the class.

    11B40 (844d04)

  4. he appeared to be far smarter than he actually is,

    What he appeared to be, was far more informed than he actually is – and he could only appear that way to people who weren’t informed.

    Sammy Finkelman (e806a6)

  5. I think Stweart is just the latest embodiment of a trend that has been going on in comedy for some time now, of the smug comedian whose humor is based upon the idea that he is so much smarter and cooler than the people he is lampooning. David Letterman was in many ways the grandfather of this type of attitude. Somewhere along the way comedy went from being humorous observations about daily life to an Alinskyan strategy of choosing a particular target and destroying it. Rush Limbaugh is an observer of the political scene, but at heart he is a comedian too so I always like to tell my Stewart-worshiping friends that their hero is merely the left’s version of Rush. You should see how that gets their panties in a wad.

    JVW (854318)

  6. Did you see the Daily show episode with John McCain where John Stewert tried asking some very hard questions about the lead up to the Iraq war? I don’t remember the question but clearly remember McCain telling him “That’s a hard question John and there’s a good answer, but I don’t know if I can get into it in 5 minutes on a comedy show.”
    I can think of a couple times I saw him on Bill O’Riely being completely serious. I also remember a show where he had a serious debate on the ACA with someone whose name escapes me. I didn’t listen to much of it because I don’t tune into the Daily show for detailed policy debates, I want light comedy about current events.
    But do you really think ANY of the talking head short format interviews do a ‘good’ job of digging into an issue?

    time123@gmail.com (5250bd)

  7. That’s an astute and helpful comparison, JVW.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  8. Agreed, re: JVW’s observation.

    But Stewart didn’t run out of material after Bush left office. He had Fox News – an endless supply of material for any comedian, intelligent or not.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  9. His act is totally dependent on the reaction of his live audience. Without it, he’s got nothing.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  10. Democrats: OK, just because Stewart is going away doesn’t mean we need to panic.

    Vox: That’s right–we’ll take over from here with our usual effectiveness and competence!

    Democrats: OK, now we panic.

    M. Scott Eiland (725705)

  11. When I grew up in the 50’s and 60’s, it was the common belief that the smug, judgmental people were the uptight, conservatives, you know the so called Church Ladies. The left tells us how evil conservatives are with the same amount of malevolent piety as the SNL Church Lady.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  12. “there are times when this basic perspective is vital, when we need someone to bathe our government in light and mockery and challenge the dishonesty, incompetence, and self-seriousness of our leaders and elites. But this approach, which worked wonders during the Bush administration, isn’t always the best one. For liberals in particular, the idea that government is only hypocrisy and dysfunction is self-defeating and nihilistic.

    – Jamelle Bouie

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if Jamelle Bouie’s main gripe with Jon Stewart was that he spent six of his fifteen years criticizing the many, many failings and hypocrisies of Barack Obama? A sneer worked wonders when Bush was in charge, but became “self-defeating and nihilistic” once it was time to toe the party line? F*ck that.

    An attitude like that would say a lot about Jamelle Bouie – and a lot about Jon Stewart, who might deserve a little more credit at that point. If a sneer was what Bush deserved, it was at least what Obama deserves.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  13. A Canticle for Leibowitz?

    nk (dbc370)

  14. Give me a couple million a year, I can give the camera an incredulous stare while the 20-something year-old idiots in the audience laugh.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  15. Stewart has much more influence with the MSM and the Beltway than he does with what for all intents and purposes is a nearly imaginary audience. If you think Rachel Maddow is “influential” then you’ll believe the same of Jon Stewart.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  16. A true comedian would go after just about everyone and everything.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  17. #9… right on, M. Scott!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  18. #7… Teh young whelp reveals his biased nature. Of all the inept, highly biased reporting and news coverage, he singles out not CNN, not PBS, not MSNBC, not CBS/NBC/ABC, but Fox News.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  19. “To his young audience, he appeared to be far smarter than he actually is, because ….”

