A Critique and Rejoinder to the Stewart/Colbert Rally

[Norade]

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).

Yeah, I saw that and I will be doing so at the next opportunity.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think the guy quoted in the OP doesn't get it - the "Rally for Sanity" is NOT a political rally lead by politicians, it is a rally lead by the modern equivalent of court jesters pointing out the faults in the current regime, including finger pointing at ALL sides. That's part of the problem, a lot of people didn't get the point, that it's making fun of things to make a point, not necessarily to assemble an army to fix things or overturn the current establishment.

Maybe a political system should promote civic activity such that both the right and left in the streets are only brought there by...clowns on TV. Okay that means we have no authentic community organizations and civil society. Read Bowling Alone; sorry, but lack of personal virtue is not why the U.S. has been in decline. There was a combination of bad luck and bad choices by progressive movements, plus a lot of power in the establishment and a systemic push by them to make sure the public remains on the periphery of society and democracy is much paler than, say, most of Europe.

Look, you poll other countries. More unions, more social programs, more secular, more libertine. They have labor politics, they have modern authentically democratic (i.e., one-man-one-vote is somewhat respected) constitutions, they have public media, they have major structural differences from the U.S. This has political and fundamental relevance. You don't change societies by atomistic election by isolated virtuous voters of allegedly honest or authentic politicians. You need a society so that when the financial system collapses, someone besides banks, like say social movements or unions or whatever, propose an alternative to make Henry Paulson King of America. There's a reason for that.

Really, how often does having a couple hundred thousand people show up anywhere actually change things? Without a riot or revolution or actual blood shed breaking out? The point wasn't to come up with a solution for the problems or run for office but rather to make a point or two: the current system is a farce, there are a lot of people who see through it, that there are still rational, moderate people left in this country, and neither party speaks for them.

Rallies and their character is symptomatic of the quality of popular organization, political consciousness, and political involvement. Ironic or insane rallies led by TV clowns is symptomatic of an ill body politic. Its not too hard to understand. Stewart attacked Code Pinkers and people who do think seriously about Obama authorizing extrajudicial assassinations of Americans abroad, on solely his own authority and supervision. And Bush is a war criminal, unless you flee to the defense of the Nuremberg Court guilty who were found guilty of the quote "supreme international crime", supreme because it allows all other war crimes to be possible, and that is the crime of "waging aggressive war." Expect me to believe Jon Stewart Liebowitz is in the habit of defending Herman Goering, Reichsmarschall of the Third Reich? I think not. So the U.S. routinely violates other nation's sovereignty, in Bush's case, under almost certainly knowingly fraudulent justifications (at the very least, the justifications were for the public's benefit, and not any concern of the internal motivation of the policy makers), I think that qualifies. Why? I speak English. But maybe, for those who supported Obama and don't like the Tea Party, far-right bred hysteria in the media: is the solution, is the only public expression we come up with, is an internally ironic rally led by a comedian who slanders real activists and serious people concerned about international crimes, who mocks organizing and criticisms of the institutions we have, whose brother is the Chief Operating Officer of the New York Stock Exchange, and who was set up there to increase ratings for a Viacom subsidiary...is that really it?

Now, if there are some unhappy youth sitting in armchairs (and there are ALWAYS unhappy youth in the world, it's part of being youthful, I think) it's up to THEM to get up off their asses and start making change, in even in the face of hopeless odds, rather than waiting for someone to ride in on a white horse and rescue them.

As for the appearances issue - no different than the 1960's counter culture uniform of long hair, blue jeans, sandals, and beaded faux-indian headbands and a peace symbol on a long chain. If you didn't have those you weren't with it, even if you listened to rock 'n' roll and marched against the Viet Nam war. No one wants to appear "lame" or outside the in group.

Bullshit. The New Left really challenged the treatment of blacks, America's role in the world, foreign policy, women, etc. We live in a substantially culturally freer and more libertine world for it. People resisted a war who were students - the exact privileged who were protected from personal stake in the war -

If your "rawr kids in my backyward" and mental reinactment of the America Cold War status quo-based cultural myopia is the focus of your political consciousness, maybe you're a lot more like Tea Partiers than you care to admit. Purity of virtue and tone is more important to you than the fact, apparently, that there have been well over a million excess deaths in the Middle East due to fradulent or at least poorly executed and doggedly committed foreign policy, black people shouldn't care about Social Security because actuary tables suggest they never collect on it since they live SUBSTANTIALLY LESS than white people, racism, and immanent austerity policies which will surely impoverish thousands of Americans.

But no 'purity' from the protest left, must be preserved, at all costs.

Young adults - in Old Fart Speak "Today's goddamn kids" - always like to think they're special and often specially oppressed. They aren't. The details change but every generation has shit to deal with. Massive unemployment and the Great Recession? Talk to my dad, who grew up in the 1930's about that. Feel that your government doesn't give a shit about you and you're not in control? Ask the 1960's generation - oh, wait, aren't they the ones in charge now? Gee, how did THAT happen? Huh - maybe they got off their asses and started taking some risks for change? Maybe the current crop should give it a try. Don't like it? Then do something about it!

Of course "Patient Moderates for Drastic Reform NOW!" is going to bring a chuckle... but dammit, do it anyway!

The idea that the people struggling in the 1930s and 1960s were the ones responsible for policy a generation later...is laughable to say the least. Uh, they were beaten back down, but at least they accomplished real civil liberties and civil rights, substantial environmental and social programs, the National Labor Relations Act, and the like.

[Broomstick]

IP, you take yourself far too seriously - learn to laugh a little.

As for my personal politics - you seem to be attempting to paint me into a corner I've never been in. If you're going to oppose my personal views at least do the courtesy of attempting to read and comprehend my actual positions.

I am neither Democrat nor Republican. No political party holds my allegiance. As I have stated, I voted based upon what I can find out about the candidates for an office. That means I've voted for not only candidates of both major parties but quite a few minor ones as well. I don't ask that anyone vote for a particular party or candidate, I only ask that they VOTE. That they do something other than sit on their ass and complain.

Apparently you ARE active in that manner. Well, good for you. I know you don't care about my approval, but you have it anyway. Good for you for voting regardless of whether you agree with me or not.

[Simon_Jester]

IP, were you at the rally?

If you were, if you'd seen the temper of the crowd, and the content... well, let's just say that even the Tea Partiers were smart enough to recognize that this was a rally against them. To a much greater extent than it was, in any sense, a rally to protect Bush from being accused of war crimes.

That's what drew two hundred thousand people there, in my opinion: exasperation with the right, far more than anything else. Politely expressed exasperation, but it was very much there.

Jon Stewart is of course the wrong man to lead those people to actually do anything, and he may even be in some small way part of the problem. But I don't think it makes a lot of sense to sling the kind of stuff at him that you do.