Jon Stewart, media prophet

Because he asked us to, hundreds of thousands of people gathered in one spot to hear a man speak.

The man said what he felt needed to be said. He gave no direct instructions, no political endorsements, but he told a joke here and there. When he had finished what he had to say, he walked away.

Jon Stewart has evolved from late-night comedian to modern-day prophet.

"I can't control what people think this was. I can only tell you my intentions," was how Stewart began his final speech at the Rally to Restore Sanity. He gave us a metaphor of America as one massive traffic jam, ten lanes of vehicles that must merge into one so that they can enter a mile-lone tunnel. It would be impossible without compromise, without concession. "You go, then I'll go."

Stewart ended his rally with a moment that was appropriately Zen.

"If you want to know why I'm here, and what I want from you. I can only assure you this, you have already given it to me. Your presence was what I wanted. Sanity will always be and has always been in the eye of the beholder. To see you here today and the kind of people that you are, has restored mine."

If we did help restore Jon Stewart's sanity, I'm grateful because he is the man who has kept me sane for 11 years, especially during the Bush administration. Apparently, he had been helping a few other people too.

As I drove by the National Mall and saw the crowds crossing the street, I didn't see anyone carrying signs. This worried me. I had put a lot of work into making a large sign in the shape of a tea mug. One side read, "Try a cup of sanity." The other read: "More reason, less fear." I had the feeling like I was showing up in costume at a party that was not actually a costume party.

I had nothing to worry about.

Actually, the rally was very much like a Halloween party. We loved to take pictures of each others' signs. Many were not political. "Up with boobs." "Down with panties." "Down with toilet seats." "I have a sign." "I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it." "Anyone for Scrabble later?" "Everybody poops."

Kids carried signs. People wore costumes, and dressed like bananas, as a gorilla in a Ghostbusters uniform, as a fox, as Darth Vader. One guy wore a dress made entirely out of candy. I think it was all Smarties. A lot were college-aged people, but every generation was represented. A couple I talked to in a Starbucks after the rally had come from Pittsburgh. The man said that it was the largest rally he had been to, and that included when he had been a protester during the Vietnam War.

But what united all of us was that we had shared that same moment of sanity each night, delivered by a man who gave us the news, but with a reality check. "Yeah, did you see that? Did that really happen? Did he really say that? He did, and it was crazy."

So, we came to Washington D.C. for one big national reality check. And we came away a little saner. Through the skits and video, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and the rest of the Comedy Central team showed us America through the funhouse mirror of media punditry. With Stephen Colbert's media assault, he showed us the fear and the ugliness.

And it was a balanced assault. The video clips included Fox commentators -- including some from Glenn Beck -- but also liberal pundits going over the edge. "Republicans are liars," one commentator screamed into the camera. It was an image that stayed with me. In this age of attack ads, I'm tempted to scream the same thing. Seeing that in the video montage helped me pull back.

That is what I hope came out of the rally, that we all as a nation could pull back from the brink.

There comes a time in an argument when we nearly say the things that we don't mean to say, but after we say them, we create a breaking point from which there is no return. After such arguments, people may stop talking to each other, sometimes not for the rest of our lives.

If that happens politically, then we lose the opportunity for compromise. Without compromise, government will not work.

Simplifying the situation

To sum up my previous post, let me just say this:

Under politics without compromise, the extremes take control of the system. The more extremist the leadership is, the more bitter the opposition becomes. Government grinds to a halt, and nothing gets done.

Find the sane choice

I’m going to the Rally to Restore Sanity. I’m going as a Democrat who has become seriously concerned about the swing to the right that this country is about to take. However, I know that this rally is not about supporting one political view. I’ve been reading the signs posted online, and it is clear that many of those who will be at the rally come from a variety of political opinions. However, all of us will be expressing a common theme: that we do not like the rhetoric, anger and lies that have been thrown about in this election.

Most of that is coming from T.E.A. party candidates and their supporters. Their movement owes its strength to Fox, a media organization whose owner, Rupert Mudoch, decided to use as an organ of the Republican Party and the conservative right. As a former journalist and a former journalism professor, I am saddened that a media company would choose to put a political agenda above the dispassionate reporting of the news.

