Demographics & Economics
OMB
Congressional Budget Office
The Federal Budget
U.S. Census Quickfacts
Inflation Calculator
CIA World Factbook
NationMaster
State Healthcare Facts
UN HDR stats
US Bureau of Economic Analysis
US Bureau of Labor Statistics
US CDC health stats
US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics
US DOJ crime stats
Constitution
The Constitution
The Founders' Constitution
The Avalon Project
The Federalist Papers
The antifederalist papers
Founding documents
Politics
ADA (liberal) Voting Records
ACU (conservative) Voting Records
Census Voter Turnout
Congressional Research Service
Memeorandum
NOW list of voting scorecards
PolitiFact
PorkBusters
Project VoteSmart list of voting scorecards
RealClearPolitics
Roll call votes--House
Roll call votes--Senate
Survey USA
WaPo Votes Database
Iraq/Terrorism
CentCom
Brookings Institute Iraq Index
Project on Defense Alternatives War Report
Nat'l Defense Univ Iraq
Nat'l Defense Univ Afghanistan
MERLIN, Nat'l Defense Univ Library Network
STRATFOR
Nat'l Memorial Inst for Prevention of Terrorism
West Point's Combating Terrorism Center
Politics blogs
Baldilocks
Blue Mass Group
Cadillac Tight
California Conservative
Jon Chait
Confederate Yankee
Crooked Timber
Democracy Project
Dinocrat
First Read
Gateway Pundit
GenerationPatriot
Horse Race Blog
Just One Minute
Hugh Hewitt
Michelle Malkin
Patterico's Pontifications
Power Line
Red State
RNCC blog
Scrappleface
Sister Toldjah
Talking Points Memo
The Blogometer
The Corner
The Next Right
The Moderate Voice
Think Progress
Wizbang
Moderate / centrist
Ambivablog
Bipartisan Rules
Booker Rising
Centerfield
Charging RINO
Donklephant
Liberal War Journal
Militant Moderates
The Buck Stops Here
The Glittering Eye
The Iconic Midwest
The PoliGazette
The Walrus Said
Legal & academic
How Appealing
Becker-Posner
Bench Memos
Concurring Opinions
Economists Do It With Models
Legalities
Prawfsblawg
SCOTUSblog
Sentencing Law & Policy
UCFB
The Volokh Conspiracy
Christian
Archbp Dolan: Gospel in the Digital Age
Bp Chris Coyne: Let Us Walk Together
ADW blog
Simon Dodd: Motu Proprio
Fr Zuhlsdorf: WDTPRS
Fr Longenecker: Standing On My Head
Elizabeth Scalia: The Anchoress
First Thoughts
Mirror of Justice
Rorate Cæli
Veritas Rex
Middle East & Muslim affairs
Eteraz
Iraq the Model
Lebanese Political Journal
Michael Totten
Michael Yon
General interest
Althouse
Ambiance
Chris Muir's Day by Day
Instapundit
IowaHawk
JAC
Professor Bainbridge
Prettier than Napoleon
Rachel Lucas
The Right Coast
Science Blog
Sippican Cottage
Whatever
I watched the whole thing, and loved it. If you didn't watch, or go, here it is:
Kudos to James Fallows for the link to the clip.
Our RSS feed
Unfortunately, the video
Unfortunately, the video shows two realities:
The first is Jon Stewart saying that Tea Party members shouldn't be treated as monsters and people who disagree with you shouldn't be considered racists and homophobes. The second is crowd members holding up signs complaining about "Tea Baggers" and how "Hate is not a Family Value", raising those signs jubilantly as Jon Stewart is speaking.
Its basically why I think Jon Stewart is off the mark. He wants to be someone to calm down the dialogue and create civil discourse. But the people who support him simply view themselves as the 'civil' side (and are liberal leaning), but are not in practice, with the "Tea Baggers" as the 'uncivil' side (and are conservative leaning).
