Trying to get movement conservatives to stop fomenting violence may well be an impossible task. Like the scorpion in the story in The Crying Game, it's just their nature. They don't see liberals as political opponents, but as dangerous enemies. Their words, not mine. And what do you do with enemies? You shoot them. Of course.
Take this latest issue of Townhall, just out. There's nothing particularly remarkable about it. And that's just the point. Movement conservatives do this sort of stuff all the time. It's so routine that no one even even blinks. Demonization is second nature to them. Heck, the enemies list is to movement conservatives what the Top 10 list is to David Letterman. Here's a real dangerous sort, #28 on their list, Jon Stewart:
#28 JON STEWART
Host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show"
Political satirist Jon Stewart's tongue is acid-tipped. His popular "Daily Show" program regularly slays elected officials for hypocrisy and self-importance, derides political buffoonery and skewers media excesses. More often than not, it's bitingly hilarious and decidedly Left-leaning: a potent combination.
A 2007 media survey revealed that more than one-in-10 young voters relied on Stewart's show as a primary source of political news -- a share that has undoubtedly swelled since. It's no small coincidence that voters aged 18-29 backed Barack Obama for president by a breathtaking 2-to-1 margin.
While acting as a formidable political opinion maker, Stewart inoculates himself against serious criticism by playing the "I'm just a comedian" card. This artifice has become known among conservatives as the Jon Stewart "clown nose on, clown nose off " routine.
Laugh all you want. It works.
Real scary, huh? Point is, they've routinized hating liberals so much, that they don't even have to say bad things anymore. Stewart may be too popular, funny and able to punch back to say anything really nasty about him. But they don't have to. Just label him as another "dangerous liberal", and that's enough. George Soros, OTOH, is "Nazi sympathizer", as someone in the comment thread duly noted. But speaking of the comment thread, when I checked in, here's what was on top:
Is this Countdown like a Targeting List of Most Wanted - Dead or Alive ?
This "Most Dangerous Liberal" countdown list is really an ill-timed and inappropriate thing to be doing right now...
Don'tcha Think ?
I mean you might disagree with Liberals on policy matters But Dangerous ?
Isn't this the opposite of calming things down a bit...
"CNN sort of started it. They had this idea that, you know, the fight in Washington is Republicans and Democrats. So why don't we isolate that and we'll stand back here and Democrats and Republicans will go at it. Red and blue staters will go at it. What it does is amplifies a division that I actually don't think is the right fight," Stewart said.
"What I do believe is both sides have their way of shutting down debate and the news networks have allowed these two sides to become the fight in the country. And I think the fight in the country is corruption vs. not corruption. Extremists vs. regular [people]."
I don't know, Jon. How about fantasy vs. reality? How about "liberals are fascists" vs. "fascists are fascists"? How about, "You belong to the reality-based community" vs. "WE belong to the reality-based community." How about "Obama is Kenyan" vs. "Obama's father was Kenyan." How about "The federal debt 30 years from now is an immediate crisis!" vs. "Real unemployment close to 20% is an immediate crisis"? How about "global warming is a hoax" vs. "global warming is just one of several ways in which human activity is pushing the Earth beyond the limits of sustainability in its current state"? How about "Iraq had WMDs" vs. "Bush was developing war plans for Iraq before 9/11."
Now, MSNBC doesn't perfectly embody the "reality" side of the above. Nobody does. And there are folks--like Amy Goodman, for example--who consistently do it better. But as far as major corporate media entities are concerned, the FOX/MSNBC divide can be said to match "fantasy vs. reality" nearly as well as it matches "Red vs. Blue".
So it seems to me, Jon, that you might want to go back to the drawing board and ponder that a bit, before coming up with your next grand plan for how the media might should organize itself. Plenty of "regular people" wouldn't know reality if it came up and bit them in the ass:
And plenty of folks you might call "extremists" are "extremists" precisely because they are in touch with reality. Heck, they might even know that George Bush is war criminal.