    Because he had a staff of joke writers scripting his gags and choosing his guests and setting up all his antics.

    Take those away and he’d have been another Keenen Ivory Wayans or Alan Thicke.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  20. Got tired of carrying water for the antisemites I figure. About time Stew. Fifteen years is a little slow in taking your leave.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  21. “Of all the inept, highly biased reporting and news coverage, he singles out not CNN, not PBS, not MSNBC, not CBS/NBC/ABC, but Fox News.”

    – Colonel Haiku

    Sorry I didn’t list them all. Go google “Jon Stewart skewers CNN” and then continue to whine that Jon Stewart singled out Fox for unfair treatment.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  22. Stewart had to have knee pads on to get that job. He is not funny.
    I have seen my share of comedians and Rickles,Winters and Hackett made my sides hurt the most.

    mg (31009b)

  23. I’m not talking about Stewie’s biases, Leviticus… I’m mentioning yours.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  24. Jon Stewart skewers CNN – Bing search

    Wow. The thing that jumps out for me is “7 results”.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  25. Seven critical peices on CNN out of 15 years on the air.

    Is that less or more than once in a blue moon?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  26. this Stewart interview of Doris Kearns Goodwin is what comes up if you Google “Jon Stewart skewers CBS.” It’s not much of a skewer but it’s certainly revealing about what liberals think journalism is about. They agree that the media doesn’t stand up for people because they don’t have agendas like the progressive muckrakers of the early 1900’s.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  27. CNN is more at risk of being hit by lightning than being criticized by Jon Stewart

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  28. CNN is more at risk of being eaten by a shark than being critisized by Jon Stewart.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  29. CNN is more likely to hit the powerball jackpot than …. Well, you get the hint.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  30. “But Bush didn’t run out of material after Bush left office. He had Fox News – an endless supply of material for any comedian, intelligent or not.”

    – Leviticus

    Just so’s we’re clear about your bias, Leviticus.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  31. one summer i watched DOOL I think but except for that I’ve never had a show I watched every day

    i know people used to do that sort of thing but i don’t know who lives that way anymore

    i guess you have to really really enjoy watching fox news get the DESTROYED on they heads

    you have to have a real zest for it that maybe some other people lack

    like you go ooh yeah ooh yeah drop da hamma jon drop da hamma and then clap with glee when he do the DESTROY part

    but not everyone’s like that

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  32. Take those away and he’d have been another Keenen Ivory Wayans or Alan Thicke.

    Woah now, Beldar — Alan Thicke is a writer, actor, producer, and composer. He’s frankly a whole lot more talented that even Jon Stewart’s most fervent fans imagine their idol to be. I saw Thicke open for Melissa Manchester at the old Desert Inn in Las Vegas 22 years ago. He’s charming, witty, and a surprisingly good singer and dancer.

    And it wouldn’t surprise me if Thicke makes more money in any given year from his TV residuals than Stewart does from hosting The Daily Show.

    JVW (854318)

  33. DRJ (e80d46) — 2/12/2015 @ 11:53 am

    Jon Stewart and Doris Kearns Goodwin: two media darlings who are entirely dependent upon an army of writers and researchers to do their heavy lifting.

    JVW (854318)

  34. Average age of Stewart’s tee vee audience was 41 per a guy writing in the WSJ today who himself was a millenial.

    lyle (925e0e)

  35. Jamelle fancies herself as a more thoughtful hyper-partisan ideologue than Stewart. She was only correct, accidentally.

    JD (d550e2)

  36. “Jamelle fancies herself as a more thoughtful hyper-partisan ideologue than Stewart. She was only correct, accidentally.”

    – JD

    Jamelle is a him, but I agree – that’s what I was saying earlier.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  37. CNN is more at risk of traveling to West Africa, contracting ebola, bringing it back to the United States, breaking quarantine, thus earning a rebuke, then actually getting a rebuke from Jon Stewart.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  38. Two thoughts: I remember way back liking the Daily Show when Craig Kilborn was helming it. He may have been just as partisan as Stewart, but he never came across to me as a smug, mugging hack.

