Jon Stewart Caught In The Crossfire

I don't know if you happened to catch Jon Stewart of Comedy Central's, The Daily Show, on Crossfire a week ago last Friday. If you didn't, here's a link to a clip. He and Tucker Carlson of Team GOP went at it pretty good. Carlson was slamming him for supporting Kerry and for lobbing so-called "softball" questions at him, questions like, "How are you holding up?" In his notoriously witty way, Stewart held his own, and he made a really good point, one that I make (or try to) all the time.

In response to the attacks, Stewart pointed out that his show is on Comedy Central and that it is not meant to be a hardball political show. True enough. But he was there for another reason. He routinely bashes Crossfire, so he wanted to appear on it to explain himself. He stated that the arguments from the left and the right aren't doing us any good, us being America. Though Carlson interrupted him again and again, his point was very valid.

As I have said many times, politics is (and probably has always been) a team sport, especially in a country with only two viable political parties. This is the fundamental problem with political discourse these days. These political talk shows have a very established formula. They get one intensely partisan person from the left and one from the right, and they debate the issues of the day. In theory, viewers get to hear arguments from both sides and are thus informed enough to decide where they stand. The theory, however, does not translate effectively into practice.

The guy from the right always parrots the Republican party line, and the guy from the left does the same with the Democratic positions. That means both of the "experts" are immediately hamstrung to deal in truth. Each lets his allegiances skew his approach to the issues. It would be different if the two hosts were philosophically opposed to one another, but were not aligned with any party. Indeed, this would be glorious for our country.

Imagine if the guy from the right was fiscally and socially conservative, while the guy from the left was fiscally and socially liberal. No party allegiances, just philosophically opposed. Given that the supposed philosophical underpinnings of both parties mean just about nothing these days, these hosts would find that they often agreed with Republicans and Democrats. This would illuminate for all to see the sham of today's politicians.

Take, for example, the Medicare prescription drug issue. The lefty would find himself aligned with the Republican party, and the conservative would find himself unable to support either party. The guy from the right would argue that the government has no right to take the property of the masses (in the form of taxes) to pay for benefits for people who should take responsibility for their own healthcare. The guy from the left would argue that it is the role of government to provide healthcare for all citizens. The guy from the right would have no choice but to call attention to the fact that it is entirely contrary to the tenets of conservatism to support such a benefit. He would have to point out that Bush's plan is politically motivated to get him re-elected. At the same time, the guy from the left would have to point out that it seems odd for him to be in support of an issue being put forth by Republicans. He would note that the Republicans seem to be waffling on their principles. The point is that the merits of the issue would still be debated. However, the bigger issue, the fact that the politicians were acting in their own personal interest and not in the interest of their party constituents, would be front and center.

This is what matters. This is what we need to be arguing about. The act of voting for a politician is much like signing a power of attorney over to someone. Since we do not have the time or resources to spend our time researching and deliberating over public policy issues, we select individuals to do our bidding for us. In theory, we pick people who are most philosophically aligned with our way of thinking, and then we hope that they will be effective in representing us. If they either do not have the necessary influence while in office or they reveal themselves to be duplicitous, we then take action by voting them out of office. This is how things are supposed to work. Once again, however, the theory does not translate into good practice.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I believe the theory is sound. But in order for it to be realized, the first thing that has to happen is for the media to stop taking sides and to start policing our public servants (which, to me, is the ultimate misnomer). That means that these debate shows have to first focus on the philosophical competence and resolve of our politicians. Before they get into the Medicare prescription drug benefit, they should first delve into the mindset of its proponents. They should ask how a Republican can put forth a bill such as this. They should ask upon what principles George Bush bases his assertion that the government should take on such a role in society. They would quickly find that there is no basis in principle. They would find that this is nothing more than a policy aimed at garnering the vote of senior citizens, who happen to constitute a huge percentage of regular voters. THIS IS THE STORY!

So, I say that Jon Stewart is right on the money. These partisan "experts" are the problem. When the guy from the right has to say that Bush won all three debates when it is clearly not true, his opinion ceases to matter. He's a dupe, a fraud, and we shouldn't give him the benefit of our attention. Similarly, when the guy from the left insists that Kerry is an honorable man, despite several proven instances of his lying opportunistically, his opinion no longer matters. If we are going to get our country back from the weasels in Washington, we have to stop with the team nonsense and start noticing that each quarterback is making off with more than his share of Gatorade at the end of each game. If we don't, we'll wake up one day and wonder what happened to the great Republic that our forefathers fought for. Who am I kidding? That day has long since passed.