Watching Rachel Maddow's interview of Jon Steward last night, I was struck by how reasonable both of them were trying to be. It's just too bad that neither of them--and none of us for that matter--live in a reasonable world. At times, such reasonableness in an unreasonable world itself became quite unreasonable--as when Stewart tried to explain that it was wrong to call Bush a war criminal, even though "technically" he is. It makes him sound like Pol Pot, Stewart explained.
Yes. Exactly.
If we want our presidents to not be war criminals, we need to make it sound like a bad thing. No, make that a really bad thing.
It's a conversation-stopper, not a conversation-starter, Stewart explained. Not a problem, I say. Arrest first, then converse. You see, Jon, It really wasn't cable news that started the Iraq War. It was George Bush & the neocons. They're the ones we should take of first. There are laws you know?
But that's just the tip of the iceberg of what's wrong with Stewart's understanding of the world. At his "Rally to Restore Sanity", Stewart's closing speech included a warning not to call folks like the tea baggers (another term he doesn't like, even though it was it their own) racists. Racists, apparently means folks in white robes. But the problem, of course, is today's "Racism without Racists" (aka "Colorblind Racism) as Eduaro Bonilla-Silva explains it in Racism without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States--a new form of racism that has an explicit disavowal of individual racism built into its very core (as in "equal opportunity, not equal results), and yet serves very neatly to keep perpetuating a hierarchy of white racial privilege in our society, even while allowing specific blacks and other minorities to succeed individually.
Eduardo Bonilla-Silva identifies four central frames at the core of colorblind racism: "The central component of any dominant racial ideology is its frames or set paths for interpreting information," Bonilla-Silva writes. These four are:
(1) Abstract liberalism.
The frame of abstract liberalism involves using ideas associated with political liberalism (e.g. "equal opportunity," the idea that force should not be used to achieve social policy) and economic liberalism (e.g., choice, individualism) in an abstract manner to explain racial matters.
(2) Naturalization.
Naturalization is a frame that allows whites to explain away racial phenomena by suggesting they are natural occurrences.
(3) Cultural Racism.
Cultural racism is a frame that relies on culturally based arguments such as "Mexicans do not put much emphasis on education" or "blacks have too many babies" to explain the standing of minorities in society.
(4) Minimization of Racism
Minimization of racism is a frame that suggests discrimination is no longer a central factor affecting minorities' life chances ("It's better now than in the past" or "There is discrimination, but there are plenty of jobs out there).
Abstract liberalism is what allows colorblind racists to interpret themselves as "post-racial" and anyone who keeps talking about race (such as those who actually experience racial discrimination) as "the real racists".
Sometimes it's a sad commentary on our media that Comedy Central has provided the most accurate news coverage of past decade. But when it comes to that which is totally bonkers, it often can be no other way. And white supremacy parading around in the guise of civil rights is the very definition of totally bonkers.
Still, it's not as though no prosaic analysis can be offered. So a a couple of things dibgy has either said herself or referenced over the past few weeks are worth calling to mind: (1) That Obama was only called a Muslim because it was no longer cool (or politically productive) to use the n-word. (2) After two solid years of calling Obama a Muslim (and meaning the n-word) it's not all that surprising that all of the sudden, nine years after 9/11 we get a vicious outpouring of anti-Muslim hatred.
In short--my own brilliant observation here, folks--the ugly eruption of anti-Muslim hatred and violence puts the lie to all the denial of Tea Party racism. After all, Sarah Palin--appearing at Beck's "Steak The Dream" event today--defended "Dr. Laura's" use of the N-word on free speech grounds, and heartily approved of her at the same time, while, as I showed earlier this week, virtually no self-identified conservatives approve of Park51, even though a sizable minority realizes they are protected by the First Amendment.