    And Jon Stewart is very smart, depending of course, on how you define it. And clever. To have as huge, lucrative and influential career as he’s has had, with his very narrow view, limited depth and wit takes some synapses firing correctly and in the right order somewhere. Sparky, sparky boom chicka pop!

    Johnny Mustard (e2a87c)

  39. because quick wit and comedic ability

    Except that 90% of that “quick wit” was pre-scripted
    Still wit, and much of it even his as the be-all end-all of the writings staff, but still….

    Decidely more the “appearance of quick” than a (dare I be so NPC to say it) Speedy Gonzalez of the intellectual crowd…

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  40. But Stewart didn’t run out of material after Bush left office.

    Just because The Left won’t laugh when the Clown-in-power bumbles (as this one does just as often as his predecessor) doesn’t mean there’s no more material. You aren’t lacking material if your audience truly is humorless lackwits. You just got a bad audience.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  41. I think Stweart is just the latest embodiment of a trend that has been going on in comedy for some time now,

    Correct and Leviticus shows some of it. The left thinks they are mentioning things that all their interlocutors agree with. (Sorry about the big word, Levit). Some don’t know what they mean but are intimidated into keeping quiet.

    It is all an inside joke to a bunch of dummies who think they are bright. That’s why they don’t want debate. OMG ! They might lose to a “tea bagger !”

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  42. It is all an inside joke to a bunch of dummies who think they are bright.

    Quite a few liberals believe their innate biases — and those who share them — reflect great intelligence. But the basic retort to that is noting communities like Detroit or Ferguson, Missouri, or urban dystopias throughout the US in general are perhaps up to 90-plus percent liberal or leftwing. By contrast, I wouldn’t be surprised if even hotbeds of Tea-Party membership or so-called redneck-trailer-park residents are well under 90-plus percent rightwing or conservative—and at least don’t exemplify interminably pathetic environments like Michigan’s largest city.

    Oh, and the ruthless, even vicious type of behavior that is on display on a regular basis in urban areas full of liberal, pro-Democrat-Party sentiment counters the assumption that left-leaning sentiment somehow makes people nicer, more compassionate, more humane.

    0 and 2.

    Mark (c160ec)

  43. I enjoyed Kevin Williamson’s take regarding Stewart and his departure from his Commedy Central show.

    DRJ, I read the Doris Kearns Goodwin book she was promoting on Stewart’s show in your link above (#25), “The Bully Pulpit.” I found it a fascinating read for two very different reasons, one flattering to Goodwin and the other diagnostic but unflattering.

    The good: I credit the book for better informing me about a President about whom I’d previously known only broad details, William Howard Taft — and in particular, information about his relationship with his friend and political patron TR — that I hadn’t read or heard elsewhere. But Goodwin has absolutely convinced herself, and tries to convince the reader, that TR was a “progressive” in the very same sense that word is used these days on MSNBC. And that’s nuts.

    The diagnostic and unflattering: Goodwin’s book tries to both juxtapose and correlate the progressivism of TR and Taft with the muck-raking of a handful of prominent elite liberal journalists. She spends roughly half the book on a misty-eyed love-note to those folks in which she attributes to them national influence even greater than TR’s or Taft’s. This despite combined magazine circulation totals for these writers which measured in the hundredth of one percent of the American public. Goodwin absolutely believes that she and the other cool kids have the only opinions that count, and that the whole rest of the world is waiting breathlessly for their guidance. It’s the most egotistical rot I’ve ever read.

