The Jon Stewart rally, which reportedly dwarfed in attendance the Glenn Beck honorfest, was fairly entertaining (although at times it devolved into a grade-school presentation of its raison d’être) and for the most part politically neutral. That was the problem with it, of course. Stewart went 
out of his way to make both sides equally culpable for the mess that is Washington, D.C., these days.
This myth of moral equivalence is usually the preferred argument of those defending right-wing extremism—”the left does it too!—and it was a little off-putting to see and hear an obviously liberal-leaning Stewart try to put the blame on both sides.
Not only has it been clear that Republicans in Congress have done little to help and a lot to hinder efforts by Democrats to fix the economy, a video montage Stewart ran containing snippets of extremism expressed by television talkers was more than a little unfair. There is about a thousand times more of that nonsense coming from the right as from the left, and much of the responses coming from the left were in reaction to right-wing hate-talk.
It’s like this: If someone wants to debate an issue, Stewart’s call for decency is good advice. We all should be able to present our points without recourse to name-calling. But when one side has resorted to referring to the President of the United States as a Kenyan-born racist socialist, who wants to deliberately destroy the country, or when someone, like Billy Long, says that liberals, “wish to do away with the moral center of our nation,” then the proper reaction to that stuff is not a pat on the back or, “Oh, that’s just concerned right-wingers expressing their angst.”
No, the proper response to that kind of dook is to condemn it, and condemn it in the strongest possible terms. In fact, that’s what Stewart does on his show nearly every night. It’s not uncivil to point out the lack of civility on the other side and there is no moral equivalence between an attacker and a defender.
And wasn’t it rich that calls from Stewart and others to stop shouting at each other and work together were preceded by confessions last week from top Republican leaders that their strategy to defeat Obama and gain power will be a continuation of the “no compromise” warfare of the last two years:
John Boehner: “This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles.”
Mike Pence: “What I’ve said is there will be no compromise on ending this era of runaway spending, deficits and debt. No compromise on repealing Obamacare lock, stock and barrel. No compromise on defending the broad mainstream values of the American people in the way we spend the people’s money at home and abroad. On issues that go straight to principle and straight to the concern the American people have on spending and taxes and values, there’ll be no compromise.”
Mitch McConnell: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Now, President Obama and congressional Democrats need to understand that Republicans, especially if Tea Party candidates win big on Tuesday, 
mean it when they say they have abandoned the political art of compromise. This isn’t just campaign rhetoric.
And no amount of Jon Stewart-inspired reason and decency and sanity will be enough to put Republicans in the mood for an orgy of political deal-making, or even a flirtatious wink of agreement.
Because of the Republican Party’s failure to police itself, its failure to exercise adult supervision over its extremist candidates, there will a number of steroidal Obama-haters in their ranks, many of them with big mouths, who won’t take kindly to any notion of agreeing with Democrats about anything that matters.
Democrats need to understand that truth right now—and prepare a strategy to deal with it—before the real fighting starts next year. Hopefully, there will be so many internecine battles within the GOP that Republican extremists won’t get far with efforts to impeach President Obama and shut down the government, but that is only a hope.
But it is a sane hope.
The Erstwhile Conservative: A Blog of Repentance 
brucetheeconomist
/ November 1, 2010The one point of the rally that I think you may not be touching on is that the media mostly has an incentive to like the volume of “debate” to be lound and emotional, and not very informative.
After listening to most cable shout feast, it hard to remember any coherent points, just that both sides were really spun up by the end.
Cable TV especially seems to be bring this out and need it. I don’t know what can be done about that, but it is a problem.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ November 1, 2010Bruce,
I agree with you about some cable news programming, but there are some exceptions. Rachel Maddow’s show is one of those on MSNBC—hard-hitting opinion without the shouting and mean-spirited attacks. Anderson Cooper on CNN does a good job on his show, without expressing much of an ideological opinion at all. I will say that Greta Van Susteren on the Republican “News” Channel at least doesn’t encourage food fights, although there is no doubt as to the bias on that show. Morning Joe on MSNBC is a must-see, as far as what folks in the Beltway are thinking from day to day, although much of that show is about process.
But there’s no doubt the money is in the controversy, which is just the way of the world, I suppose.
I don’t so much mind the shouting that goes on, but I do mind the lack of information, as you point out. I have cable television news on most of the day, nearly every day. And most of the world’s news goes on without a single mention on the cable channels. Just like Morning Joe, much, but not all, of cable programming is about process, about which pol said this or that or what party is doing this or that.
The reason that cable news isn’t that informative much of the time is that there frequently isn’t enough time to make a coherent case on either side of an issue. If you can’t explain your position in 30 second segments, you’re in trouble. As you know, there are very few issues that can be explained in snippets like that, at least explained enough to satisfy my tastes. But they do serve to at least whet the appetites of those seeking more knowledge, even though they will have to turn elsewhere to get it.
Just last week I watched Jonathan Alter interview Dinesh D’Souza on C-SPAN for an hour, discussing D’Souza’s ridiculous idea that Obama is full of his father’s rage against colonialism, blah, blah, blah. That kind of long-form programming either exposes the faults in an argument (as it did in D’Souza’s case) or demonstrates the strengths. The problem is that not many folks would tune in to watch that kind of program, hence its presence on C-SPAN.
Like you, I don’t know what to do about the part of cable news that features two people shouting over each other, without generating much in the way of enlightenment.
Duane
LikeLike
brucetheeconomist
/ November 7, 2010Duane,
I’m not sure what sentiment to express. I don’t think it’s sympathy, because I think you’re too tough to need it. Maybe its respect for you.
As the Sanity rally suggested discourse is perhaps too rancorous at times, and I think I’m seeing some of that at outlets for the Globe.
In particular you seem to be getting exposed to a lot juvenile name calling lately, and assertions that, in effect “nobody like you and you’re kind anyway”. I’d expect politics to have lots of arguments about issues, but the name calling I find irksome, and I respect your gentlemanly silence in response to it.
Anyway, hang in there dude!
LikeLike
brucetheeconomist
/ November 7, 2010On the upside, I expect it builds traffic to your site. The name calling is likely for the purpose of attracting eyes to the name caller anyway.
LikeLike
Duane Graham
/ November 8, 2010Bruce,
As my friend Juan would say, “Thwack!” You hit about a 320-yard drive right down the center of the fairway with that observation.
Thanks,
Duane
LikeLike
brucetheeconomist
/ November 9, 2010Mark Levin style blogging.
LikeLike