By Manila Ryce
Published Wednesday, March 5th, 2008, 5:13 am
Filed under: Videos: Political, Society/Culture: Civil Unrest, Society/Culture, Videos, US Politics

17 Responses to “Stewart’s Shameful “Interview” with Clinton, and Near Redemption With Nader”

1. Manila, I’m not sure about holding Stewart’s feet to the fire, but hear me out first.

   I think, you are a true believer in the ideals of democracy and how it can bring about our betterment as I can see from your support of Kucinich and now independent candidates such as Nader. It is something very different to hold out the hope of real change in politics in Washington as opposed to the rhetoric of change espoused by the so-called mainstream candidates. I myself feel the same and if I ever return to the UK to vote then given our current choices I would submit a spoiled ballot (which under UK law must be counted) instead of voting for the ‘lesser of two evils’ party.

   The problem my friend is convincing others of the flaws in our democracies, the monopolies as Nader spoke of that have acted without the trust of the
   people to close down true democracy.

   Idealism is a wonderful thing to have, but as I have seen, it is fragile. There may be a majority in the US looking for real change, and there certainly is from the outside world which looks to the US, because elections there have such a great impact upon the rest of the world. But so many have their idealism bullied out of them from the media, from corporations, from the main political parties and in the end most choose a candidate that offers an insignificant margin more hope than the next candidate. Some get indoctrinated through the fancy rhetoric of good oratory and stop looking for true change.

   Either way the idealism and the fight for democracy are robbed from the majority of people and I think Jon Stewart is a prime example. Behind him is a corporation who seek to gain profit through ratings. In order to maintain high ratings he has to have a show where Clintons, Obamas, McCains and the like can keep returning, hence there can’t be any questions which hold candidates’ feet to the fire. The Stewart I see in that interview with Nader, talking about real issues, making true statements about the current mess of US democracy, is the Stewart that has the reputation as an awesome social critic. But that interview with Clinton is the corporation after they’ve robbed him of his idealism (it can also be said he gave it willingly to maintain his career, but the process of seducing him to sell-out for his career is still robbery). Stewart, just like millions of other Americans in the primaries and on election day are settling for what they perceive as the least worst option after being assaulted by the media for nearly two years on who’s ‘right’ and who’s ‘wrong’, and I don’t think it’s fair to hold all their feet to the fire.

   We have a commitment to fight for universal human rights including real democracy with a real diversity of choice that represents every last person, and burning those that know this deep in their souls is not the way to do this.

   Vay Nadarajah
   03/5/08 at 10:08 am
   

2. Nice points, well made.

   Regards,

   Tengrain

   Tengrain
   03/5/08 at 12:54 pm
   

3. Now I expect a bullet point heading discussion “The Daily Show” effect. *vomits*

   Comrade Kevin
   03/5/08 at 2:50 pm
   
4. 

   Digital ipecac! That’s f*cking hilarious!

   J. Milton
   03/5/08 at 5:17 pm
   
5. 

   @Vay Nadarajah
   “The problem my friend is convincing others of the flaws in our democracies…”
   “But so many have their idealism bullied out of them from the media…”

   Your above comments seem to back my own argument that Stewart needs his feet held to the fire. Yes, I agree that Stewart is like most Americans in that he’s had his principles stomped out of him by the media. What we shouldn’t forget though is that Stewart IS the media. He has decided to roll over rather than fight. As part of the media, Stewart does bear a certain responsibility to assure us that democracy isn’t just “idealism”. Perhaps it’s not what he wanted when he took the job, but you can’t simply ignore a moral obligation like this and hope for it to go away. Right now, he is part of the problem because he has refused to be part of the solution.

   I am not suggesting we boycott Stewart or have him fired. I am simply suggesting that since corporate America is influencing him, we try to counteract that force with some pressure of our own.

   Manila Ryce
   03/5/08 at 7:58 pm
   

6. Stewart has a responsibility and a moral obligation based upon his job? I think it would be interesting to compare what you think his job is and what he thinks it is. I’ve heard him say before he’s just there for the comedy. But more important is that you’re holding the man far too responsible… ‘he is part of the problem because he has refused to be part of the solution.’
   When I said idealism is bullied out of people, what makes you believe that he ever thought that he could push the American public to the point where he became a part of the solution? What makes you think that he ever wanted the responsibility to be a part of the solution, or that he ever saw a solution in the first place?
   Actively seeking solutions as some do is one thing, but I have never heard him go down in favour of any method of solving the problems the US faces.
   I find the idea that he’s now part of the problem, on par with Bush’s ‘you’re either with us or against us’ philosophy, which is one of the least constructive notions I’ve ever heard.

