A Critique and Rejoinder to the Stewart/Colbert Rally

[Simon_Jester]

My critique of the rally would be Stewarts imbecilic compromise golden mean horseshit. How exactly do you compromise with people who openly brag about never compromising? That and him equivocating an actual news channel like MSNBC with Fox has shown him to be a naive dumbshit.

Personally I'd chalk it up to ass-covering.

Pretty much everyone at the rally knew quite well what he meant: he was talking about Glenn Beck a lot more than about Keith Olbermann.

Damn sure the crowd was.

[Norade]

1) Do you vote? Yes, I am well aware of the mess a typical US ballot is. I even started a thread illustrating that. Nonetheless, I vote. Few things piss me off as much as some whining teen bitching about the nation who then fails to vote. I don't want to hear that your vote doesn't matter, that they're all assholes, voting is a MINIMUM level of participation in your country's affairs.

Voting in my city is pointless as you get the same council candidates year in year out with the only change coming when somebody retires and the mayoral elections are usually no contests. I've not had much a chance to vote on a larger level as the first elections I could have voted in happened shortly after I was 18 and I didn't care and nothing major has come up since I was both old enough to vote an angered enough to care.

2) Do you vote thoughtfully? Meaning, do you actually research the candidates. I realize that not everyone has the time to do this in depth, but do you do it all? FAR too many Americans of any age fail to do this - they vote straight party, or along racial lines, or religious lines, or because the name sounds nice to them. That's bullshit.

I'm Canadian and I do my research, in fact I think that the way to fix democracy is to have every voter need to fill out a test on the issues and you need at least a 60% to pass because if you have no idea what you're voting for outside of a single issue you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

3) Do you vote locally? Realistically, your one vote for, say US President counts for little. It's locally where your voice has the most impact, and those are, on a certain level, the most important elections you can participate in because that's where you have the most effect. It's important, because on the local level is where party candidates start out. If you don't vote for people who represent your views for dog catcher and tax assessor they will never rise higher nor run for higher office. That's the way it works, usually - most career politicians start small and local and work their way up.

See above.

4) Do you work for the candidates of your choice? Do you do anything? - volunteer? Donate? Your candidates need more than your vote, they need helpers and need money, too.

No as our city council is worthless and there is no new blood to help push in.

5) Do you write/call your representatives? If you don't tell them what you think they don't know. COMMUNICATE. If they do something you don't like TELL THEM. Even more important, if they do something you approve TELL THEM. They do pay attention because, after all, if enough people get pissed off they'll be out of a job next election cycle no matter how many big money people support them because the big oligarchs are still the minority. Since most people don't do this they assume that for most communications there are others who feel the same but aren't telling them.

People write in, we get stock answers back, nothing changes and that's local level.

6) Do you write letters to the editor or attend community meetings? No, it's not like voting, but for fuck's sake speak up. Refute the opposition at every opportunity. Show up. Politicians do pay attention to these things, it's part of their job.

No car, and most meetings are next to impossible to get to due to my college schedule.

In short, kindly go fuck yourself in your preachy sanctimonious ass.

[Broomstick]

I thought it was pretty clear I was addressing the US situation as evidenced by my frequent use of the term "US", as opposed to YOUR system which, frankly, I was not talking about and wouldn't presume to know enough to advise on dealing with it.

And which is it - you don't care, or you're angry, or what?

I also thought it was clear I was referring to multiple levels of elections - but perhaps that is not clear to you as you probably don't have as many layers and choices as a typical US citizen does. I don't just vote for my city (in fact, technically, I don't even live in a city but I won't digress into what a "township" is in Indiana) but also for my local neighborhood, county, state, and Federal offices, all in one election, in addition to any referendums on the ballot. I realize this is not the case everywhere which - wow, surprise - is why I mentioned I was talking about US system and not any other.

If you do your research, bravo - and if so, why are you acting so butt-hurt about my post? Are you looking for offense where there is none?

You seem to focus entirely on what you can't do - so find something you CAN do you whining little brat. Or do you think your life will magically get better if you just sit and bitch and sigh about it? Life is hard, and these days it's harder than it's been in decades. No matter how much shit sucks you still have to get up off your ass and keep trying if you're going to survive at all.