Contrast this: “The image of
Contrast this:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-30/jon-stewart-says-press-politicians-are-creating-extremism.html
With this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/30/stewarts-rally-sanity-brings-urgency-chage/
All this is reminiscent of Howard Dean's "Republicans are dividing America (because they disagree with us on issues)" speech
I think you confuse the
I think you confuse the message with the crowd. I also saw plenty of signs that were far from derogatory. Stewart's message was not just one sided. They pretty much went after the extremes on both sides during the rally. Yes, a lot of the crowd was left leaning but there was a significantly large number of people who consider both sides to be treading on lunacy. I find myself in this group. I read the blogs on both the right and the left after this. None of them got it. They were either too busy arguing about who had the bigger rally or trying to make political points. They, along with a large group in the crowd, missed the point.
Stewart's final speech at the end was some of the most intelligent words that I have heard originating out of the cesspool of Washington, D.C. in well over a decade. It is not his fault if the left and right side of the political spectrum are so busy in finding ways of scoring political points that they can't understand that they were the ones being called insane, no matter the side they are on.
I had a hard time voting this year. I had very few sane candidates that I felt I could vote for. This year, I voted more against crazy and bad ethics than I have ever done in the past. It use to be that I could vote for someone. Now it is rare because I am forced to vote against people I think are crazy. I wish more sane people would run.
It's not so much I'm
It's not so much I'm confusing the message with the crowd, but I'm asking, who exactly is Jon Stewart leading? Its one thing to give a message, but you have to ask, what is the effect of that message?
I personally agree with what Stewart says he wants to promote: that we need civil dialogue, and the rancour and extreme rhetoric on both sides need to be toned down.
But at the same time, I don't think Stewart is sensitive to why the Tea Partiers are angry. It isn't just that we're in tough economic times -- its not about whats happening now -- its that they're resentful they've been called racists, homophobes, nuts etc. for decades, ever since the left started dominating American institutions (before the 'cyclotron' of cable TV). The anger from the right is reactionary. He misses the same thing on his show: he's obsessed with Fox News and talk radio, without understanding why Fox News and talk radio exist.
And so even though I agree with what Stewart ultimately wants, I think the anger on the right is in some way necessary. In my view, the only way for the emotions to be toned down is for the left to start a dialogue with the right, to start taking them seriously. They'll start feeling less angry when they start feeling like they're being taken seriously. By holding a rally that mirrors Beck's rally, Stewart is doing the opposite: he's creating a divide. Complaining about the anger -- in effect dismissing it -- rather than addressing it, is a way to avoid dialogue.
You're saying the rally is about getting away from the extremes on both sides, and thats true. But a large part of what I mean when I ask "who is Stewart leading?" is shown in who is considered extreme and who isn't considered extreme. Everybody acknowledges there are extremes on both sides, but people have different opinions on what that is. Is Christine O'Donnell extreme, or is Chris Coons extreme? Is Glenn Beck extreme, or is Sonya Sotomayor extreme? Is O'Reilly just as bad as Olbermann? Is Obama an ideological liberal or is he a pragmatic moderate? What would most people in the crowd answer? And, how will America ultimately decide that question, by the voices in Jon Stewart's crowd, or by voices in the Tea Party crowd?
This is ultimately a war about what "the middle" is.
If I play your game, Brian--I could say that the Left is tired
being called communists, socialists, an un-American by the Right. What always gets me is how both extremes always seem to blame the other side for their extremism. Your argument appears to boil down to: We can have a coming together, when the Left apologizes for all the mean things they've said to us, and admits that everything bad we say about them is true, and that everything wrong with the country is their fault.
No sane person would buy that. Oh, and as for the far-Left, flip it around, and you get the same effect. The thing is, most Americans really aren't that divided over this stuff. That's his point. It's the false media narrative.
Again, the question is who is
Again, the question is who is extreme and who isn't extreme. On this blog site before, you've called people who don't want birthright citizenship extreme. I consider that unfair.