   Vay Nadarajah
   03/6/08 at 10:03 am
   
7. 

   @Vay Nadarajah

   What Stewart thinks his responsibility is and what it actually is are two different things. It’s absurd to argue that he doesn’t believe he has a moral obligation, therefor he must not have one.

   Anyone who has a certain advantage in society also has the moral obligation to use that advantage responsibly. We accept that the rich have a moral obligation to give more, just as we accept that someone with an audience of millions needs to be more responsible than someone speaking on the street corner. The moral obligation came with the job, and whether he actually recognizes that he has that responsibility is irrelevant.

   I also find it rather absurd that you would compare my reasoning to Bush’s reasoning for saying that Stewart is part of the problem. My line of logic is not derived from Bush, but from people like Howard Zinn who say you can’t be neutral on a moving train, or Mossadegh who said those who sit silently have sinned. What’s truly a non-constructive notion is to chalk these statements up to a Neocon ideology.

   Manila Ryce
   03/6/08 at 12:04 pm
   

8. If you really believe that there is no difference between candidate X and candidate Y, and you really like candidate Z, then by all means, ignore the fact that Z will gain no power from your vote because he/she’s only going to get 0.002% of the vote. Or only 15% like Ross Perot, who wound up the morning after election day 1992 with no more power than he had before, even though he deprived the other contenders of a majority.

   This is Democracy 1.0, vintage 1789, and coalitions are formed *before* the election or not at all. It’s a serious flaw, because the human mind doesn’t work that way — people want to elect someone to represent *them* and go to the mat on the issues *they* find important, compromising only at the end. They don’t want to vote for someone who has to promise to be all things to all people. If those framers of the Constitution could get a do-over, I’m sure this would be a matter of considerable discussion, but it’s not going to happen, is it?

   In this maldesigned, dysfunctional system, a candidate who adheres strictly to the positions you personally agree with is almost certainly unelectable, because that adherence will piss off probably a greater number of people who strongly disagree with you. Even in the cases where that isn’t true, the gating influence of money, and the distortion of the system towards the principle of “one dollar, one vote,” will tend to knock out candidates who may actually have the interests of the public at heart.

   But voting for a sure-loser third-party candidate is like holding your breath until you turn blue. If you *have* a preference as to the candidates, you are choosing not to support that person and to empower the candidate you like least.

   The usual objection to this reasoning is that the lesser of two evils is still evil. Yes, but the choice imposed on you is what’s really evil, and throwing your vote away does nothing to address that evil. You make Sophie’s choice, and it does not save you.

   What it comes down to is that voting in the election is *not enough.* You have to work upstream of the election towards making the choices presented to voters less evil choices. It’s hard, but at least it’s not narcissistic wankery.

   Fingal
   03/6/08 at 2:54 pm
   
9. 

   @Fingal

   “If you really believe that there is no difference between candidate X and candidate Y”

   False argument. Don’t put words in my mouth.

   “This is Democracy 1.0, vintage 1789″

   Yes, the kind of “democracy” that slave owners and privileged white men exercised with each other. In other words, not democracy.

   “In this maldesigned, dysfunctional system, a candidate who adheres strictly to the positions you personally agree with is almost certainly unelectable, because that adherence will piss off probably a greater number of people who strongly disagree with you.”

   False. The “greater number of people who strongly disagree” with Nader are in reality only a handful of powerful corporate interests. If you know anything of the issues and public opinion, you’d know that the vast majority of Americans agree with nearly all of Nader’s platform. Since the beginning of the Democratic campaign, polls showed that American’s agreed with Hillary and Obama’s platforms the least out of all candidates.

   “But voting for a sure-loser third-party candidate is like holding your breath until you turn blue.”

   Ridiculous. Make that case to anyone who’s benefited from the “sure-loser third-parties” that played a role in workers’ rights, women’s rights, ending slavery, etc. Historic social movements didn’t gain ground from within the two main parties.