Fox has given Glenn Beck a daily platform to spew an extremist view and connect the dots on nonsensical conspiracy theories that can be traced back to the John Birch Society. For more on that, I recommend an article in the New Yorker: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/18/101018fa_fact_wilentz?currentPage=all

The article is seven pages long but spells out the history of Glenn Beck’s philosophy, and it is well worth reading. Know what philosophy you are supporting before you pull that lever.

As we try to restore sanity, I would say that much of the responsibility for the insanity we see today is because of Fox. I would also blame what I call the “wedgy Web” politics of today. And I would also put some blame on the Democrats political strategy, which is a result of the Wedgy Web politics.

First, to talk about Fox. While other media organizations try to play by the rules – such as banning their reporters from attending the Rally to Restore Sanity unless they have been assigned to cover it – Fox shamelessly works for the conservatives. And really, the strongest antidote to their propaganda has been Jon Stewart and the Daily Show.

Jon Stewart may only be a comedian, but he is a smart comedian and commentator on the news. He is also a thorough and fair interviewer, and he asks hard questions when hard questions need to be asked. That was very clear when he interviewed President Obama on his show Wednesday night.

I expect that many Democrats will not like everything that Jon Stewart has to say at the rally, but I know I will respect what he says and does.

The other part of the insanity comes from wedge politics, which I trace to Karl Rove and George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. The tactics that were used undercut John McCain’s bid for president included a phony poll to voters in South Carolina, asking “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain...if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?" http://www.thenation.com/article/dirty-tricks-south-carolina-and-john-mccain. If you read the article, you get a sense that this incident not only cost McCain the nomination, but permanently changed his stance in the Republican party.

Rove may deny his involvement in the scheme, but it is his style of politics. It began a new era of win-at-any-cost strategies in politics, and it has reached a fever pitch today. In the current campaign, misleading and deceptive attack ads are running in Congressional districts with tightly contested races, without any check on accuracy and without having to declare where the funds for these ads came from. The more money you have, the bigger lie you can make in a TV ad.

Wedge politics goes to a new level on the Internet, what I call “wedgy Web politics.”  During George W. Bush’s presidency, he bypassed the traditional media and communicated directly to his base via e-mail and the Internet. So, while most of the country did not know his positions or plans, his base had what they needed to do what was needed to keep him and the GOP in power. It has gone to new levels today, and both sides are using this tactic now.

I am on many e-mail lists from the Democrats, and I receive frequent e-mails with requests for money, updates on campaigns and inspirational memos from leaders. While I agree with and appreciate most of these e-mails, my concern is that so much of the political discourse is happening underground. Each side gets filled up on talking points from their leaders, and when we encounter someone from the opposing side we don’t so much discuss but spout a party line. That does tend to turn the political process insane.

It’s also not pragmatic. Elections are won by persuading the voters in the middle, the undecideds. Getting out the party faithful is part of winning an election, and it demonstrates a political strength. However, the true test in politics is in making a thoughtful and resounding argument to the nation as a whole.

I don’t hear thoughtful argument from the T.E.A. party candidates because they shout too loud without thinking out their positions. And the Democrats are making their own case so quietly they are not being heard. We'll know what the middle thinks on election day.

So, what has happened?

Wedge politics got George Bush elected in 2000 and 2004. The GOP used every political trick to hold onto and expand their power throughout his presidency. But he also abandoned key Republican principles such as fiscal responsibility. He expanded government and governmental spending and increased the deficit. (It was a surplus when Clinton finished.) GOP laissez-faire rules and and a lack of oversight also allowed greed on Wall Street to expand so that the entire system very nearly collapsed and almost caused a second Great Depression.

In response to the policies of the Bush administration, we elected Barack Obama as president and gave him an overwhelming majority in Congress. This also marked a collapse of the traditional center of the conservative movement, which has now been filled by T.E.A. party radicals.

But even after Bush left office, the wedge politics remained. Because either the Republicans wouldn’t cooperate, or the Democrats did not pursue it far enough, bipartisanship did not emerge. Instead,  Democrats decided to go it alone, and pushed through their agenda on the bailouts and health care. What emerged was legislation without any Republican backing. Aside from Fox, the lack of bipartisanship has been another major driving force for the T.E.A. party movement. Check this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/25/AR2010102502408.html

Were the T.E.A. party candidates to take charge, we would be no better off. We would just see more power plays, this time with the right in charge instead of the left. But it would be worse because these are candidates who have ideas that go beyond just cutting taxes. They actually want to dismantle major programs of the federal government and undo key principles of our constitution. Check this link: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how-tea-partiers-get-the-constitution-wrong.html

What do we need? We need a middle again.