    I think, alas, that Stewart has had a far greater influence upon the Millennials than the muck-rakers ever had on America in the early 20th Century — and that it’s been far more pernicious.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  44. Jon Stewart never laid a glove on John Yoo

    steveg (794291)

  45. Jon Stewart had John Yoo on and the left wanted red meat and maybe a frog march off to prison… but instead Jon Stewart never laid the touch of a glove on John Yoo

    steveg (794291)

  46. Huh
    Why did the site tell me I’d already said that… hmm… Koch Brothers !!!!!!

    steveg (794291)

  47. Good analysis, Beldar. Their discussion was interesting, especially (to me) their agreement that journalists should have a progressive agenda.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  48. Based on solely anecdotal evidence I would say that Jon Stewart has had as much influence as any other commercial. The ladies I know really don’t waste their time on late-night Comedy Central. He’s pretty much a 1-percenter thing.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  49. Warren/Stewart 2016 will have a Candy Crowley at every turn.

    mg (31009b)

  50. “It is all an inside joke to a bunch of dummies who think they are bright. That’s why they don’t want debate. OMG ! They might lose to a “tea bagger !””

    – Mike K

    You comment on a website that it 99 percent conservative. I comment on the same website, and have for years. Are you conservative? I’m not. So who’s afraid of debate, again?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  51. candy crowley is certainly very wary of what might happen if you let debates go unimpeded

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  52. Michael Moore. The President. Science advisor and chief sorceror John Holdren. Protector of the secret thermocorrections Gavin Schmidt. Dingy Harry. Is it all of the Democrats in congress skipping out on Bibi? How ever many of those guys. Count the empty chairs.
    Anyone who at any time has used the phrase “The debate is over” starting with the identity theif Peter Gleick, and working your way around the auditorium, the entire American Geophysical Union membership. Even the ones who skipped on paying their dues.
    Michael Mann, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Jerry Brown, Jim Hansen, Bill Nye the science guy,
    Oh and Fat Albert Gore.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  53. More esoterically every one of those pinko faggots at the Huffington Post. It the Democratic Underground still a thing? Those guys really hated them some backtalk.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  54. the lawyers guns and money people are very intolerant of debate even if you offer to hug it out after

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  55. Is the Democrat Underground….

    It’s easier to name the Democrat who don’t mind an argument.
    Duncan Black, or Atrios, at the Eschaton blog.

    At least he use to.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  56. So who’s afraid of debate, again?

    Leviticus, I’m guessing Mike K was referring to people of your political persuasion in general and not to you in particular. If so, you do have to admit that a larger percentage of humans who share your ideological preferences can be just the opposite of what they (and you too?) fancy about themselves—not even referring to my pointing out the dominant ideology in wonderful cities like Detroit, or low-crime nirvanas like Venezuela, or low-unemployment paradises like France.

    news.investors.com, March 2012

    Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans. In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics.

    The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

    Only 1% of moderates would block or shut out someone who dared to disagree with them, compared to 11% of liberals, whose rate was nearly three times that of conservatives. The same 11% of liberals would block or unfriend people who offended them by daring to argue about political issues, vs 6% and 7% for other political views.

    Liberals (14%) even blocked or shut out those they deemed posted too frequently on politics, vs 8% and 9% for moderates and conservatives, respectively.

    Quite seriously, if I had left-leaning biases I’d give a good, long, hard look to going through a 12-step recovery program or a political answer to Alcoholics Anonymous.

    Mark (c160ec)

  57. I comment on the same website, and have for years. Are you conservative? I’m not. So who’s afraid of debate, again?

    Not afraid, Levit. That was just an observation after you showed your knee jerk.

    then continue to whine that Jon Stewart singled out Fox for unfair treatment.

    Fox to lefties is like garlic to vampires, or maybe daylight. I don’t actually watch it much because they use a technique of setting up noisy arguments that annoys me but, at least there are arguments, instead of MSNBC which (they tell me ) has all the participants nodding in agreement like bobble head dolls.

    I used to read and comment at left wing sites like Washington Monthly but they deleted my comments finally and then banned me. Why ? Because, for example, I did not agree that single payer was the answer to health reform. I spent a lot of time researching this topic as it was one I had been interested in for some time. After I retired, I even went to Dartmouth to get another degree in health policy.