[Bakustra]

My critique of the rally would be Stewarts imbecilic compromise golden mean horseshit. How exactly do you compromise with people who openly brag about never compromising? That and him equivocating an actual news channel like MSNBC with Fox has shown him to be a naive dumbshit.

I never will understand this. You'll never get one-party rule lasting very long in this country barring a fascist or communist takeover, so why push for exacerbating partisanship? You have to deal with Republicans at some point, even if currently there's too much of a panic in their ranks for reaching out to do that much good. Reinforcing partisanship simply means that you'll never get anything done except one exhausting fight at a time. But perhaps this, too, is "golden mean" and we must all work together to ensure that the US becomes a one-party state, right?

[Flagg]

My critique of the rally would be Stewarts imbecilic compromise golden mean horseshit. How exactly do you compromise with people who openly brag about never compromising? That and him equivocating an actual news channel like MSNBC with Fox has shown him to be a naive dumbshit.

I never will understand this. You'll never get one-party rule lasting very long in this country barring a fascist or communist takeover, so why push for exacerbating partisanship? You have to deal with Republicans at some point, even if currently there's too much of a panic in their ranks for reaching out to do that much good. Reinforcing partisanship simply means that you'll never get anything done except one exhausting fight at a time. But perhaps this, too, is "golden mean" and we must all work together to ensure that the US becomes a one-party state, right?

You're an idiot. My problem is that he equates the democrats with the republicans when it's the democrats who are doing all the compromising and the republicans are doing none of it. It's this retarded idea that both sides in an argument that hold strident positions must both be wrong and there is some magical middle solution that will work perfectly.

[thejester]

I read it and enjoyed it...but I don't really agree with it. Generational narratives shit me to tears and while this in particular might nail the whole post-modern thing, what does it actually say beyond that? As U pointed out, liberalism has been in steady decline for thirty fucking years in the US. How is The Left and it's failings suddenly the responsibility of hipsters? The Woodstock generation had Woodstock, whilst Richard Nixon carried the White House and George Wallace carried the deep south. Reagan served two terms, and when a 'liberal' president was finally elected, it took just two years before voters said 'fuck you' and gave control of the house back to the right.

EDIT: My vague pronouncement as to why the US is in the situation it is in is because the national mythology has come to encompass all these values that are the total antithesis to liberalism.

[Norade]

I thought it was pretty clear I was addressing the US situation as evidenced by my frequent use of the term "US", as opposed to YOUR system which, frankly, I was not talking about and wouldn't presume to know enough to advise on dealing with it.

And which is it - you don't care, or you're angry, or what?

I also thought it was clear I was referring to multiple levels of elections - but perhaps that is not clear to you as you probably don't have as many layers and choices as a typical US citizen does. I don't just vote for my city (in fact, technically, I don't even live in a city but I won't digress into what a "township" is in Indiana) but also for my local neighborhood, county, state, and Federal offices, all in one election, in addition to any referendums on the ballot. I realize this is not the case everywhere which - wow, surprise - is why I mentioned I was talking about US system and not any other.

If you do your research, bravo - and if so, why are you acting so butt-hurt about my post? Are you looking for offense where there is none?

You seem to focus entirely on what you can't do - so find something you CAN do you whining little brat. Or do you think your life will magically get better if you just sit and bitch and sigh about it? Life is hard, and these days it's harder than it's been in decades. No matter how much shit sucks you still have to get up off your ass and keep trying if you're going to survive at all.

You jumped on me when I made a point about it being hard for me to control things in government in part due to my social standing so I returned the favor by jumping all over you. As for doing what I can, while I do pay attention to politics sadly there is no party voicing anything close to my concerns and I lack the needed connections, desire, and skills to start my own platform and doubt that I could get others young enough to share my views to vote with me even if I wanted to do anything.

Instead I'm going into a career where wages were increased and jobs were created even in '08, that being It and more specifically networking. Though, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that more bureaucrats were added and that politicians voted themselves a wage increase in '08.

[Bakustra]

I never will understand this. You'll never get one-party rule lasting very long in this country barring a fascist or communist takeover, so why push for exacerbating partisanship? You have to deal with Republicans at some point, even if currently there's too much of a panic in their ranks for reaching out to do that much good. Reinforcing partisanship simply means that you'll never get anything done except one exhausting fight at a time. But perhaps this, too, is "golden mean" and we must all work together to ensure that the US becomes a one-party state, right?