I know Glenn Beck is an easy target for ridicule, and others including Keith Olbermann and Stewart himself have done great send-ups on him before, but this extended Jon Stewart throw-down last night may be the funniest piece of satire I have ever seen:
I have to give Glen Beck credit. Yes, I will grant you that he is a nativist, race-baiting, neo-fascist, Social Darwinist, 9/11-victim-hating, not-very-good-at-figuring-out-the-meaning-of-obvious-lyrics, apparently-has-never-read-the-actual-Bible kind of guy, but I do admire his willingness to openly make the case for the far-right wing historical worldview- the worldview of the truly out there conservatives like John C. Calhoun and Robert Welch and Ayn Rand. When I see his attacks on progressivism, I kind of feel like he read my book, The Progressive Revolution: How the Best in America Came to Be, and felt like he identified with all the goats in my narrative and is attacking all the heroes. He seems to want to glorify all the pro-slavery, anti-democracy, anti-women's rights, Social Darwinists, pro-big business, anti-worker people I mention, and attack all the reformers, Bill-of-Rights agitators, abolitionists, suffragists, labor organizers, pro-national parks, anti-child labor, anti-big trust, pro-regulation of Wall Street I like. It is truly fascinating to see him trash people like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, who did so much to advance progress in this country, and glorify a President like Calvin Coolidge, whose policies led us directly into the Great Depression. I haven't yet heard him do a history lesson praising John C. Calhoun for standing up for slavery as a part of the states' rights doctrine, or hear him approvingly quote Social Darwinist William Graham Sumner talking about how it's best for society if poor people are allowed to die, but I eagerly await for this to happen.
I could write another long post like this one analyzing Beck's rather stunning philosophy, but I have to admit that Jon Stewart's send-up is far more fun, so I will leave it at that.
If the healthcare summit taught us anything it's the following:
We're still a long way from healthcare, despite the campaign promises and (some) productive debate
Don't expect the media to say anything meaningful. The two favorites were likening it to "political theatre," and asking, "If this were the winter Olympic games, how would you score this?"
It never ceases to amaze me how Jon Stewart continues to be one of the most analytical, and even "bipartisan-curious," newscasters on TV. Watch here:
On October the 28th, 2009, Jon had the good sense to invite two guests who favor (get this) a peaceful, non-violent, diplomatic approach to the middle east problem. No harm in a little civil discussion, huh?
Stewart nails it such that I'll even transcribe it for you.
Interviewer: Do you think FOX News is biased?
Valerie Jarrett: Well of course they're biased, of course they are...
Excellent job. Right on message. But watch her retreat into her shell when asked...
Interviewer: Do you also think MSNBC is biased?
Jarrett: Well, you know what, this is, this is the thing, I don't want, actually, I don't want to just generalize all FOX is biased, or another station is biased...
Wow, that was a train wreck. Jon Stewart dissects:
Stewart: Just say of course MSNBC is biased, but they agree with us! So we're not fighting with them! And by the way, MSNBC wishes they were as good as FOX. They're the Toledo Mud Hens to the FOX's Yankees. MSNBC doesn't even realize their morning show is hosted by a conservative. Obama administration, do you even know your role in all of this?
Jarrett: What the administration has said very clearly is, we're going to speak truth to power...
Stewart: What the %!$@?! Truth to power! You're the White House! You're the power! Here's how it goes in the truth to power statement: it's your job to %!$@ up power, it's FOX's job to %!$@up truth!
One of the interesting elements of the battle with FOX- which I think the Administration is running half-assed, so far- is how people immediately get tripped up when asked about MSNBC. Some say yes, some say no, some say yes but not the same way FOX is. I've never seen anyone be able to answer that dreaded MSNBC follow-up. But this isn't rocket science.
Here's my advice to the Administration. First, sit down together and get yourselves a single set of talking points on this issue. Second, they should say the following: "Every cable news show invites on people with opinion. What makes FOX different is that every element of their show is biased opinion, from their anchors to their commentators to the stories they choose to cover. That's why they're not a news channel, they're an opinion channel that operates as an arm of the Republican Party, and that's why the White House is treating them we do any other biased opinion channel."
Maybe Jon Stewart's Cable News Right Wing Crazy Contest, "So You Think You Can Douche!" should be picked up for the fall lineup by some savvy network exec.
