As Good an Explanation as Any
This article, Culture of Ridicule Paved the way for Trump, takes another tack when explaining the rise of Trump. It blames the culture of ridicule spawned by comedy greats such as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for the rise of Trump. It is unfortunate that most political discourse in our country today seems to rely solely on ridiculing the opposition. Ad hominem attacks rule the day, and if you don't agree with my stance, then you must be some kind of subnormal idiot only deserving to serve as the butt of jokes.
Obviously, I wasn't there, and video evidence seems to be lacking, but I suspect that's not the way politics were argued back in the Founders' days. I think when Adams disagreed with Jefferson, he didn't make fun of the latter's hairdo. Nor did he use cheap shots such as dredging up his quaint habit of bedding his household slaves. Any attack was on the position, and not on the man holding it. Sure, exceptions can be found. They always can. But they remained exceptions. They never became the norm.
When did it become acceptable to ignore a position, a position, mind you, that could have lasting effects on our country, for good or ill, and instead focus on attacking the person or the group holding that position with lies, ridicule, half-truths or all of the above?
We now have a society that will be stuck with one of two candidates who are both terribly flawed and, unlike some great statesmen of the past, wholly unaware of their flaws. It's become a reality show, and I am honestly surprised there isn't a Kardashian on the ballot this election cycle.
Is it funny? Hell, yes! In a very, very frightening way. One of those where you laugh uncontrollably as you back away, looking for the exit you hope is right behind you.
What do you think?
" but I suspect that's not the way politics were argued back in the Founders' days."
You suspect wrong:
I will say this though, Trump is not a creation of Jon Stewart. He's a creation of the Tea Party and our celebrity culture. The Tea Party has been spreading hateful rhetoric since Obama was elected, and Trump used his celebrity status to get attention and take that rhetoric to the next level knowing the Tea Partiers would love it.
Furthermore, it is literally comedians' jobs to poke fun. They are meant to make us laugh, not closely examine the issues... which brings us to the OTHER big failure that's hurting politics today: The real journalists aren't doing their jobs very well. Shows like Jon's often do a better job of journalism than the real television journalists. When you've got a huge percentage of Americans watching what is essentially a propaganda channel for their news, real harm is done... far more than any harm caused by pointing out Trump's tiny hands.
In fact, many have pointed out that Trump received more airtime than any other candidate, by far, on the major news channels. Why? Look no further than the CEO of CBS, Les Moonves:
The problem isn't the comedians, it's the journalists who seek ratings rather than real news, and the people who only care about being entertained.
Great points, and I tend to agree with a lot of what you said, or at least, am willing to consider your points and do a bit more study. In particular, I strongly agree with your stance that journalism has failed us. Back to the ad hominem attacks in politics, though, and your historical tidbit on Jefferson v. Adams... Stuff like that did happen, I expressly mentioned that exceptions would be found. But we also have a wealth of material in speeches, letters, newspaper articles and the like from their time to show that this was not what the bulk of political discourse was like. I don't think anyone 200 years from now will be able to say the same about us.
I study a lot of American history, and one thing to keep in mind is that politics has been a blood sport in this country since its founding, but Adams and Jefferson to say nothing of Washington and Lincon, were great statesmen, unlike Trump. I'm voting for Clinton because I find Trump uniquely terrifying from a constitutional perspective. Being a 'American' means something to me, and Trump represents the opposet of that.
The problem w/shows like the Daily Show, etc., is that they too are very propagandistic (seldom if ever straying from what the great libertarian thinker/author/podcaster Tom Woods calls "the 3x5 index card of allowable opinion") and at this point are group-thinking clones who are explicitly and unabashedly biased in favor of leftism/Democrats.
These comedians jump into the political fray and DO have an effect but when faced w/pushback, fall back on "Hey, guys, I'm just a comedian!" (as Stewart did on Tucker Carlson's show).
His point in that interview was that the news should be held to a higher standard than the Daily Show. Opinions are not wrong because they happen to be popular. In this election, for example, I could have easily voted against HRC if a moderate Republican had ran instead of the ollection of freaks that did run.
I don't know...I saw JS's response as kind of a cop-out. Opinions are also not right just because many people hold them.
After Obama was elected was when I stopped watching the drivel that passes for late-night comedy...I lost all respect for Stewart & co. after they started carrying water for Obama...the leftist bias was just too much to stomach.