Of course the Left feels tired of being called communists, socialists, and un-American. But there's a reason why most of the anger is coming from the Right. Why? Can people start to answer that question? I'm not talking about an apology, I'm talking about an acknowledgment of history, and the start of a real dialogue.
For the record, I'm a moderate. But I think a lot of the anger has been productive: a way to force real political issues to the table. Who would have thought we'd have a national conversation about the 10th amendment? I also think the anger from the Left in the 60s was equally productive.
I've called the argument extreme, and considering the level of
support for such a proposal, I think it's fair to question whether such a position is a mainstream position. Now, I think I've earned my moderate credentials, so I don;t need to defend them. I'd like to have the question of right-wing anger answered as well, but this sort of approach doesn't help.
We'll see what comes of the
We'll see what comes of the rally, then.
He was not really talking
He was not really talking about not being angry. The satire even acknowledged that being angry is not insane. The big problem is that the anger has gone from being about ideas to be expressions of personal hatred and animosity that makes any chance of working together to solve a problem possible. Take Rep Bachman and Rep Grayson as examples. Neither one exhibits an anger that is useful at getting to a solution to the problem. They both personalize their anger into hate that spreads like a cancer through the whole political system. It is not the anger that is the problem. Anger is just a sign of a level of discontent and discontent is needed in order to have change. However, when the anger grows from a level of disagreement where the two sides can work together to where we are moving that neither side is willing to even talk to the other side is where the problem is.
The dichotomy of Stewart versus the Tea Party is a false dichotomy. While Stewart is a bit more open to liberal ideas, I think he is more than willing to criticize the angry left and has. You keep trying to define the extreme. It is not about defining the extreme, it is about defining who can sit down and work with the people on the other side of the table when need be. It is not so much a war about the middle as much as it is trying to say take the volume and anger down a notch and try to work together to make things better.
Stewart had one line that I think is very symbolic of this argument, "We live in hard times, not end times." Too many on both left and right want to make things a coming apocalypse if things do not change immediately and the way they say it has to be done. It is the playing to peoples fear instead of to their intellect. The global warming alarmists are no different than those saying the republic will collapse if we don't immediately balance the budget or massively reduce spending right away. When you take a position like that, there is no room to come to any alternative solution. Then, when they can't get their way, they resort to name calling like anti-science and stupid or Marxists and Communist making it even more difficult to come to an agreement.
For my own personal situation, I have not been able to find candidates to vote for because the election system has failed. I have maybe two candidates that I feel good about voting for. I am voting more against crazy this year than voting for someone. I would say that since the first time I voted in 1984 to 2008, I voted against some maybe three times total. This year alone, I voted against four candidates. I am disgusted. I really did not want to vote in this election. If it is worse in 2012, I don't know what I might do. I just want to be able to vote for someone again and feel good about it.
And as I said, I have no
And as I said, I have no problem with Stewart's message. I was trying to address the contradiction between his message and the feelings of a lot of people in the crowd, who were certainly against the Tea Party, addressing them as "Tea Baggers".
In a lot of ways President Obama is saying the same thing as what Jon Stewart is saying. He's accusing Republicans of being divisive and not working with him, accusing them of not coming to the center. As far as Obama addresses the extremes on the left, its not about people in his administration, or Pelosi in the House and Reid in the Senate, but the 'professional left' that are complaining about him. The Right is frustrated, because they believe this is wrong -- they believe that they've been excluded from participating in legislation, that they've marginalized as extreme, and that Obama is not a moderate.
So, he just ends up speaking to the same audience Obama is speaking to. How does he make clear to the people in the audience with "Tea Bagger" signs, that when he talks about how extreme rhetoric is part of the problem, that he's talking about them?
As for myself, I have also had problems finding good candidates, but its not a new problem. I supported Perot in 92 and 96, and I continue to support third parties.
