The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

[eXcommunicate]

After some thought and some reading from various corners of the Internet about the recent "Sanity" Rally in Washington DC thrown by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that it was all a useless and counterproductive farce.

1. The Right was not listening. For one thing the Right is not and has never been part of Jon Stewart's demographic. In other words, no matter how loudly Jon Stewart screams about "civility" and "sanity" in our discourse, approximately 75% of the people that need to hear this will not have been listening in the first place.

2. His demographic consists primarily of Center-Left young people, generally well-off and apathetic. I saw nothing in the rally and even in Jon's speech to energize these young people to change the political process or to even participate in it!

3. Left, Progressive, and (what I like to call) Liberal-tarian forces are already marginalized in our political process. Any radical or revolutionary elements of the Left have long since vanished, while reactionary elements of the Right have been ascendant for the past 30 years. The rally presented a false dichotomy or false-equivalency between current Left and Right voices in our media and political process.

4. The 'silent majority' or the "Great Centrist" or "radical centrist" coalition has been part and party to every single fascist act perpetrated by our government, either through apathy or through direct involvement. Why should we put our hopes in some kind of great "middle" when they are so easily lead astray?

5. The call for "moderation" will be felt more keenly by left-liberal minds, further weakening the resolve of an already weakened left, while further emboldening right-wing elements of our society. Does anyone really think Jon's rally will have any effect on the likes of Fox News or the Tea Party? While the Left frets about civility and moderation, the Right goes further to the right and the rapid pace of the corporate takeover of our government accelerates.

At first blush it would seem such a rally would appeal to me. I have a very liberal mind. Sitting around together and politely discussing politics and policy, coming to an agreement on what's best, then deciding upon an implementation is what I'd prefer to do. Unfortunately, the current political and human realities just don't allow for that. What does extending an olive branch to the other side gain when the other side simply throws it back in your face? One of Barack Obama's famous phrases was something along the lines of, "We will extend our hand, if you unclench your fist," and we all saw how that turned out--his centrist/center-Left coalition is shattered and the Right is poised to take control.

[sandinista]

naive, yes, and somewhat oblivious. See thread called "The Anti-Empire Report" above for more on Stewart.

[Warren Dew]

The "sanity" rally was just a bunch of leftists who secretly realize that Obama went too far, but aren't willing to admit it to themselves yet.

The fact is, the present polarization is directly due to Obama's forcing his "stimulus", bailouts, and health care plan through on party line votes, instead of being willing to compromise in a bipartisan way. Even atheist liberals interested in bipartisanship could learn a lesson from bible: "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".

[sandinista]

The "sanity" rally was just a bunch of leftists who secretly realize that Obama went too far, but aren't willing to admit it to themselves yet.

The fact is, the present polarization is directly due to Obama's forcing his "stimulus", bailouts, and health care plan through on party line votes, instead of being willing to compromise in a bipartisan way. Even atheist liberals interested in bipartisanship could learn a lesson from bible: "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".

I would bet if you scoured the crowd not many people there would truly be "left" in any way. Bunch of centrist, naive, capitalism with a happy face, star worshipers.

[eXcommunicate]

The "sanity" rally was just a bunch of leftists who secretly realize that Obama went too far, but aren't willing to admit it to themselves yet.

Completely ridiculous. Rally participation was in direct reaction to Glenn beck and various Tea Party shenanigans. This could be seen in the myriad of anti-Tea Party and Anti-Glenn Beck signs.

The fact is, the present polarization is directly due to Obama's forcing his "stimulus", bailouts, and health care plan through on party line votes, instead of being willing to compromise in a bipartisan way.

And here is where I ignore pretty much everything you ever say on politics ever again.

Bailouts: The bailouts were instituted under a Republican President at the behest of a Republican Secretary of the Treasury. Maybe you recall their names? Passed in a Democratic Congress with bipartisan support. I seem to remember John Boehner and the Senate Republican leadership standing right alongside Bush, Obama, McCain, Pelosi, and the rest at every press conference.

Bipartisanship: Economists of all political stripes agreed with the stimulus. It was economically sound policy. And as far as "party line" votes go, the Democrats entertained dozens of Republican riders and amendments for the bill, yet not a single one of those Republican bastards voted for it. The same goes for the Health Care Reform bill. Not only was it one of the longest Congressional debates in history, but it came with an all-time historical record of minority party amendments and riders. The Democrats dropped just about everything Progressive activists wanted (nationalized care, public option) and modeled their HC plan after a Republican plan from the 1990s. Not a single goddamn Republican voted for it. You do not lecture liberals on bipartisanship, sir.

Even atheist liberals interested in bipartisanship could learn a lesson from bible: "first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye".

When conservatives start living by the values they purport to believe in, only then will I give them any credence whatsoever.

[Ian]

There's a bunch of angry people here who don't know what they're talking about (although I wouldn't call excommunicate "anrgy", just oblivious to what the rally was all about). That'd be all three of you who have bothered to whine about this gathering. Exactly the kind of people who "don't get it" and wouldn't have fit in at the rally... hence the point of it! Sandinista is the worst, assuming that the crowd was filled with naive star worshippers. Quite the opposite!