You're an idiot. My problem is that he equates the democrats with the republicans when it's the democrats who are doing all the compromising and the republicans are doing none of it. It's this retarded idea that both sides in an argument that hold strident positions must both be wrong and there is some magical middle solution that will work perfectly.

Or he's arguing that you can't have a healthy political system when everybody is screaming, and that is something that many on the left are guilty of as well. See calling for GW Bush to be prosecuted for war crimes, assuming that all Republicans literally hate poor people and want them to die because of healthcare reform, etc. Even if you feel that Bush is a war criminal, and ought to be prosecuted, proclaiming that is not helpful to building compromise, and compromise is essential to working government in the US. This is something that I think is the result of coming of age in a poisonous political climate, at least in part.

Now, I agree that the Republican party has been highly obstructionist over the last two years. But it's not simply because Republicans are all Adolf Hitler clones or whatever, it's for several reasons, many of them coming from extreme partisanship. So trying to decrease partisanship is a noble goal, and one that will allow for things to happen. But whatever. Keep hoping for that magical supermajority in the House and Senate!

[Flagg]

I never will understand this. You'll never get one-party rule lasting very long in this country barring a fascist or communist takeover, so why push for exacerbating partisanship? You have to deal with Republicans at some point, even if currently there's too much of a panic in their ranks for reaching out to do that much good. Reinforcing partisanship simply means that you'll never get anything done except one exhausting fight at a time. But perhaps this, too, is "golden mean" and we must all work together to ensure that the US becomes a one-party state, right?

You're an idiot. My problem is that he equates the democrats with the republicans when it's the democrats who are doing all the compromising and the republicans are doing none of it. It's this retarded idea that both sides in an argument that hold strident positions must both be wrong and there is some magical middle solution that will work perfectly.

Or he's arguing that you can't have a healthy political system when everybody is screaming, and that is something that many on the left are guilty of as well. See calling for GW Bush to be prosecuted for war crimes, assuming that all Republicans literally hate poor people and want them to die because of healthcare reform, etc. Even if you feel that Bush is a war criminal, and ought to be prosecuted, proclaiming that is not helpful to building compromise, and compromise is essential to working government in the US. This is something that I think is the result of coming of age in a poisonous political climate, at least in part.

Now, I agree that the Republican party has been highly obstructionist over the last two years. But it's not simply because Republicans are all Adolf Hitler clones or whatever, it's for several reasons, many of them coming from extreme partisanship. So trying to decrease partisanship is a noble goal, and one that will allow for things to happen. But whatever. Keep hoping for that magical supermajority in the House and Senate!

The one we had a year ago?

Dumbass.

[Andrew J.]

The one we had a year ago?

That supermajority was pretty nominal, I think. Conservative Democratic senators should not properly be counted as part of a "liberal" supermajority.

Dumbass.

There's no need to be rude.

[Bakustra]

That supermajority was a fiction that relied on Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and a whole host of conservative Democrats voting with the party for cloture. This was only going to happen on bills that would draw Republican support as well, so, it was never going to happen, and it still got erased in the midterms. The same in the House- the Blue Dogs would only vote with the party on issues like the war, so a working supermajority was only hypothetical. Even if one came into power, it would almost certainly be erased in the next election.

[Flagg]

Dumbass.

There's no need to be rude.

Eat a dick, you smarmy cunt.

That supermajority was a fiction that relied on Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and a whole host of conservative Democrats voting with the party for cloture. This was only going to happen on bills that would draw Republican support as well, so, it was never going to happen, and it still got erased in the midterms. The same in the House- the Blue Dogs would only vote with the party on issues like the war, so a working supermajority was only hypothetical. Even if one came into power, it would almost certainly be erased in the next election.

Right. You just keep on moving those goalposts buddy.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Being a hipster, at it's core, is about remaining as free from criticism and vulnerability as possible, and the best tool they've devised to secure this is by preemptively jettisoning anything that could compromise their egos by appearing emotionally invested in it; and in a complimentary sense by maintaining that anything they're committed to or interested in is merely an affectation that doesn't denote genuine emotional investment, like the mockup of the Tea Party that this rally was. Oh ha ha, you thought I was serious? How imperceptive you are to not see that it was all an act! Shame on your for your low social intelligence, but more importantly, no shame on me!

