David Masciotra’s got a piece up at Popmatters that takes on a liberal sacred cow in service of defending someone else who is not quite a pariah, but certainly a guilty pleasure—at least for the kind of liberals who would even use such a phrase. The cow is Jon Stewart, the guilty pleasure is Michael Moore; and the core argument Masciotra makes is that the lionization of the former and the shunning of the latter tells us all we need to know about why it is that the American Left often finds itself alienated from much of the country’s white working class. He implies that if one wants to answer the What’s the Matter with Kansas? question, all they need to do is turn on Comedy Central at 11 PM:
Moore, while taking all the right positions and displaying all the right characteristics for a political and cultural leader – courage, boldness, uncompromised expression of contested beliefs – represents everything that the modern, educated liberal casts as inferior. Moore is obese. His appearance is consistently sloppy and working class. He’s a college dropout. He has an apartment in New York City, but continues to spend most of his time living in Michigan. He’s devoutly Catholic.
An overweight, relatively uneducated, Midwestern Catholic is the image that most liberals mentally sketch when they consider the cultural enemy. Stewart, on the other hand, is the physically fit, son of a physics professor, a college graduate, and an avatar of the intellectually superior style of yuppie political communication. His format allows him to express it perfectly – play a clip of a Republican saying something predictably stupid, make a bemused facial expression, and then cut it down in an exaggerated tone of disbelief or sarcastic agreement. Cue audience applause…
The cost of Stewart’s cleverness, however, is that to those who do not accept his soft liberalism and to those who do not share his cultural formation, he makes himself, in the words of cultural critic Lee Siegel, a “superficial fool”.
Stewart was at his most superficial and most foolish when he marshaled the disorganized and incoherent parade of politically lost souls known as the “Rally to Restore Sanity”. The event had its supporters and detractors, but it was difficult to find anyone who could give a precise summary as to what it was about. There were vague and borderline meaningless calls for people to behave more civilly and reasonably, but there weren’t any serious policy proposals or substantive sociological suggestions.
The majority of Stewart’s acolytes are under the age of 30, and through nightly viewing of The Daily Show, they are able to find their hero – a man who, with only one or two exceptions, will insist he is merely a comedian when pressed to answer any questions about his politics, agenda, or purpose. “Rally to Restore Sanity” succeeded as a cultural gathering of a band of jesters, who are frivolously amused by mockery of easy targets, but refuse to sacrifice the easiest of objects to surrender – the appearance of aloof hipness. Aloof hipness trumps emotional attachment for the Stewart generation.
Masciotra’s not the first left-winger to take a shot at Stewart, but his take here still definitely represents the minority opinion among his cohort. As far as I’m concerned, I think much of his criticism of Liebowitz is right-on, although I must admit that I’m myself a bit too much of the elitist to get so worked up about Stewart’s posturing—or, for that matter, find so much to celebrate in Moore’s work.
But even though I think a lot of the criticism of Moore’s films is far (I really do wish he’d make them less about him), I’ve got a lot more admiration for the fat man than the urbane late-night host. Because, say what you will about the tenets of Michael Moore-ism, dude, but at least he cops to being what he is. He doesn’t pretend to be unbiased or centrist or uncertain; he’s a dirty hippie agitator, and damn proud of it! Stewart, on the other hand, has constantly tried to play it both ways—being clearly political at one turn and then, when called on it, retreating behind his sieve-like defense of simply being a comedian. Go ahead and either re-read or re-watch his keynote address at the almost unbearably self-amused “Rally to Restore Sanity”—it ain’t too funny. And for once it’s for a lack of trying.
Of course, Jon Stewart’s enormous popularity among left-wingers is symptomatic of a deeper dysfunction. And that dysfunction is the incredible transformation of the advocacy Left over the past generation from being the province of the working and middle class—unions, churches, neighborhood councils, etc.—to being that of the professional (or, if you’d prefer, upper-middle) class. Although the Left’s coalition in the United States has, along class lines, remained largely the same [see pg. 41], the background of the people who do the real nitty-gritty work of bothering politicians, sending out mailers, organizing events, and spreading propaganda has not. More and more, the people who run the Left are like me—they come from fancy, private, expensive schools; they could afford to take unpaid internships with advocacy organizations, thus gaining priceless experience; and their pet issues are far more likely to be post-material since they’ve no personal experience with poverty.