   “Yes, but the choice imposed on you is what’s really evil, and throwing your vote away does nothing to address that evil.”

   The choice imposed is due to the way the system is set up. I vote to change the system. You vote to change the candidate. Also, I live in a blue state. I throw my vote away only by NOT voting for a third party

   “It’s hard, but at least it’s not narcissistic wankery.”

   A little bit of narcissistic wankery has always done more to advance humanity than defeatist obstructionism.

   Manila Ryce
   03/6/08 at 3:41 pm
   

10. “But voting for a sure-loser third-party candidate is like holding your breath until you turn blue.”

    Ridiculous. Make that case to anyone who’s benefited from the “sure-loser third-parties” that played a role in workers’ rights, women’s rights, ending slavery, etc. Historic social movements didn’t gain ground from within the two main parties.

    Since this is all somewhat less than common knowledge, I invite you to add some details. The civil rights movement definitely did make a lot of progress by working strongly to morph the Democratic party from within, to the point where its leader committed to a course he knew would “lose the South for a generation.” (Which has extended now to more like two generations.)

    A little bit of narcissistic wankery has always done more to advance humanity than defeatist obstructionism.

    It must be nice to believe that. Thing is, when you held your breath until you turned blue, and you were a toddler, your mom actually cared whether or not you lived. The DLC doesn’t, so other means are required.

    Fingal
    03/6/08 at 4:05 pm
    

11. False. The “greater number of people who strongly disagree” with Nader are in reality only a handful of powerful corporate interests. If you know anything of the issues and public opinion, you’d know that the vast majority of Americans agree with nearly all of Nader’s platform. Since the beginning of the Democratic campaign, polls showed that American’s agreed with Hillary and Obama’s platforms the least out of all candidates.

    I invite you also to provide citations of these data. I know that Edwards was polling better than Clinton against Giuliani (and this was before Obama began to hit), and that nonetheless, doggone it, couldn’t get any “traction,” according to the talking heads. But voting for a candidate who has as raging a hardon for the Democrats as for the Republicans, if not more of one, is trying to cut your nose of to spite your face even though you’ve already cut it off twice.

    This isn’t Peter Pan, and believing in fairies isn’t going to make Tinkerbelle live.

    Fingal
    03/6/08 at 4:10 pm
    
12. 

    @fingal

    “Since this is all somewhat less than common knowledge, I invite you to add some details.”

    Common knowledge is what you find on television. I invite you to learn your subject before you start debating next time. The Democratic Party did change, but only because of the pressure of third parties and organizations. That’s Nader’s point. Mississippi’s Freedom Party is one such party that ran against the state’s Democratic Party and helped to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. La Raza Unida is another third party which was instrumental in the civil rights movement. If we’re talking civil rights for blacks specifically, then you also need to consider the third party abolitionists with which the civil rights movement simply carries on from in the quest for freedom. The Niagara Movement, NAACP, and Black Nationalist organizations, which also worked outside and often against the Democratic Party, deserve recognition as well. To claim that the movement came from within the Democratic Party is simply dishonest.

    “…your mom actually cared whether or not you lived. The DLC doesn’t, so other means are required.”

    Yes, which is why I reject their game. The DLC shuns populist candidates, yet your “other means” argument is to support the DLC by voting for their corporate candidates? Not a good strategy on your part.

    “I invite you also to provide citations of these data [that a majority of Americans agree with Nader].”

    Nader’s platform is more or less the same as Dennis Kucinich’s (single-payer healthcare, cut military budget, living wage, stricter gun control, against nuclear power, withdraw all troops from Iraq, withdraw from NAFTA, impeach Bush/Cheney, etc) so I will refer you to the stats of this long-standing poll which have shown that when voting blind on the actual issues and not for candidates, the overwhelming majority of Americans are in agreement with this platform. Out of the 208,646 people that participated in the poll, more than half aligned with Kucinich as their first choice. I was mistaken about Obama and Clinton being last place, but being behind Romney and Giuliani by aligning with only 3 percent of the American people isn’t exactly what you’d expect from a Democratic frontrunner. That’s the real reason Gore and Kerry lost. They connected with corporate America and no one else. Were Nader included in this poll, it’s certain that he would rank similarly high with Kucinich and Gravel, beating Clinton and Obama. There are several other online polls which reflect the same findings, but this is perhaps the largest. If you know of a larger poll with opposing results, I’d like to see it.