What is a 'moderate Republican' and what was so 'freakish' about the guys running this time around (it seemed like, aside from Trump & Rand Paul, the usual kinds of guys we see running)? What makes HRC (who is the most dangerous person I've seen get this close to the Presidency in my adult life) any better or less bad?
The way politics is discussed in America is the way middle-schoolers talk shit about other kids they don't like...very little of substance gets discussed, while a whole lot of personal insults/accusations are hurled...
Yeah, sure... Stewart totally towed the line for Obama. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=jon%20stewart%20slamming%20obama
If you can't see what was wrong with the Republican candidates this year... I don't even know what to say to that. Remember, the second "best" candidate was often compared to a serial killer, everyone who knew him hated him, and even his own kids didn't seem to want anything to do with him.
Like I said, not seeing what was so particularly bad about the Republicans who ran this year, nor do I see how HRC (and the DP) is any less bad.
C'mon dude...we all know that Stewart and most entertainers are biased in favor of leftism/Democrats...
was never trying to say they didn't have a leftward bias. I was trying to say that that doesn't mean those opinions are wrong. The GOP's moving right, I'm not a fan of Hillary, I would have voted for a republican that sat in the middle 50 percent of the spectrum, but all the republicans running were as far right as Bernie is left. And Trump is his own unique brand of awful.
OK, thanks for explaining. What do you mean by "the GOP's moving right"? From my POV, the GOP doesn't seem all that different than the DP (they mostly support all of the same major policies).
I just don't understand the Trump Hysteria (I agree that he isn't the ideal guy to want as POTUS)...all day long I've been asking anti-Trump people to explain what, exactly, makes him so uniquely bad but they haven't shown me how he's much different than what always ends up in office.
As an outsider/libertarian, Trump being the better candidate w/the most upside (relative to Hillary) seems a no-brainer...I don't know what I'm missing?
Good post, absolutely the culture of ridicule directed at white, traditional, conservative-leaning people (esp. men) has helped produce Trump.
The Left is reaping what they've been sowing for decades now w/their out-of-control PC-ism and failure to listen to the kind of people Trump has connected with.
"I think when Adams disagreed with Jefferson, he didn't make fun of the latter's hairdo. Nor did he use cheap shots such as dredging up his quaint habit of bedding his household slaves. Any attack was on the position, and not on the man holding it. "
Oh you are very wrong on this. Attack adds ar as old as democracy. And ad hominems the best of all.
Example
I am really enjoying the counterexamples. Have I mentioned I enjoy History a lot? Thanks for the vid. Question, though, admitting that ad hominem attacks have probably existed since the first election we ever held (for Chief Hunter of the tribe, perhaps?), were they the norm back in Jefferson's time? Or were the real issues discussed properly? Bear in mind that not everyone had the vote back then, so you really didn't need to worry about entertaining the masses with a really good and funny cut at an opponent. You had to worry more about convincing the real voters. Or am I romanticizing our past?
There's no real way of knowing obviously, but I find ad hominems to be too easy and effective not to be used widely. There was off course serious debate back then but that may not have been what reached the common voter.
But when you say the "common voter", was there really such a thing? If men without property and women were commonly barred, as were non-whites in general, was there a "common" vote to be catered to? From Wikipedia:
The United States Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote.[1][2][3] Freed slaves could vote in four states.[4] Men without property and women were largely prohibited from voting. Women could vote in New Jersey (provided they could meet the property requirement) and in some local jurisdictions in other northern states. Non-white Americans could also vote in these jurisdictions, provided they could meet the property requirement. By 1856, white men were allowed to vote in all states regardless of property ownership, although requirements for paying tax remained in five states.
I would assume there would be plenty of small farmers with property for example.
Something that we're not allowed to talk about is voting standards. There really are good reasons to strictly limit who gets to vote, and IMO WAAAAY too many people are allowed to vote these days.
Why are people on welfare and/or those who don't work or pay taxes allowed to vote? Or govt. workers/contractors? Or people w/sub-90 IQ's? Or people under the age of 25 (who, these days, are more-or-less still children)? Or, shoot, even women (who generally are less inclined towards reason or serious politics than men are)? Why is the vote of someone who pays little-to-no taxes worth the same as someone who pays million$? Shit, Leftists don't even want people to have to provide proof of RESIDENCY/CITIZENSHIP anymore even!