All in all, this leads to some really funny protest signs and some very clever ways of reducing your carbon footprint by recycling your old iPhones rather than simply throwing them away. But the overall benefit for the less privileged—the people the Left is ostensibly supposed to be of and for—is up for debate.
I gave up on Stewart a few months ago. He’s just so exhausting to watch.
Colbert, however, I find delightful.Report
Michael has always annoyed me. He seems to feel like he should be the Limbaugh of the left but is indignant that none of the Dem politicians or significant figures of the left give him much attention.Report
I always kinda liked him. He caught the best part of populism, it seemed to me (as well as the worst kinds, of course).
I thought his show… what was it? TV Nation? was brilliant.
I now realize that he’s *WRONG* about a lot of the stuff he talks about but he still seems to believe things. I’d rather more of my ideological opposition had more in common with him than with, say, Obama.Report
Being a pretty solid cynic myself my reactions are somewhat opposite to yours.Report
I’m with North, better an evil genius than an honest fool.Report
Evil geniuses are easier to work with, at any rate. They’ll find the optimal path for them, if you create it.Report
here I thought the rally to restore sanity was about funnel cakes!
(what, you say that was just a naked bribe?)
Moore’s a total asshole (who else flips off the RNC??), but he’s braver than people give him credit for — and willing to stretch his neck out for his sources. Overall, a nice guy.
Stewart’s a good guy too — he’s been at his best when doing investigative journalism (the takedown of Mad Money being the best example).Report
Which was kind of funny, because both Kramer and Stewart could be considered in the same ‘soft liberal’ wing as Masciotra describes it.Report
Kramer’s just a scam artist. “advising” people to buy things that will make him and cronies more money.
That ain’t liberal, that’s just being a cheatin’ liar.Report
Mischief and laughter are the left’s weapons, as anger and “pulling people down to my level” is the right’s.
Moore provides an outlet for people to smuggle information out of places. So too does Stewart, and wikileaks.Report
I probably wouldn’t argue that Stewart is substantively better than Moore, but then I am not politically active (unless you count reading blogs like this or watching TV shows like The Rachel Maddow Show and Anderson 360), so I don’t much care.
I watch Stewart because I find him more entertaining. While I was quite taken with Moore (who’s “Bowling for Columbine” I saw in theaters) while I was in college, my increasing apathy over the years has made his work less appealing to me.Report
This just seems completely wrong on multiple levels. It doesn’t really accurately describe Moore, and even if you accept the rather silly premise that “most liberals” share a common, cartoonish idea of “the cultural enemy,” I think the cartoon would look a lot more like Rupert Murdoch, Dick Cheney, or Ralph Reed than Moore.Report
Those guys are the strategic (non-cultural) enemy.
The dude that wants to shoot beer cans on the weekend is the cultural enemy.
I think.Report
What if I only want to shoot beer cans ironically?Report
Liberals don’t drink beer that comes in cans.
I think.
This is getting shakier as I go along.Report
Au contraire—you’re on a roll, Pat.Report
Liberals don’t eat cheese food products that comes in cans.Report
Greg, nice pickup and carry for 15 yards and a first.Report
No, but we buy Keystone Light to soak our wood chips for the smoker, and those cans make fine targets, both ironic and otherwise.
(And where did they ever get the idea that liberals don’t own or shoot guns, anyway? Even us Hollywood-snuggling, Cabernet-and-latte-sipping coastal elites often enjoy a good weekend cordite party.)
The difference between a strategic vs. cultural enemy still eludes me, but I maintain that if you were to create a composite sketch of “the liberal cultural enemy” it would either look something like a Wall Street bankster, or a neo-Confederate, evangelical fan of NASCAR, light beer, and talk radio, not a rust belt Catholic magazine editor and filmmaker.Report
Think along the lines of that stereotype. Someone with Michael Moore’s demeanor, except put him in in Arkansas or Idaho, and you get at what I think is being talked about here. The “midwestern Catholic” inclusion was odd, because when I think of midwestern Catholic, I don’t think of someone who looks or acts like Moore. But when I think of “the Bubba vote” (if you’re familiar with the term), I very much think of a Mooresque figure with a different political orientation.Report
Doesn’t that just reduce it to “fat guy in flannel and a baseball cap,” though?