We all saw Jon Stewart make the case against CNBC -- showing how they served as a PR machine for Wall Street instead of holding Wall Street accountable.
I've also made this case before -- calling out Erin Burnett's often-absurd analysis.
So, here's a question. Is it possible to reform CNBC? Can we turn them into a force for Wall Street accountability?
Americans need CNBC to do strong, watchdog journalism - asking tough questions to Wall Street, debunking lies, and reporting the truth...
CNBC should publicly declare that its new overriding mission will be responsible journalism that holds Wall Street accountable.
I helped put this effort together over the weekend, and was pleasantly surprised that so many respected people in the economic and journalism communities thought reforming CNBC was possible--and were willing to add their names to the cause.
If the public agrees, and 5,000 people sign the open letter, it will be delivered to CNBC's headquarters...always a fun spectacle.
Anyway, what do you think? Does Jon Stewart's intellectual case plus people-powered activism make reform of CNBC possible?
From a PEW survey on American media, mostly about Limbaugh, I noticed this large difference in the ideological preferences of Stewart and Colbert's audiences:
Conservative
Moderate
Liberal
Daily Show
22
24
45
Colbert Report
14
45
36
I find this surprising, I wouldn't have expected this big a difference between their audiences. Also, I would have picked Colbert as being more liberal than Stewart. Thoughts? Mine are inside...
First off, Greenwald noted (in his diary title, no less), "There's nothing unique about Jim Cramer," first noting how Cramer had obediently served as a stenographer for the rich and powerful, only to be lied to repeatedly, then pointing out:
But there's absolutely nothing about Cramer that is unique when it comes to our press corps. The behavior that Jon Stewart so expertly dissected last night is exactly what our press corps in general does -- and, when compelled to do so, they say so and are proud of it.
Second, Glenn pointed out that Cramer was actually better than most. At least he felt some sense of responsibility--no little thing in contrast to most:
At least give credit to Cramer for facing his critics and addressing (and even acknowledging the validity of) the criticisms. By stark contrast, most of our major media stars simply ignore all criticisms of their corrupt behavior and literally suppress it (even if the criticisms appear as major, lengthy front-page exposés in The New York Times).
Greenwald pointed at length to the record on the Iraq War, and here Matthews has his own shameful past to live down, which he tries to obscure by saying he opposed the war--notwithstanding his worshipful adulation of Codpiece's flight suit moment. Yet, here we are, 6 years down the road, and he still can't get his arms around what happened then, as he give Ari Fleischer the floor for one more round of Bush revisionism--this time it's for the ages!--all the while posing as the tough-guy interrogator, not quite realizing he's actually the patsy.
Sometimes this blogging stuff is too easy. Almost as easy as transcribing official lies. Today, for example, Salon had the following two stories in a headlined box together:
Watch this greatest hits compilation of the network's rah-rah fronting for the Bush economy and "losers" like Bear Stearns, Lehman and AIG
By Joan Walsh
Now, of course, Stewart's piece taking down CNBC is hysterically, wickedly on the money about how utterly clueless they are--and thus utterly useless as a source of financial information--their supposed reason for being:
But it also--accidentally, really--completely undermines the attempt to blame Obama for Wall Street's financial collapse. The attempt is absurd on its face: too many folks remember George W. Bush was President until just a few weeks ago. And so the right is trying to trace the fall of Wall Street back to Obama's clinching the nomination, or even, perhaps, his birth in 1961. But Stewart's bit also shows how--if that's the case--CNBC never even remotely noticed the evil badness for bidness back then, when Obama first started destroying all of Wall Street's hard-earned wealth.
Earlier this week John Oliver, a correspondent for the Daily Show, interviewed me for a story on community organizing and community organizers. The piece aired last night.
I think it did a good job showing the absurdity of the claims from the Right about organizing and organizers, especially as pushed by hackmeisters like Matthew Vadum, who was also in the segment.
For the record, I would never sell used cars. Take public transit, people!
STATE BLOGS
Take this 