I think you really
I think you really underestimate the audience and have pigeonholed it. Yes, there were people from the left who did not get the message and thought it was a liberal rally. Many of them were complaining afterward that it was not political enough. I think a larger part were there that understood that the whole "rally" was meant to be farce and the idea was to just to be entertained with a small idea of "can we just get along".
It is really the only event I would have attended this year if I could. I am moderate conservative also. I, like many at the rally, have just disconnected from the whole craziness of the campaign this year. I have given no money and given no time to any party or candidates for the first time since I have been old enough to vote this year. All it was meant to be was a satirical farce of all of the rallies that have been held this year. He was not accusing one side or another. I suspect that he would talk to anyone if they wanted to come on his show. In this new political environment, politicians are afraid to go to a place that they think they might not get an easy response. It is all about controlling the message.
I don't think anyone claimed that Obama was moderate during the show. I don't consider him a moderate. He has not lived up to his promises of being bipartisan. There is plenty of blame to go around. however that was not the point. It was really just for the people who are disgusted with the incivility to have something to rally around. I wish they would replay it again on Tuesday night so I have something to watch. I won't be watching the election returns and will probably have to hold back the vomit when the talk of the 2012 election starts on Wednesday.
If I was near D.C. I think I
If I was near D.C. I think I would have come around to see both Beck and Stewart's rallies. I sympathize with both of them, to some extent.
The issue I have with this rally is just I don't think it was constructive. But I guess we'll see over time.
Was it even meant to be
Was it even meant to be constructive? Maybe I am wrong but I had always gotten the vibe that it was meant to be an entertainment event that was going to poke fun at politics when a lot of us really needed just a good laugh. I think Stewart may be just as disillusioned with the all of the political leadership as I am. Maybe it was just the political version of a minstrel show for this years campaign. I don't really know.
Probably the last twenty minutes was constructive but it is highly unlikely that anyone it was aimed at will give it a second thought. I finally saw Stewart's interview of Obama this afternoon. It was probably tougher than than any interview he has had of late. But did it really accomplish anything, probably not.
I don't think that anything done in the last few days before the election is going to be able to affect the election this year. People's minds are made up. There are not a lot of undecideds out there. Maybe it is a message that can build over time. Maybe it was a bunch of nothing - just a spectacle to entertain the masses. So I really can't make an argument that it was constructive. It did entertain me, though. More than I can say about the non-stop barrage of negative political spots that have infested my local media for the last six months. So, you may be right that it wasn't constructive. I'm not sure I really mind that.
I concede that it was not constructive.
After talking with people today, I completely concede the point that it was not constructive. Heck, it may have just made things worse. The event seems be getting interpreted in a way that would make a postmodernist double over in laughter. Everyone is seeing the "truth" through their own prism in a way that the event matches their personal perceived reality. In my opinion, the meaning was lost on most of the people there. However, maybe it is me who missed the meaning. I see people arguing about things that I thought the point was made that it was silly to argue over. I would have thought that giving out crazy attendance figures and doing that ridiculous count off was message enough that size and demographics was not important. I even concede the point that Cat Stevens should not have been involved considering his own statements about Rushdie.
Maybe part of the sanity is being able to say that I could be wrong. But at the same time, that point is lost on many people too. It depresses me to no end.
That's really all my point
That's really all my point was. I didn't mean to express it in such a negative way.
When I'm saying that what I think needs to happen is some acknowledgement as to why Tea Partiers are angry, I'm not speaking as someone who is behind them all the way; I think Beck says idiotic things all the time and I criticize him for it. I think talk radio hosts are loudmouths. Its just that if I were in Jon Stewart's position, I'd be addressing the issue in a completely different way. The most constructive thing you can do, in my view, is dialogue, talking to the people who are angry.
Yes. It really was some of the best stuff I've heard in years--
you almoat wonder why Obama hadn't said it like this. It really is about the media circus, and the extremes. As to Brian's point, you really cannot judge the whole event by a few signs. Most were silly, and pretty tame. Even the O'Donnell ones were in comedoc taste.