that actually made me think a bit, which is not a bad thing. Unfortunately for the author, one Michael Kalin, I don't think I reached the same conclusions he did. The short version of the author's point is that Jon Stewart's impact on the best and brightest of America is actually negative. He believes the smirky, humorous approach of Stewart and the Daily Show have led to the "declining influence of progressive thought in America."
He then proceeds to set up a straw man of a fictionalized, prototypical Stewart watcher, who, taking the message that there is no decency or honesty in politics, heads for a six figure salary as an analyst at Morgan Stanley instead of becoming the next Teddy Roosevelt. He concludes as follows:
Although Stewart's comedic shticks may thus earn him some laughs Sunday at the Oscars, his routine will certainly not match the impact of his greatest irony: Jon Stewart undermines any remaining earnestness that liberals in America might still possess.
So, allow me to analyze this to the best of my ability. In the first place, his prototypical Stewart viewer is the kind of white, Jewish liberal overachiever who tends to think they know more and better than the rest of us. The implication is that unless you end up with a high GPA at an Ivy League school, you can't possibly be seen as a future leader of the Democrats. All of that presupposes an importance on the children of the upper middle or upper classes of America, and a Harvard Education (more on that later). How then to explain Harry Truman, product of Missouri farmland? Eisenhower? Ronald Reagan, son of a drunken door-to-door salesman? The point here, of course, is that the idea that the best and the brightest, evidenced by Stewart's viewers, are lost to America is laughable. It's ahistorical for one, and elitist to boot. Great men become great men regardless of the social conditions around them. Teddy Roosevelt becomes TR whether he reads the Iliad in Greek or watches Ren & Stimpy. I grant you environment contributes greatly, but I don't believe the drive & ambition that leads some men to be great can be destroyed because a TV host looks at the news in a funny, cynical way.
Similarly, the idea that Kalin's fictional Stewart viewer will be turned by a TV show to sell his soul to Corporate America instead of joining the political march to progress is disingenuous at best. People make decisions for a lot of reasons, not just because of a cynical culture. The fictional Mr. Goldberg of the article makes a choice, carefully elided by Kalin, to take a career as a financial analyst instead of becoming a politician or party leader. He may do this because he wants a comfortable life without the pressures of government; he may do this because he likes the challenge of being a Morgan Stanley analyst; he may do this because his girlfriend works there. Again, people determined to become great politicians, great athletes, great opera singers, don't let things get in the way of their dream. Stewart's show won't deter someone committed to being a leader, and a non-cynical approach wouldn't suddenly create whole new legions of progressive leaders. The author is simply ascribing too much power to this show.
Third, earnestness is the one thing not missing from the liberal side of the aisle. Every liberal I see or meet is full of earnestness and progressive (as opposed to Progressive) ideas. They tend to be loose generalizations of "social action" and helping those less fortunate. What's missing from modern liberalism is not earnestness, but a healthy dose of realpolitik. The kinds of people who are prepared to balance social needs with the reality of American life. There's a squishiness about liberalism that is fully prepared with a lot of airy fairy goals and very short on the hard numbers and tough decisions that getting things done requires. Kalin's desire for more earnestness is precisely why the Democrats are losing elections - I don't think Americans want earnest people, they want people to make tough choices and sacrifices that will lead to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The pursuit, not the handing over on a silver platter. It's an open question whether the Republicans are those people, but I think that's what the average American really wants.
I don't disagree that too much cynicism is a bad thing - I'm a lifelong cynic, and it's not the healthiest outlook on the world. On the other hand, there's an assumption in this op-ed that Stewart has a wider impact than I think he does. Sure, a certain subset of Kalin's focus group here are Stewart watchers, but a) not all of the future of the Democrats fits that demographic, and b) people like my wife, conservative in outlook, are also watchers of Stewart. I can tell you she hasn't lost or gained any idealism - she just thinks the show is funny. There's a note at the end of the article than Kalin is a 2005 graduate of Harvard. Frankly, it shows. He sounds like a kid just out of college, full of energy and concern and handwringing over the future of America. He also sounds like Harvard did a poor job of teaching him basic reasoning. I think I've poked some large holes in his logic, and I'm just a dope from Brooklyn. To think this kid's parents (or perhaps us, the taxpayers footing some kind of scholarship) paid for him to go to Harvard for four years. If this is the best Harvard can do, I think the school has some issues. Like his ideal, his thinking is squishy.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to shred this guy out of political issues. And no, I don't think the Daily Show is the world's most important subject. But I do think that someone writing for a major newspaper should think his argument through more clearly before committing it to electrons.
|