Commentary
Jon Stewart Gets Serious, No Kidding
- by David Goetzl @dgoetzl, May 3, 2011
Part of the reason: unlike other TV personalities and politicians, he knows he shouldn't be.
Stewart's a comedian, he makes jokes.
Is he a liberal? Probably.
But does he play one on TV? Try this one on: no.
How about he's an equal opportunity critic. After all, that's where the real laughs are.
He may shrewdly use humor to make points. But, if he influences opinions, it's not because of an overarching crusade, but a drive for laughter.
Stewart said as much in his infamous 2004 appearance on CNN's "Crossfire," a would-be serious analysis of politics. He hectored (maybe unfairly) the hosts for misguidedly doing what he does - a comedy show.
advertisement
advertisement
For the most part.
On Monday night, Stewart offered a diversion. (Ironically, he also did so last year as a bill to aid 9/11 first-responders stalled in Congress.)
The show started with plenty of astute humor. He jabbed the news media for not exactly relaxing people during the run-up to President Obama's speech on Sunday, with vague statements that it would cover "something about national security."
Then, he showed the clip of President Obama announcing Bin Laden had been caught, which was followed by a montage of anchors stating the obvious: terrorists may be plotting revenge.
Stewart went a little low brow with a riff on the name Abbottabad, where Bin Laden was caught, and the fact he was buried at sea.
But, then, the comedy gave way to the serious. Stewart gave an impressive, incisive and inspiring take on the meaning of Bin Laden's death.
As a New Yorker, it was personal. "I am way to close to this whole episode to be rational about this in any way shape or form. Last night, was a good night for me."
Stewart offered an inclusive vision of the future.
"The face of the Arab world in America's eyes for too long has been Bin Laden and now it is not. Now, the face is only the young people in Egypt and Tunisia and all the Middle Eastern countries around the world, where freedom rises up."
Stewart turned defiant.
"Al Qaeda's opportunity is gone. Al Qaeda's opportunity is gone! For the last 10 years, Al Qaeda had the world's attention. They apparently wanted an ideology competition.
"And for all of our rights and wrongs, and the world's rights and wrongs, all Al Qaeda seems to have come up with is ... all right, we killed some Americans, uh, how about killing some British people? Or, maybe bombing Yemen or something. Shoe bomb doesn't work? How about an underwear bomb?"
"Can they still do damage? I'm sure. But we're back, baby!"
With that patriotic flourish, Stewart finished saying much of what Americans were and should be thinking.
Then, the laughter returned.
Jon Stewart as the conscience of America?
In a word, no.
I'll counter that one Dave. In a word, Yes. Name someone else who might be. Take the whole day.
Jon Stewart is a brilliant satirist, who is always on target. His points are insightful and razor-sharp. Personally, I'd vote for him in any election.
I don't know that we need a "conscience", insofar as it is personified in a single person. And if I was asked whether that person is Jon Steward, I'd reply "he does a pretty fair impression of a conscience, but as far as consciences go, he's pretty unfair."
I agree that he's a great satirist. So was Mark Twain and Will Rogers. I wouldn't have voted for either of them. PJ O'Rourke is a modern day satirist that I feel puts Stewart to shame. But I'd not vote for him, either (nor would he run).
Stewart is willing to focus his laser like humor on topics and people of all political views. But if anyone thinks he is remotely even-handed or fair in the amount of attention he provides to one side or the other, then they are deluded.
Partisanship reigns in the US. I alternate between thinking it's a good thing (mainly because partisanship had only a brief pause in the post-WWII period and we grew used to thinking the US was mostly middle of the road) because it's easy to see how different views diverge sharply, and a bad thing because it's self-reinforcing.
Stewart is mostly self-reinforcing for people who agree with him. Humor is the place you go to make yourself feel comfortable about your most questionable thoughts. Sarcasm, irony and satire aren't useful tools for making a political agenda. They are usually blunt objects, particularly today. For a country desperately in need of nuance, we have nobody to turn to on a regular basis.