I believe government can be fiscally responsible and have a social conscience. If we are to have social programs that can save Americans from the crises that can destroy lives and keep people in poverty, we need to agree on how to pay for it.  That is not easily done, and it is not going to be solved by shouting slogans or electing extremists. It could be done by having the moderates from each party work together. We need to honestly accept that there are social issues that need to be solved and find a reasonable way to solve them.

We can learn something from the Taoist symbol of the yin yang. The symbol is about the contrary forces in the world. Half the symbol is black. Half is white. On the white side is a black circle. And on the black side is a white circle. Our solutions are found on both sides of the equation.

So, I am going to the Rally to Restore Sanity. I do not know whether this rally will have any impact on next week’s election, but it is a message that I hope the country listens to. Let us hope we find the sane choices.

Term limits

Term limits are being pushed for again. A friend recently suggested term limits for Congress on a Facebook post. "12 years for Senate, 10 years for House. Or maybe less."

Term limits and I have gotten off on the wrong foot. The first time I was approached about term limits was in the parking lot of the Ralph's supermarket on Pico Boulevard in Los Angeles. A group of women asked me to sign their petition so that we could get rid of the current group of elected officials on the city council.

Since I actually liked and voted for the Democrats on the city council, I would not sign their petition for term limits. It just seemed a way of me giving permission for them to take away my right to choose.

That is the problem I have with term limits. It seems to be an issue that is raised to attack whoever the incumbent is. Perhaps I want to vote for that incumbent because I consider them to be the best person to do the job, in part because they have the experience and the track record that is needed.

I liked an answer to term limits I heard years ago. "We already have term limits. It's called voting."

HOWEVER ...

I understand how naive that can seem. With the influence of money, power and prestige, we do have a system that can favor the incumbent and make it difficult for the newcomer.

Without term limits, our system has career politicians, whose entire set of skills and experience are limited to politics. It is easy to see how someone like that will get caught up in the pursuit of personal power and wealth rather than serving the public good.

I can see the argument that term limits would take that temptation out of the equation because if you know you are going to be in the job for only a short time, you can't use it for personal enrichment. You go into the job knowing that you have a short time to achieve what you promised, and that you will go back into private life when you are done.

I'm reminded of the story of Cincinnatus, a Roman who answered the call of duty to defend Rome. He became a general, defeated the enemy and could have used his position to continue with great power in Rome. Instead, when his war was won, he left the army and returned to his life on the farm.

The story of Cincinnatus inspired another general, George Washington, who became our president and left office voluntarily after serving two terms. He was also the first president of the Society of the Cincinnati. By tradition, Washington established the two-term limit for presidents, which was not broken until Franklin Roosevelt. After Roosevelt, it became law.

But my other reservation about term limits is that there is a value to having an elected official who has served on the job for decades. There is an institutional and historic knowledge that comes with someone who has been there for so long. Such a person can have a positive impact on the process, and can keep a legislative body from making the same mistakes as in the past. Such as person can be a ready resource on a variety of matters.

I might consider term limits if perhaps: 1) it was not applied to current office holders. (Yeah, I know that won't be popular.) and 2) That after you serve your terms, you don't have a lifetime ban, but instead can run again after being out of office for a while. I could imagine some bright, energetic 25-year-old getting elected, serving his/her terms and then coming back and running again in their 40s or 50s. Why not have someone like that come back??

I'm not entirely persuaded to support term limits. Perhaps the next time someone approaches me with a clipboard and asks me to sign a petition, I'll think about it.

Watching the disaster

A Libertarian friend posted this comment to my Facebook page when a debate broke out there:

“The government since the 1960s has thrown billions of dollars at social programs for the poor and guess what? We still have poor people!”

True.

But we’ve spent billions of dollars on firefighting services, and we still have house fires.

And when your house catches fire, you expect a government-paid service of firefighters to show up and put the fire out.

We’ve spent billions on crime and crime prevention, and there is still crime. And when an intruder breaks into your house and attacks you, you hope that taxpayer funded police office shows up and saves you.