I guess I can see a vague, tenuous connection between Moore’s dress and demeanor and “the Bubbas,” but not enough of one to do all the heavy lifting that Masciotra apparently wants it to.
Dressing and acting like a Bubba didn’t stop James Carville, Jim Hightower, or Garrison Keillor from being embraced by the establishment left, after all.Report
Sloppy-looking, ornery demeanor, and that sort of thing. Conscientiously low-brow.
Or, to quote Jeff Foxworthy’s definition of redneck: A glorious lack of sophistication.
I agree that there are limits to the applicability to this (by way of your examples). Carville got to where he is by being very useful to influential people. Hightower’s got the hat and twang, but almost immediately after you hear him talking you realize that he’s got cogent things to say. I know less about Keillor, other than who he is.Report
> We buy Keystone Light to soak our
> wood chips for the smoker
Bite your tongue. Real liberals soak their wood chips in home-brewed porter.
Or they would, if they ate smoked meats other than salmon.Report
Hill country BBQ for me!
(and beer can chicken.)Report
Hill country BBQ is for liberal hipsters anyway. If you don’t believe me, go to a BBQ joint in Lockhart on a Saturday.Report
I showed up to Franklin’s, in Austin (liberals, probably. but not hipsters).
I’ve also been to Gettysburg Pretzel Factory, and to Kossar’s and Katz’s for the pastrami.
It might just be that I like german food, ya dig?Report
When were you at Franklin’s? How long did you have to wait?
And Katz’s is no more.Report
Last year, before he moved into an actual storefront (yay foodtrucks!). On an all you can jet trip around the country. We showed up a half hour early, so we only had to wait about 40 minutes. Sad we missed the Friday night music scene, but the smoke bowl (Los Angeles) was living up to it’s name. Fog so bad we had to land and refuel before we could get to LongBeach.Report
Chris,
oh. you meant the Katz’s in Austin… I was talking the one in NYC. We tramped all over Austin to find some real Dr. Pepper. It was worth every step!Report
I personally think Franklin’s is a bit overrated, despite Bon Appetit saying it’s the best BBQ in the country. It’s good and all, but I’ve had better BBQ in Austin (and the best BBQ is not even in Texas, damnit). Now that it’s a storefront instead of a truck, the wait is in the hours (plural). We sent someone down there at 10:00 am a couple months ago and got our food well after noon.Report
Real liberals are vegetarians (we care about animals and the environment). The rest of you are fakes!Report
PBR? When done ironically, of course…Report
I’ve always had mixed feelings about Moore. I agree with him sometimes, disagree with him sometimes, and have no opinion sometimes. In addition, sometimes I am really glad that he’s highlighting issues that no one else seems to highlight, but I also hate that he can be so blatantly manipulative (by doing something like, say, taking a boat to Cuba). I learn some things when I watch Moore, though, and while I’m skeptical of his claims (see taking a boat to Cuba), he does inspire me to learn more. That’s a good thing, right?
Stewart I just watch to laugh.
Also, a point in Moore’s favor:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/sy-1240477454/rage_against_the_machine_sleep_now_in_the_fire_official_music_video/Report
I think that the fact that “Sicko” is banned in Cuba speaks volumes both for Cuba as well as for the movie itself.Report
But with that said, wouldn’t single payer be better than Obamacare?Report
In theory, yes, but in practice given the prevailing political incentives, no, it wouldn’t be better even if it were possible to pass such a thing.
The system that Obama borrowed from Heritage, Massachusetts, and the Swiss should work much better in practice here.Report
But with that said, wouldn’t single payer be better than Obamacare?