And yet a lot of the people I met at the rally seemed... pretty serious to me.

Oh yeah, probably. I can't dispute that; I was offering what I thought was a distillation of his thesis, and for my money there's still a lot of "orthodox" social justice advocates types out there that I tried to allude to in my closing paragraph, although not nearly enough. For every "Olbermann = O'Rielly" sign I saw in the Huffpo's gallery of great rally signs, I saw a "reality has a well-known liberal bias" one too, so who knows.

From time to time I like to use this Ludwig von Mises quote about how "an anti-something movement has little chance of achieving it's goals because it conveys a purely negative attitude and needs the inspiration provided by something truly worth aspiring to in order to succeed" or something like that, because inasmuch as that the popular non-academic Left has become conflated with hipsterdom, it's true. The Left as a hipster phenomenon, as a shelter to ridicule the Tea Party and the GOP and nothing else to advance social justice from, has lost it's soul. Of course, the Left isn't entirely hipsterdom, and if it can remember that and maybe do the highly unfashionable act of emotionally investing themselves into some kind of activism on behalf of a cause supported by more than just a remnant fringe of the 60's protester lineage, it might be able to work it's way back there.

If you think Obama's not doing a good enough job and the republicans are awful, won't you come across as a "purely negative" type anyway? I don't think people are unwilling to emotionally invest in worthwhile things, it's just that it's pretty futile to expect to get anywhere since the Washington establishment and the vastly easier to engage disgruntled populist Right seem to hold all the keys and guard all the gates. To put it in perspective, compare Bush's invasion of Iraq to Obama's attempt to introduce universal healthcare. Where the Hell do you start with a system like that, if not someone genuinely likeable like Stewart?

I don't think we're disagreeing at all here, I think we're describing different aspects of the same malaise that has stricken the Left (can we stop capitalizing Left and Right? I'm really sorry I started doing it please please please lets not anymore :'( ) because they've been browbeaten into accepting the notion that their entire intellectual heritage is verboten, dysfunctional and possibly even depraved. What do you have to move towards when you've been beaten into accepting that you have no alternatives to present? Maybe we're just unclear on terms; I mean "negative attitude" in the sense that it exists only to usurp, to "negate" in the traditional sense without anything to actually move towards, rather than simply just being "grumpy" in the more colloquial sense of a "negative attitude".

[Thanas]

Flagg, tone it the heck down. Your posts have little content despite pointless flaming. I expect you to do better.

[Simon_Jester]

That supermajority was a fiction that relied on Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and a whole host of conservative Democrats voting with the party for cloture. This was only going to happen on bills that would draw Republican support as well, so, it was never going to happen, and it still got erased in the midterms. The same in the House- the Blue Dogs would only vote with the party on issues like the war, so a working supermajority was only hypothetical. Even if one came into power, it would almost certainly be erased in the next election.

Right. You just keep on moving those goalposts buddy.

He's still right. The Democrats, as a practical matter, did not vote with the party consistently, not without each individual member of the Blue Dog caucus being specifically and personally appeased. Look at health care if you don't believe me.

The Dems never really had a supermajority, and they're not going to get anything done until they learn to operate without one- or until the Republicans obligingly commit organizational suicide for them, which was never very likely.

[Flagg]

That supermajority was a fiction that relied on Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln and a whole host of conservative Democrats voting with the party for cloture. This was only going to happen on bills that would draw Republican support as well, so, it was never going to happen, and it still got erased in the midterms. The same in the House- the Blue Dogs would only vote with the party on issues like the war, so a working supermajority was only hypothetical. Even if one came into power, it would almost certainly be erased in the next election.

Right. You just keep on moving those goalposts buddy.

He's still right. The Democrats, as a practical matter, did not vote with the party consistently, not without each individual member of the Blue Dog caucus being specifically and personally appeased. Look at health care if you don't believe me.

The Dems never really had a supermajority, and they're not going to get anything done until they learn to operate without one- or until the Republicans obligingly commit organizational suicide for them, which was never very likely.

Yet they managed to compromise and get the bill passed. Without any Republican votes. That sounds like a supermajority to me.

