The "Sanity" Rally. Is Jon Stewart naive?

[Ian]

Yes, I still say it was not a political rally!

Why must everything be political, of have some ulterior motive? The entire point of the rally was to address the state of angry, partisan discourse in the country. Period. Feel free to read whatever deeper motives you like, but that was what it was all about.

[sandinista]

Yes, I still say it was not a political rally!

Why must everything be political, of have some ulterior motive? The entire point of the rally was to address the state of angry, partisan discourse in the country. Period. Feel free to read whatever deeper motives you like, but that was what it was all about.

why must everything be political? because it is. simple. Everything is, whether you like it or not, or wish it wasn't or whatever, everything is political.

[Ian]

FYI, in case this thread was missed - my report and pictures from the rally:

http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 25#p645857

[eXcommunicate]

Is that Richard Gere?

[Ian]

Believe it or not, I think that was a woman!

[Warren Dew]

The "middle" are folks that voted for Obama and were surprised that he pushed Obamacare, unions, and the other issues he championed. I mean - these are folks that were inundated for 18 months of Obama's campaign wherein he promised to do all the things he's done and tried to do, and then are now surprised that he did them? People are fucking idiots.

They're not surprised that he did them. They're surprised that those policies largely prevented and still prevent recovery from the recession. You can consider them "fucking idiots" for not understanding basic macroeconomics, but the fact is, few people do - even many very intelligent and otherwise well educated people have serious misconceptions about how the economy works.

[Trolldor]

A small correction from an outside perspective:
The entire thing was, to the rest of the world, a rally for moderate, civil discourse in politics.

I'll let the faithful of the left and right battle their little scriptural differences now.

[Hermit]

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?

I am glad that the apathy of middle-of-the-road liberals* can be sufficiently overcome for a quarter of a million of them to attend a rally. It's a welcome sign that the right is not going to entirely get its way over the next few years.

Apart from that, if the closing speech encapsulates what Stewart is trying to convey, the motivation is fundamentally ill conceived. It was an appeal for tolerance of diversity, and how that enhances quality of life. Very democratic indeed, but just how and why are we supposed to tolerate what we perceive to be the intolerable beliefs and behaviour that result from such beliefs? Stewart never explains that. He simply says that we should. His lane-merging metaphor is profoundly unhelpful. It was all so banal, naive and lacking in practical suggestions that the whole shebang reminded me of Culture Club's pap song Melting Pot. The speech is crying out for a parody akin to the way Culture Club's song was ridiculed in another one named Pop-Up Toaster.


*Comments to the effect they are in fact "left wingers" are noted, but then that's the US for you. In most of Europe and in Australia Steward, Colbert and the audience they appeal to would be regarded as nowhere near the left of the political spectrum.

[sandinista]

A small correction from an outside perspective:
The entire thing was, to the rest of the world, a rally for moderate, civil discourse in politics.

I'll let the faithful of the left and right battle their little scriptural differences now.

Not just a genius...the mad hatter speaks for the entire world. He IS the outside perspective.

[JOZeldenrust]

Yes, I still say it was not a political rally!

Why must everything be political, of have some ulterior motive? The entire point of the rally was to address the state of angry, partisan discourse in the country. Period. Feel free to read whatever deeper motives you like, but that was what it was all about.

why must everything be political? because it is. simple. Everything is, whether you like it or not, or wish it wasn't or whatever, everything is political.

If everything is political, then "political" is a meaningless term.

The central message of this rally wasn't political, it was an objection to tendentious retoric. Tendentious retoric is more prevalent among conservatives, but progressives aren't free of blame entirely. This was explicitely adressed during the rally and its build-up.

I think it was a shame there was quite a bit of tea party hate. It wasn't quite as outrageous as some of the things some tea partiers get up to, but still possibly counterproductive. Other then that, I think the rally did a good job of increasing the visibility of moderates.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, I still say it was not a political rally!

Why must everything be political, of have some ulterior motive? The entire point of the rally was to address the state of angry, partisan discourse in the country. Period. Feel free to read whatever deeper motives you like, but that was what it was all about.