Fish yeah! But I’m not a proponent of “Obamacare.” Or Obama, for that matter.Report
yesReport
yup. but it’d never pass. the best thing about Obamacare is that it will not get repealed. the second best is that it will finally shut the coffin on the current GOP.Report
Of course, I think Moore is completely wrong about almost everything he promotes, so, ideologically we’re as different as horse piss and Heineken, but, as a person I’ve heard he’s a complete hypocrit and consummate asshole. I know a young lady who interned with him, and she was terribly disillusioned.Report
There were some Canadians liberals who made a documentary about Moore called Manufacturing Dissent a few years back that was absolutely scathing. It was pretty hard to watch that and not have a few mixed feelings about the dude.Report
Did you see Blue Cross/Blue Shield’s rx to Sicko? very very illuminating.Report
… he’s surely an asshole, but he’s also a nice guy willing to stick his neck out for people who’ve helped him out (even when that meant burning bridges). And he’s a useful place to publish stuff that can’t be sourced readily.Report
Stewart ain’t what I’d call an exemplary leftist, and his style has its drawbacks, but he does good comedy, makes needed critiques, and has over the years become a beneficial voice.Report
Stewart is an entertainer and he was considerable solace to the libs during the darkest days of W so they didn’t go all incoherent with rage. So he was good for that at least.Report
As for Stewart, he falls far short of great political humor. I find his act more snarky, silly-faced, out-of-context ambush than anything culturally useful.Report
Well Mike being as right wing as you are (libertarian first of course but right wing second) that’s to be expected.Report
Here’s the best thing about Stewart (and Colbert). It’s the only place on TV besides the more obscure CSPAN channels where people will talk about books. And real books, not just 100 page large font ghostwritten hack jobs that people plug on cable news. Real 800 page tomes about Afghanistan and other complex ideas.Report
If there is a problem with liberals in this country that is exemplified by this piece its that we should pick a side between Stewart and Moore. WTF if the point? The two most prominent liberal voices in the media and Mascirota is trying frame it as yet another culture war battle between Good and Evil ( or close enough at least). Why is only one style correct and good? Geez, they are both good at what they do. Isn’t the tent, or drum circle if you will, big enough for different approaches and styles.
I hear how Stewart is to moderate in interviews with guys like O’Reilly and Paul or isn’t strident enough. He does actually seem to believe in trying to have respectful dialogue with people he disagrees with which i guess means he is an elitist or not strident enough. And if he is going to get high profile people he disagrees with to come on his show he needs to give them a chance to talk and not just clown on them. His recent interview with Paul was good stuff, a lot better then the R debates.
To much of this seems to be picking at personal styles and methods to create meta narratives and of course throw around labels like elitist.Report
Excellent point. Another thing that I think the article got completely wrong about Moore was the following:
Those may be the necessary and sufficient conditions for a right-wing political and cultural leader in 2011, but doesn’t describe the sort of leader that tends to get promoted by the left.
For one, Moore regularly gets his facts wrong and continues to push a narrative long after finding out its foundation has serious cracks. That, fortunately, is still a problem for many on the left.
“Uncompromised expression of contested beliefs” can also be re-phrased as “isn’t afraid to fire both barrels at allies,” which tends to alienate many people who otherwise might be sympathetic.Report
“Moore regularly gets his facts wrong and continues to push a narrative long after finding out its foundation has serious cracks. That is still a problem for many.”
Are you saying that Moore getting his facts wrong, etc, is a problem for many on the left (in which, yes, far more so than those on the right who will stick with a baffon LONG after they have been discredited)?
Or are you saing that many on the left get their facts wrong, etc, in which case, see above.Report
“Roger & Me” Smith created the late great corporate-union auto partnership Saturn. I always wondered if Moore’s movie made him do that.
I’m with Masciotra/Elias’ piece here, Moore the guilty pleasure. Guilty pleasures for me—say Ann Coulter or Michael Savage—are the ones with a kernel of hard truth inside the yummy polemical coating.
Stewart’s is rather formulaic snark and could probably be replaced by a program. Max Headroom [a program, if you recall] could cover the gig
play a clip of a Republican saying something predictably stupid, make a bemused facial expression, and then cut it down in an exaggerated tone of disbelief or sarcastic agreement. Cue audience applause…
I appreciate Elias’ self-criticism here, that
More and more, the people who run the Left are like me—they come from fancy, private, expensive schools; they could afford to take unpaid internships with advocacy organizations, thus gaining priceless experience; and their pet issues are far more likely to be post-material since they’ve no personal experience with poverty.
but contrarian-apologist that I am, I’ll defend Elias against himself here. It’s OK that folks like himself think of more than themselves. It’s the right start.
I keep thinking of Adam Smith’s other book, The Theory of the Moral Sentiments lately, the core being that we don’t credit any good that anyone does unless we admire their motives.