But we come right back to the point I was making: That you cannot expect Democrats to "compromise" with Republicans since Republicans view compromise as "do what we want, period". And you cannot compare Kieth Olbermann to Glen Beck without being a total fucking asshat.

[Bakustra]

So we come down to assuming that Republican rhetoric is always right, literal, and eternal. Well, if we applied that to the Democratic party, then we'd have withdrawn fully from Iraq by now and be in the final stages of leaving Afghanistan. Republicans have compromised in the past, did compromise in the last two years on less public legislation, and will compromise in the future, especially given the current political situation. But apparently a full third of the political spectrum are unyielding, and indeed, evil.

See, this is what Stewart was talking about, you clown. You're demonizing a wide range of the political spectrum. Do you really think that they'd want to work with somebody that hates them and believes them to be Nazis? I mean, you don't want to compromise with somebody that thinks you're a traitor, like Ann Coulter. So why would Scott Brown want to compromise with somebody shrieking about he's a Nazi that never compromises? Even though you don't have a voice to spew like right-wing ideologues do, that doesn't somehow make it more conducive to a political dialogue in this country. Indeed, it makes it worse, because it drives massive wedges between the base (listening to those who cry "no compromise! no compromise with Rethuglikkkans!") and the leadership, who are willing to reach out.

[Flagg]

So we come down to assuming that Republican rhetoric is always right, literal, and eternal. Well, if we applied that to the Democratic party, then we'd have withdrawn fully from Iraq by now and be in the final stages of leaving Afghanistan. Republicans have compromised in the past, did compromise in the last two years on less public legislation, and will compromise in the future, especially given the current political situation. But apparently a full third of the political spectrum are unyielding, and indeed, evil.

You keep moving goalposts and erecting strawmen. When all but one or 2 major pieces of legislation are passed with little to no compromise from the Republican party after numerous attempts to water it down and add their input, what the fuck do you call that? I call it "uncompromising".

See, this is what Stewart was talking about, you clown. You're demonizing a wide range of the political spectrum. Do you really think that they'd want to work with somebody that hates them and believes them to be Nazis? I mean, you don't want to compromise with somebody that thinks you're a traitor, like Ann Coulter. So why would Scott Brown want to compromise with somebody shrieking about he's a Nazi that never compromises? Even though you don't have a voice to spew like right-wing ideologues do, that doesn't somehow make it more conducive to a political dialogue in this country. Indeed, it makes it worse, because it drives massive wedges between the base (listening to those who cry "no compromise! no compromise with Rethuglikkkans!") and the leadership, who are willing to reach out.

You just don't pay attention to current events, do you? Whom were calling whom Nazis these past 2 years? I seem to recall alot of "Hitler gave good speeches too" signs at Tea Party events, you dolt. Yet even with "death panels", "Marxism", and blatant racism coming from the Republicans the Democrats continued to try and compromise with them. Yet Stewart seems to think the Democrats are just as bad as not compromising. It's mindless middle nonsense.

[Bakustra]

So why do you think that "eye for an eye" is a effective precept in politics? That's what all this boils down to- the Republicans use nasty names, so you think that it's okay for you to do so. I'm not a Christian, but I do believe that there are times when turning and offering up the other cheek is a workable method. I believe that in the great race of politics, if the public sees one party mudslinging and the other standing firm and tall, then their sympathies will lie with the honorable party. And polls have backed that up- people consistently express dissatisfaction with negative ads. Politics is not just party vs. party in a vacuum; it's a contest for the support of the people.

Stewart calls for a reasoned political discourse. The only way to get that discourse is if both sides are willing to talk reasonably. But, in the interim, the party that adopts reasoned discourse first reaps the benefits. Eventually, the other side will come to the conclusion that they're getting their asses kicked because they're the negative party and come to the table. But people ignore that and rage about how he's not supporting them calling Glenn Beck a Falangist. Well, all the elitist pissing about how dumb people are has come home to roost- you're part of the people now as well.

[Flagg]

So why do you think that "eye for an eye" is a effective precept in politics? That's what all this boils down to- the Republicans use nasty names, so you think that it's okay for you to do so. I'm not a Christian, but I do believe that there are times when turning and offering up the other cheek is a workable method. I believe that in the great race of politics, if the public sees one party mudslinging and the other standing firm and tall, then their sympathies will lie with the honorable party. And polls have backed that up- people consistently express dissatisfaction with negative ads. Politics is not just party vs. party in a vacuum; it's a contest for the support of the people.