How do I know that none of you have the first damn clue what you're talking about? Because I was there.

I thought it was a brilliant move. Assume whatever you like, but it wasn't a liberal rally in disguise, or intended to counter any political force, or influence the election, or move the country left or right. It's whole theme was to call attention to the fact that rational, polite public discourse of the non-hyperpartisan variety is getting pushed to the sidelines. This is largely driven by a sensationalistic media, in turn bolstered by a public who tunes into sensationalism, regardless of whether its reasonable or not.

You guys could've done well to attend such an event.

[sandinista]

How do I know that none of you have the first damn clue what you're talking about? Because I was there.

exactly. below: from "anti empire report"

Jon Stewart and the left

The left in America is desperate; desperate for someone who can inspire them, if not lead them to a better world; or at least make them laugh. TV star Jon Stewart is sometimes funny, especially when he doesn't try too hard to be funny, which is not often enough. But as a political leader, or simply political educator for the left, forget it. He's not even what I would call a genuine, committed leftist. What does he have to teach the left? He himself would certainly not want you to entertain the thought that Jon Stewart is in any way a man of the left.

He billed his October 30 rally on the National Mall in Washington, DC, as the Million Moderate March. Would a person with a real desire for important progressive social and political change, i.e, a "leftist", so ostentatiously brand himself a "moderate"? Even if by "moderate" he refers mainly to tone of voice or choice of words why is that so important? If a politician strongly supports things which you are passionate about, why should it bother you if the politician is vehement in his arguments, even angry? And if the politician is strongly against what you're passionate about does it make you feel any better about the guy if he never raises his voice or sharply criticizes those on the other side? What kind of cause is that to commit yourself to?

Stewart in fact appears to dislike the left, perhaps strongly. In the leadup to the rally he criticized the left for various things, including calling George W. Bush a "war criminal". Wow! How immoderate of us. Do I have to list here the 500 war crimes committed by George W. Bush? If I did so, would that make me one of what Stewart calls the "crazies"? In his talk at the rally, Stewart spoke of our "real fears" — "of terrorists, racists, Stalinists, and theocrats". Stalinists? Where did that come from, Glenn Beck? What decade is Stewart living in. What about capitalists or the corporations? Is there no reason to fear them? Is it Stalinists who are responsible for the collapse of our jobs and homes, our economy? Writer Chris Hedges asks: "Being nice and moderate will not help. These are corporate forces that are intent on reconfiguring the United States into a system of neofeudalism. These corporate forces will not be halted by funny signs, comics dressed up like Captain America or nice words."

Stewart also grouped together "Marxists actively subverting our constitution, racists and homophobes". Welcome to the Jon Stewart Tea Party. In his long interview last week of President Obama on his TV show, Stewart did not mention any of America's wars. That would have been impolite and divisive; maybe even not nice.

He billed his rally as being "for people who are politically dissatisfied but who are not ideological". (Democracy Now, November 1, 2010) Really, Jon? You have no ideology? To those who like to tell themselves and others that they don't have any particular ideology I say this: If you have thoughts about why the world is the way it is, why society is the way it is, why people are the way they are, what a better way would look like, and if your thoughts are fairly well organized, then that's your ideology, even if it's not wholly conscious as such. Better to organize those thoughts as best you can, become very conscious of them, and then consciously avoid getting involved with individuals or political movements who have an incompatible ideology. It's like a very bad marriage.

[Warren Dew]

Completely ridiculous. Rally participation was in direct reaction to Glenn beck and various Tea Party shenanigans. This could be seen in the myriad of anti-Tea Party and Anti-Glenn Beck signs.

That is, of course, because they were leftists. Centrists would have been open to considering the libertarian leaning centrist positions of the Tea Party.

Bailouts: The bailouts were instituted under a Republican President at the behest of a Republican Secretary of the Treasury.

The majority of House Republicans voted against TARP, though it was as much of a fleecing of well run banks as it was a bailout of poorly run banks, as I've discussed before.

The Chrysler and GM bailouts didn't happen until after Obama was elected, and Bush gave them just enough money to allow Obama to make the final decision, likely as agreed on between the two of them. The vast majority of the money was given to GM by Obama, and the entirety of the bailout was structured to give Obama the final decision.

Bipartisanship: Economists of all political stripes agreed with the stimulus. It was economically sound policy. And as far as "party line" votes go, the Democrats entertained dozens of Republican riders and amendments for the bill, yet not a single one of those Republican bastards voted for it.

Indeed. And the reason for it was simple: what the Republicans actually wanted was income tax deductions or reductions in the income tax rates as part of the bill, which would have actually helped some, and the Democrats categorically refused to entertain those ideas and insisted on pork barrel subsidies and income tax credits that did no good.

The same goes for the Health Care Reform bill. Not only was it one of the longest Congressional debates in history, but it came with an all-time historical record of minority party amendments and riders. The Democrats dropped just about everything Progressive activists wanted (nationalized care, public option) and modeled their HC plan after a Republican plan from the 1990s. Not a single goddamn Republican voted for it.