Elias puts the Left [himself!] under the moral microscope here, and that’s proper. But perhaps we should back off judging motives a bit and try to see the good that people achieve, just by deciding not to act evilly or amorally.
We humans are such a pathetic bunch; I don’t ask for much before I start dealing out props.
Provocative piece, Elias.Report
Yeah, agreed greginak.Report
I do not understand the tendency, when Stewart says hat he is a satirist and not a left wing pundit, to declare “but he is because he I think that he’s one but he doesn’t do it right so he has to be different.”Report
It’s weird how well this post goes with the one about the televised debates below, since we’re discussing the importance of the political left siding with different media personalities. That’s not a slam against you Elias- it’s just weird that American culture has gotten to the point that we lack recognizable leaders of political movements, outside of competing televised avatars. Do you watch the comedy skits of John Stewart or the reality programs of Sarah Palin? It’s a bit odd how much mobility there is now between Washington DC and the TV pantheon. The important thing is to remember that it was not always this way.Report
… because father coughlin doesn’t ring a bell…Report
No, I’m not saying that demagogic media personalities are something new.Report
I think Moore makes some good points. When I hear him speak legitimately, on talk shows and the like, I like him far more than when he makes movies. His movies are shit. Even he says they aren’t documentaries. Which is a cop out, especially when he accepts Oscars for “Best Documentary”. I have no issue with his weight or his hometown or dress or any of that. The elitism of the supposed “open minded” liberal is one of the things that keeps me from fully allying myself with folks who I otherwise tend to agree with. My biggest problem with Moore is that he often substitutes style for substance, ultimately weakening his initial argument because his detractors have so much to go at him for.
Stewart? I think he’s funny. I tend to agree with him. But he goes for the low-hanging fruit. He mocks the easily mocked. He does it well. But that is about all he does. Plus, what I’ve seen and read about him from him outside “The Daily Show” indicates that his persona there is a bit more of a character than he lets on and that he is actually a lot more conservative in real life. Not sure how true it is, but that is the impression I’ve been given. Making the love affair with him all the more… peculiar.
So, yea, do I “prefer” Stewart to Moore? In general, yes. I find Stewart infinitely more entertaining. Though I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that Moore is the intellectual superior and, when the rhetoric and talking points are cut out, Moore is who I would more likely ally myself with politically/ideologically. Even if I didn’t agree with his policies, I’d still probably consider the one I would take more seriously as an opponent.Report
It takes a lot of talent in improv to be a good comedian. It also takes a ton of research to make news funny — that show is stressful as heck to write for.
Particularly (as is OFten) when they play the game “make the straight man bust out laughing.”Report
How much improv is he doing? He acts like he is improving, but most of it is scripted. He is just good at having “natural” reactions. The interviews are certainly more improv, but I’m sure he also has certain jokes he would drop one way or another and lines he tries to elicit so he can drop a well placed “response”.
I’m sure the writers of TDS are smart. But, again, there is a team of writers. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have been impacted by the writers’ strike. Stewart is good at what he does and probably smarter than the average comedian. But he is a comedian first and foremost. He’s still the guy who dropped the “You know that Canadian beer is like moonshine” line in “Big Daddy”. Yes, THAT “Big Daddy”. The Adam Sandler movie.Report
I perceive the difference between Moore and Stewart as being that Stewart values respectful debate, intellectual honesty, and stands for the principle that our human commonality ought to dwarf our political disagreements (which was the transparent point of the Rally to Restore Sanity, as well his utterly misguided attack on Crossfire).
Moore, on the other hand, is mendacious to his core, untrustworthy with facts, and paints caricatures of his opponents in the service of inflaming passions, fostering hatreds, and making more interesting movies which put money in Moore’s pocket. He’s a devious bastard, and if he’s become a cultural goat, it’s hard to think of someone more deserving of that fate.
It is fruitless to debate their respective merits as a comedian and a documentarian, because such . I think Stewart and his writing staff are outstanding comedians, especially considering the sheer volume of new material they are required to produce.. I think Moore’s a good documentarian in that his documentaries are engaging, funny, and crisp. However, given his gleeful willingness to twist facts, I think it’s more apt to call him a good progpagandist.Report