Stewart calls for a reasoned political discourse. The only way to get that discourse is if both sides are willing to talk reasonably. But, in the interim, the party that adopts reasoned discourse first reaps the benefits. Eventually, the other side will come to the conclusion that they're getting their asses kicked because they're the negative party and come to the table. But people ignore that and rage about how he's not supporting them calling Glenn Beck a Falangist. Well, all the elitist pissing about how dumb people are has come home to roost- you're part of the people now as well.

The difference here, and it's one that seems to sail over your head time and again, is that when the Democrats call the Republicans names, they are generally right, and the vice versa is not the case. Again, just because 2 sides are yelling at eachother doesn't make them both wrong. What idiots like you and Stewart get caught up in is the fact that there is fighting. Well it's a democracy, stupid. There's supposed to be fighting!

[Bakustra]

So why do you think that "eye for an eye" is a effective precept in politics? That's what all this boils down to- the Republicans use nasty names, so you think that it's okay for you to do so. I'm not a Christian, but I do believe that there are times when turning and offering up the other cheek is a workable method. I believe that in the great race of politics, if the public sees one party mudslinging and the other standing firm and tall, then their sympathies will lie with the honorable party. And polls have backed that up- people consistently express dissatisfaction with negative ads. Politics is not just party vs. party in a vacuum; it's a contest for the support of the people.

Stewart calls for a reasoned political discourse. The only way to get that discourse is if both sides are willing to talk reasonably. But, in the interim, the party that adopts reasoned discourse first reaps the benefits. Eventually, the other side will come to the conclusion that they're getting their asses kicked because they're the negative party and come to the table. But people ignore that and rage about how he's not supporting them calling Glenn Beck a Falangist. Well, all the elitist pissing about how dumb people are has come home to roost- you're part of the people now as well.

The difference here, and it's one that seems to sail over your head time and again, is that when the Democrats call the Republicans names, they are generally right, and the vice versa is not the case. Again, just because 2 sides are yelling at eachother doesn't make them both wrong. What idiots like you and Stewart get caught up in is the fact that there is fighting. Well it's a democracy, stupid. There's supposed to be fighting!

Oh hell. That doesn't have anything to do with what Stewart is saying! It doesn't matter how right you think you are, the goal is to win popular support for your cause, not be "right" and hated by all people with working brains! Democracy is not about two screaming ideologues in a god damn boxing match. Democracy is about government by the people. To govern, you need to be able to meet the interests of different people. A government that shuts out segments of the populace, like the Bush administration, is a government that fails. Even if Osiris rose from the dead and Xi Wang-mu descended from out of the West to grant their blessings to it, a Democratic government that did the same thing would still fall. You learned the wrong lessons from Bush- the winning moves in politics are to govern well, not to scream until you run hoarse.

[Phantasee]

Norade: You have an opportunity to make your vote count now! Gordon Campbell just stepped down yesterday (as I'm sure you're aware) and you can join the party (membership is $5 or so?) and pick the next premier (well, potential premier, in your province).

[Thanas]

Flagg, Bakustra, I don't think your difference of opinion can be resolved with words. Clearly you must duel at dawn.

I get what both of you are saying and I think there is truth to both viewpoints.

But I do not want a five-page bitchfest of "YES" "No" "YES". So my advice would be for you to agree to disagre or make a new argument.

[Bakustra]

Flagg, Bakustra, I don't think your difference of opinion can be resolved with words. Clearly you must duel at dawn.

I get what both of you are saying and I think there is truth to both viewpoints.

But I do not want a five-page bitchfest of "YES" "No" "YES". So my advice would be for you to agree to disagre or make a new argument.

I'm fine with that.

[Flagg]

Flagg, Bakustra, I don't think your difference of opinion can be resolved with words. Clearly you must duel at dawn.

I get what both of you are saying and I think there is truth to both viewpoints.

But I do not want a five-page bitchfest of "YES" "No" "YES". So my advice would be for you to agree to disagre or make a new argument.

Yeah, I came to this conclusion last night, which is why I did not respond to his last post.