I have to say, I agree with sandinista on this one. Clearly, it was a political rally.

Not everything must be political, but the rally was political. If the entire point of the rally was to address the state of angry, partisan discourse in the country, then it did so with massively partisan discourse, some of which was itself angry.

I mean - the names alone - "Rally to Restore Sanity," is an accusation that the other guy is "insane." The "Keep Fear Alive" - is along the constant refrain from the left or liberals that those they oppose are always in "fear" of something. Hate - Fear - Stupidity - common characteristics of non-liberals, so they say.

[Coito ergo sum]

The central message of this rally wasn't political, it was an objection to tendentious retoric.

...through the use of tendentious rhetoric.

Tendentious retoric is more prevalent among conservatives, but progressives aren't free of blame entirely.

I don't see that. I see tendentious rhetoric as common throughout the political spectrum. And, not only are progressives not free of it, they revel in it. That's why those they oppose are "idiots," and "hateful" and "racist" and [insert comparison to Hitler] and insane, etc.

[JOZeldenrust]

The "middle" are folks that voted for Obama and were surprised that he pushed Obamacare, unions, and the other issues he championed. I mean - these are folks that were inundated for 18 months of Obama's campaign wherein he promised to do all the things he's done and tried to do, and then are now surprised that he did them? People are fucking idiots.

They're not surprised that he did them. They're surprised that those policies largely prevented and still prevent recovery from the recession. You can consider them "fucking idiots" for not understanding basic macroeconomics, but the fact is, few people do - even many very intelligent and otherwise well educated people have serious misconceptions about how the economy works.

Including you, by the look of it. Obama's economic policies have been pretty solid, even if a bit half-hearted.

In a recession, government should stimulate spending. The way to do this is not to indiscriminately lower taxes, because lack of trust among the public will just lead afluent people to hoard money. Getting money into the hands of people who have very little, and are pretty much forced to spend it, has a much larger effect on spending, and has the additional benefit of increasing social mobility. So, in a recession, increase government spending and redistribute the wealth.

[Coito ergo sum]

They're not surprised that he did them. They're surprised that those policies largely prevented and still prevent recovery from the recession.

Well, I'm moreso referring to folks who voted for the guy and were surprised that he, oh, pushed through "health care reform." I mean - he said he was going to do that, and the independents cheered and cheered. A year later they're pissed because he pushed through health care reform? I don't get it. Did the independents think he was promising "free" health care at improved service levels with shorter lines and zero denials of coverage for any procedure? What hell did people expect when he promised to "guarantee health insurance for all people?" Suddenly, it seems, they're like...."hey.....wait a cotton pickin' minute here.....you mean we're going to have to PAY for the insurance????"

So, in 12 to 18 months, a group of folks who were four square behind the Democratic agenda turned around 180 degrees and are now repudiating what they were told would be the agenda....

[JOZeldenrust]

The central message of this rally wasn't political, it was an objection to tendentious retoric.

...through the use of tendentious rhetoric.

Through the use of humor, much of it self-depricating, and yes, a bit of tendentious rhetoric (spelling of Greek derivates in English is hard, thanks). It's a rally, and tendentious rhetoric is the idiom of rallies.

Tendentious retoric is more prevalent among conservatives, but progressives aren't free of blame entirely.

I don't see that. I see tendentious rhetoric as common throughout the political spectrum. And, not only are progressives not free of it, they revel in it. That's why those they oppose are "idiots," and "hateful" and "racist" and [insert comparison to Hitler] and insane, etc.

I don't see much harm in calling someone who you think hold radically irrational beliefs an idiot. Calling them racist when they're not, or accusing them of being hateful, or gratuitously comparing anyone to Hitler is a bit much.

I can't really tell if progressives (and by "progressive" I mean anything left of center) rival conservatives (anything right of center) in their use of vitriol. The conservative vitriol is certainly a lot more visible.

Keith Olberman is clearly a hateful, elitist, progressive nazi though.