    Manila Ryce
    03/6/08 at 9:23 pm
    

13. Manila,
    Firstly, where do you derive the idea that the rich have a moral obligation to give to the poor? It isn’t written into law, nor is it written into the conscience of man. In the UK at least, it is well documented that the poor give more to charity than the rich. When disasters happen it is those who are less well off who give first and give in such a vast amount to dwarf that given by those who are well off. These morals are those that we were brought up with or morals that we as individuals learn. The moral obligations of Stewart are those that life teaches him and as an individual. The concept of ‘holding his feet to the fire’ whatever that entails, is in my opinion, not the effective way forward and only serves to alienate those you would want to be allies.

    As for “you’re either with us or against us” being a neocon ideology, again I disagree. As much as I respect Mossadegh, I’d also disagree with both him and Zinn and I would say that drawing lines of division between those who are sinners or part of the problem or against us on the basis that they do not help again serves only to alienate them when at a later time they may be able to help us.

    Most people are reactionary beings and only when the situation is at its gravest, threatening self interest, do we see resistance. People want to live their lives, they want jobs, money, comfort and security, and concerns for the crimes of governments and power structures only push people to act when it impacts them, but we should not hold them to the fire for this. If we did that then we would have to hold a huge number of Americans responsible and reprehensible for voting for Bush not once, but twice. Many outside of the US, especially in Europe as I’ve encountered, have grown a deep resentment of America and they take time to lose their stereotypes and prejudices before accepting Americans.
    What should be realised is that people who voted for Bush, people who sit silent, people who do not act, should all be forgiven for their mistakes, their stupidity or for their blindness.
    Gandhi would not ask for those who did not join him in non-violent resistance or those who opposed him to be punished, nor would King or Christ.

    Vay Nadarajah
    03/7/08 at 12:25 am
    
14. 

    @Vay Nadarajah

    You seem to be arguing for moral relativity in that one’s duty or obligation is no more than what he wishes it to be. Firstly, I am perplexed as to why you would bring the law into a discussion about morality. It’s irrelevant to this subject what the law says. You also state that it’s the poor who actually give more to society. I agree, but that’s also irrelevant. We’re speaking about obligations. If the poor decide to exceed what is their duty, then good on them.

    Secondly, I never called for Stewart to be “punished”. I gave an honest critique and called for pressure to be applied. Punishment would entail some sort of penalty for not accepting my demands.

    Thirdly, you argue that morality is not “written into the conscience of man”. I wholeheartedly disagree, as would any evolutionary psychologist. The idea that there is no such thing as human nature, and that morals are written onto us like blank slates is an extremely outdated idea. Human morality is largely objective. Our biological commonalities make it so. Aside from minor cultural variations, things like the Ten Commandments are fairly universal. If you do know of a culture which teaches that those with more are not obligated to give more, please enlighten me. As far as I have known, this law is a universal.

    I see your argument to be entirely subjective. Someone like Kant would argue that Stewart’s duty is a moral maxim because it can be applied universally and does not contradict itself. If you don’t believe people are morally obligated to do anything then how can you argue that anyone do anything that doesn’t directly affect them? For example, under a subjective understanding of morality, how do you argue to someone who will be dead in 20 years that global warming is a bad thing which they are obligated to counter? There would be no positive outcome for them regardless of what they do.

    Manila Ryce
    03/7/08 at 11:47 pm
    

15. Fingal:”Since this is all somewhat less than common knowledge, I invite you to add some details.”

    to which Manila Ryce replies:
    “Common knowledge is what you find on television. I invite you to learn your subject before you start debating next time. ”

    I’m nowhere near as ignorant as the average voter, so if you can’t be bothered to put out your message when actually invited to, you effectively concede what I said before about this being primarily narcississtic wankery. You don’t care about getting anything done in the real world, you care about being Right and those who disagree being Wrong. Here’s a clue: it’s not all about you and your ideological purity.

    Fingal says:
    “…your mom actually cared whether or not you lived. The DLC doesn’t, so other means are required.”

    Manila Ryce says:
    “Yes, which is why I reject their game. The DLC shuns populist candidates, yet your “other means” argument is to support the DLC by voting for their corporate candidates? Not a good strategy on your part.”