The compromises you mention had nothing to do with Republicans. They were ways to get enough Democrat votes to pass it. Compromise with other Democrats is polarization along party lines, not bipartisanship.

Republican ideas of health care reform focus on two issues: malpractice reform to prevent outsize awards that enrich lawyers but drive up health care costs for the vast majority of people, and untying health insurance from employment so that health insurers will have more incentive to do what's right for the people they insure, instead of what's right for those peoples' employers. Obama took those two possibilities for compromise off the table the day he introduced his bill.

The fact is, if you aren't willing to consider the issues the other side really cares about, you aren't really open to compromise; you're just giving it lip service. That's what Obama was doing. The fact that he was unable to draw a single Republican vote just proves it: no Republicans voted for the bill because it contained no compromises that the Republicans actually cared about.

You do not lecture liberals on bipartisanship, sir.

What you mean is, liberals don't listen to the lecture, because they're not open to bipartisanship.

[Ian]

Sandinista, who was the fool who wrote that crap? Someone else who doesn't understand the point of the whole thing I guess. Don't ever quote "the anti-empire report" if you want anyone to think you have a shred of credibility.

You're just perpetuating yourself as part of the problem. I see no solutions from you, just griping. No better than a narrow-minded Tea Party type who gripes about Obama being a secret socialist. Perhaps you could do with reading some less crazy sources of information yourself.

[sandinista]

Sandinista, who was the fool who wrote that crap? Someone else who doesn't understand the point of the whole thing I guess.

You're just perpetuating yourself as part of the problem. I see no solutions from you, just griping. No better than a narrow-minded Tea Party type who gripes about Obama being a secret socialist. Perhaps you could do with reading some less crazy sources of information yourself.

yah...and he's the fool

[Ian]

Sandinista, who was the fool who wrote that crap? Someone else who doesn't understand the point of the whole thing I guess.

You're just perpetuating yourself as part of the problem. I see no solutions from you, just griping. No better than a narrow-minded Tea Party type who gripes about Obama being a secret socialist. Perhaps you could do with reading some less crazy sources of information yourself.

yah...and he's the fool

Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with your own radical politics is some kind of fool or brainwashed rube. You're exactly the sort of person who would've had no place at that rally, despite how left-of-center the crowd was. In fact, you're the reason for such a rally!

[sandinista]

Sandinista, who was the fool who wrote that crap? Someone else who doesn't understand the point of the whole thing I guess.

You're just perpetuating yourself as part of the problem. I see no solutions from you, just griping. No better than a narrow-minded Tea Party type who gripes about Obama being a secret socialist. Perhaps you could do with reading some less crazy sources of information yourself.

yah...and he's the fool

Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with your own radical politics is some kind of fool or brainwashed rube. You're exactly the sort of person who would've had no place at that rally, despite how left-of-center the crowd was. In fact, you're the reason for such a rally!

and apparently anyone who doesn't agree with you is a fool. FAIL

I suppose you're one of "those" without an ideology.

[Ian]

Sandinista, who was the fool who wrote that crap? Someone else who doesn't understand the point of the whole thing I guess.

You're just perpetuating yourself as part of the problem. I see no solutions from you, just griping. No better than a narrow-minded Tea Party type who gripes about Obama being a secret socialist. Perhaps you could do with reading some less crazy sources of information yourself.

yah...and he's the fool

Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with your own radical politics is some kind of fool or brainwashed rube. You're exactly the sort of person who would've had no place at that rally, despite how left-of-center the crowd was. In fact, you're the reason for such a rally!

and apparently anyone who doesn't agree with you is a fool. FAIL

WRONG.

My point was not based on any part of the political spectrum. My point was that you completely missed the point of the rally. And how am I the ultimate winner of this debate? Not logos or pathos, but ethos. I was there and you weren't.

[sandinista]

Sandinista, who was the fool who wrote that crap? Someone else who doesn't understand the point of the whole thing I guess.

You're just perpetuating yourself as part of the problem. I see no solutions from you, just griping. No better than a narrow-minded Tea Party type who gripes about Obama being a secret socialist. Perhaps you could do with reading some less crazy sources of information yourself.

yah...and he's the fool

Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with your own radical politics is some kind of fool or brainwashed rube. You're exactly the sort of person who would've had no place at that rally, despite how left-of-center the crowd was. In fact, you're the reason for such a rally!

and apparently anyone who doesn't agree with you is a fool. FAIL

WRONG.

My point was not based on any part of the political spectrum. My point was that you completely missed the point of the rally. And how am I the ultimate winner of this debate? Not logos or pathos, but ethos. I was there and you weren't.

good for you yah...like I suspected..."My point was not based on any part of the political spectrum." no ideology there

[Ian]

good for you yah...like I suspected..."My point was not based on any part of the political spectrum." no ideology there

Oh cut the bull. Politically, I'm a left-of-center Democrat. But I did not invoke politics. Maybe you aren't capable of understanding it, but it was not a political rally. It was a social rally, a commentary on the state of discourse in the US and how we treat those who disagree with us.