    There was a discussion on Wash Monthly about this in 2008, I think it was, and some of the commenters went to my blog where I had posted the results. The commenters were enraged that I disagreed. At that point, their comments started to get very personal and nasty, then my comments began to disappear although their nasty ones remained. Kevin Drum, whose own blog I had read and commented on before he moved to Wash Monthly, told me he had nothing to do with the moderators. Not too long after he moved to Mother Jones.

    I found they also blocked disagreeing comments. You are welcome to try to post as me, if you doubt that.

    We both know who cannot tolerate disagreement.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  58. 99 % conservative, what site we talkin bout?

    DNF (3642e1)

  59. chelsea needs her hormones or else she’ll turn back into a boy

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  60. “Correct and Leviticus shows some of it. The left thinks they are mentioning things that all their interlocutors agree with. (Sorry about the big word, Levit). Some don’t know what they mean but are intimidated into keeping quiet.

    It is all an inside joke to a bunch of dummies who think they are bright. That’s why they don’t want debate. OMG ! They might lose to a “tea bagger !””

    – Mike K

    I don’t know why you’d bother to call me out by name unless you were talking about me. I’m glad you took the time to comment at Washington Monthly. I totally believe you got banned. I definitely believe that liberal sites have a tendency to quash dissent. I also believe that reflects poorly on liberals and their intellectual integrity.

    That’s why I comment here, where I can engage in “interlocution” (apology accepted) with people who disagree with me. Of course, sometimes I have to put up with people acting like assh*les, but that goes with the territory, right? Better than being banned, like you were.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  61. I’ve been banned by almost as many “conservative” blogs as liberal. (shu – don’t tell anybody).
    Once I was banned by a multi national corporation. AOL – are they still around?

    The local news… excuse me. The local fishwrap banned me, but I don’t take that one personal. They banned everyone pretty much. They put their comment section on a don’t call us we’ll call you if we want your opinion basis. Consequently they have no effective comment section, which being as they’re in the tank for open borders, licences for illegals, voting “rights” for anyone with oh lets say two weeks of residency time, never seen a tax fee or penalty they didn’t love full on gushing with heartshaped box of chocolates, they don’t dare step out the door much less allow open forum to the public.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  62. Leviticus, I was not trying to “diss” you personally but just the tone. I think you have to agree that the left reacts with horror to Fox News and the reason, seems to me, to be that it is the only large source of alternative opinion on TV. Charles Krauthammer commented that Murdoch found a niche market that contains 50% of the population. Talk radio is another phenomenon that the left hates. Bill Clinton tried to blame Rush Limbaugh for Oklahoma City. Obama tried to blame Sarah Palin for the Tucson shooting when it turned out that the kid was not only schizophrenic but his mother worked for the local Democrat administration and had blocked complaints about her son for years.

    When I was in college, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, I watched the “Huntley-Brinkley report” and, even in retrospect, it was balanced. It was no surprise to find years later that David Brinkley was, if not conservative, at least a cynic about government and lefty do-gooder ideas. When he died, the last objective voice on ABC went with him.

    It does the left no good, in my opinion, to block competing ideas because they often turn out to be wrong about what works. I think we are headed for big trouble in economics and foreign policy. If it is not a singularity, it will at least be bad news. I think Obama has accelerated this trend that began about with Lyndon Johnson.

    For all the abuse Carter takes, at least he saw that he was wrong about a few things and hired Volker at the Fed and began the military buildup that Reagan got credit for. I see no sign that Obama has any doubts about what he is doing and the Democrats seem to be blind and dumb as we rush toward the cliff. Most of my blogging is at ChicagoBoyz and we also welcome different opinions although snark gets pushback from time to time.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  63. Via Ace where i been banned, for some cause:

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/11/the-republican-party-is-not-your-friend/

    Labeling Repugnants the enemies of Progressivism and conservative in the bargain is an insidious, considered lie designed to flatter and intimidate in one stroke.

    DNF (3642e1)

  64. Stewart is just another (on a long list) of prompter monkeys…

    http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/driveby/hitler_finds_out_about_br.php

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1082 secs.