We pay for these and other services from the government to save us in these moments of crisis, make-or-break times when a timely rescue can spare us a lifetime of misery.

Where you draw the line between a necessary government rescue and unnecessary government waste defines where you are on the political spectrum.

Let’s say you work full-time as an independent contractor. Your house catches fire. The fire department shows up and saves your house, but you are seriously injured.

An ambulance takes you to the hospital, but you don’t have health insurance. You get hit with thousands of dollars of hospital bills. You lose work and income. This could be a worse disaster than if you had lost your house.

The health care system needed reform to save average people from having to face staggering medical bills on their own. And it needed reform not so that more money could be thrown at a problem, but so that people could get health care with less waste and greed from the insurance companies.

The execution of that reform is still being debated. The details can still be argued, but the need is undeniable. Something had to be done.

The common campaign theme of the T.E.A. party candidates seems to be borrowed from a JG Wentworth commercial – “It’s my money, and I need it now.” They have attacked or called for dismantling a variety of federal programs and services ranging from Social Security, unemployment, the minimum wage, the Department of Education and health care. One candidate has even attacked the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s in the name of resisting government control.

The call for smaller government and lower taxes is not new. And that’s a position I’ve always respected. After all, you can’t get something without paying for it or knowing from where it will be funded. Ignoring the costs of a program within a government budget will only lead to runaway deficits and economic disaster.

The philosophy of the tax-and-spend liberal of the 70s and 80s does not work. Government should be leaner. However, I believe government can be fiscally responsible and have a social conscience.

Give the T.E.A. party candidates the kind of changes they are shouting for, and you are sure to have more tax dollars in your pocket. But it will be a government without a conscience, without a means of helping those whose lives are in crisis.

In a way, we will be like the neighbors to that home in South Fulton, Tennessee, that the firefighters just let burn to the ground. The fire department made sure the neighbors' homes did not burn, but it left a bad taste in the mouths of many who watched. They followed the rules, but it was a rule with no conscience. No wisdom.

When our neighbors lives are hit with disaster, either financial, medical or otherwise, shall we have a government that will do nothing? Shall we stand by and watch as our neighbors' lives are destroyed?

Popping bubbles

I’m feeling a bit like Rip Van Winkle. After just nodding off for a bit, suddenly the whole country has changed. It’s gone mad for tea – angry, angry tea.

Serves me right for not listening to Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Fox News.

[shudder]

But then again, I made a choice that for my own sanity I was not going to watch Fox. I would rather have root canal than listen to Sarah Palin. (It’s true. I “liked” that on Facebook.) I tuned out the T.E.A. party rallies and their distortions, using patriotism as a weapon against their opponents.

After we overwhelmingly elected Barack Obama as president in Fall of 2008, I slowly retreated into my safe little progressive bubble. I tuned out the conservative right. Obama had been elected after promising to tackle health care reform, jobs and the economy, which had collapsed on the Republicans’ watch. As far as I was concerned, he was doing the job he had been asked to do.

So now, in Fall of 2010, I discover that many Americans believe Obama is a Muslim Nazi Communist bent on destroying a country who does not want health care reform. The Democrats are at fault for the economy, according to Republicans, who seem to have forgotten that in 2008 we all very nearly dropped into another Great Depression.

What happened?

A couple of weeks ago, I posted a piece of anti-T.E.A. party art on my Facebook wall. Before I had a chance to even make my own cup of tea, the posting drew challenges and sparked a debate between my conservative and progressive friends.
In the 20 postings that followed my piece of art, I not only got an earful of views, but a quick snapshot of the political landscape and what has changed in America in just two years.

Today, many Americans live in political bubbles of our own choosing. That’s because the mainstream media has lost its relevancy for them. A large segment of the population – on both the left and the right – can get up in the morning, surf the Internet, watch cable news programs all day and go to bed at night, all without seeing anything that challenges our political views. We can choose sources of information that already agree with our worldview.

But it is more than opinion and viewpoints that we find in our bubbles. It’s facts and history. Those change depending on which bubble you are in.
So, when someone in a political bubble on the left bumps into a someone from a bubble on the right, the debate quickly explodes because the two sides have few facts to agree on. They don’t even agree about previously unchallenged topics like American history and the Constitution. And since either side can choose to ignore the mainstream media, we have no moderator to help us sort through the realities.

Time to pop the bubbles. Including my own.