    And I suppose voting for Ralph 0.03% Nader is a fantastic strategy? On what basis? What does it accomplish? The DLC give the north end of a southbound rat if you waste your vote. You are less than one percent of the electorate and the corporate DLC bastards can’t be bothered to consider your point of view. They’ve seized the controls and wrestling the controls away from them is vital, but all you’re doing is playing with a toy steering wheel over in the corner.

    As for supporting “their corporate candidates,” it’s perfectly obvious that once the primary is over, one of two candidates is going to win, and voting third-party accomplishes zero, except to support your notions about your own precious purity. Third place is indistinguishable from millionth place under the system actually in effect. Sad, but no less true for that.

    If you want to talk about supporting bad candidates, what do you think you’re doing by voting for someone with no chance of winning? You’re effectively supporting the bastard you dislike most by withholding your support from the bastard you dislike least. The idea that this will somehow result in better choices next time around is not based in reality.

    If you want better choices next time around, start by supporting, say, a Green candidate in a local race for School Board or dogcatcher. That’s what the Right wing nutballs did, and they gradually took over the Rethuglican party. If they’d just voted for James Dobson over here and Jerry Falwell over there, they just would have gotten crushed over and over again.

    Fingal
    03/12/08 at 2:47 pm
    
16. 

    @Fingal

    “…if you can’t be bothered to put out your message when actually invited to, you effectively concede what I said before about this being primarily narcississtic wankery.”

    And if you can’t be bothered to read my response where I actually do explain the details to you, or respond constructively then you’re nothing more than a troll. Try actually engaging in an honest argument by countering the points I made after that cherry-picked sentence you quoted.

    “You don’t care about getting anything done in the real world, you care about being Right and those who disagree being Wrong. Here’s a clue: it’s not all about you and your ideological purity.”

    Nice assumption there kid. Here’s a clue: I realize it’s not about me or the majority of the population for that matter. Guess what that means? Our system is not democratic. If it were, then it would be about me and everyone else. Would you also criticize dissidents in the Soviet Union for not accepting authoritarianism? Those of us who reject the two parties realize it isn’t about us. That’s precisely our beef.

    “And I suppose voting for Ralph 0.03% Nader is a fantastic strategy? On what basis? What does it accomplish?”

    If a third-party gains enough support to pose a threat, then the Democratic Party must change to attract enough of those voters. This is all simple logic, and has proven to work throughout the history of our country. Again, reference everything above.

    “You are less than one percent of the electorate and the corporate DLC bastards can’t be bothered to consider your point of view.”

    Then why vote at all? I can assure you that the DLC is far more concerned with me than with you.

    “voting third-party accomplishes zero, except to support your notions about your own precious purity. Third place is indistinguishable from millionth place under the system actually in effect.”

    Do you have anything besides opinions to argue with? Try facts next time. For example, It’s a fact that Gore’s platform became more liberal on environmental and trade issues after Nader joined the race. So yes, a third-party did accomplish the goal of pushing Gore further Left. Had he gone even further he would’ve won by a landslide.

    “You’re effectively supporting the bastard you dislike most by withholding your support from the bastard you dislike least.”

    So my vote doesn’t matter when I vote for a third-party unless the Democrats lose, then it matters so much that I’m responsible for the “bastard I dislike the least” winning? Your argument is full of contradictions. Either it matters or it doesn’t. And by the way, I don’t live in a swing state. I stated that already, but it seems I have to repeat things over and over for you. If I vote Green or Independent in California, my state still goes Democratic. If you actually want to talk strategy, you should first realize that it varies depending on where you live. I would be wasting my vote if I voted Democratic, not the other way around. For this reason, how I vote should be of little concern to you, but thanks for giving me a lesson in your own “narcissistic wankery”.

    “The idea that this will somehow result in better choices next time around is not based in reality.”

    Actually, reality is on my side. Again, reference the previous examples (slavery, civil rights, women’s rights, workers rights) pulled from American history.

    Manila Ryce
    03/12/08 at 3:17 pm
    

17. […] Manila Ryce May 6th, 2008 After Stewart allowed Clinton to turn his show into one giant campaign ad in March, I’m surprised that he’s finally found the balls to compare her to Bush. Still, the […]

    The Daily Show: Hillary is George W. Bush (link) « Dandelion Salad
    05/6/08 at 2:34 pm
    

Leave a Reply