As an independent/NPP that thinks the Democratic Party is at a once-in-a-generation pinnacle of depravity and evil (totalitarian neo-communism, abuses of police state power, censorship, absurd regime propaganda), this version of your argument doesn't make any more sense than the first one. FDR was, like Woodrow Wilson, and awful, war mongering "progressive". FDR's version of things was a failure that led to the crap we are facing now. Going back to FDR solves nothing.
Again, Jon Stewart has shown ZERO ability to be consistently trans-partisan and to consistently apply meta-narrative analysis.
His blather about trans gender stuff with the Arkansas governor made clear that he is a partisan tribalist that is incapable of escaping the leftist echo chamber's inability to stay in touch with reality.
The "woke" "left" has conditioned a generation to respond to bizarre, irrational, illberal hate ideology. Jon Stewart shows no signs, as far as I can tell, of reversing the damage from that. He did make a mild statement about how the COVID response was out of line (or something about Fauci's glaring lies?), but that was a classic example of him repeating what others had already said.
His track record is overwhelming: he kisses the ass of the establishment (aprx) 98% of the time.
Please keep my closing in mind. This isn't about Stewart. It's about a way to create a viable Democratic Party primary. Stewart is just a case in point. And yes, it will take a celebrity — someone like Stewart or a political celebrity — to pry that can open.
Absent that, we get what we got last time. For me this is simple. Other thoughts?
I can't believe you're still flogging that wet sock Stewart! No, it is not clear in any way "he gets it" just because of a couple of interview quotes. This is one of the Democrat's main problems, they can't give up on their status quo mediocrities, they just love them too much (even the ones who aren't TV celebrities). No wonder we can never get the change we send them to Washington to enact.
Also I'm not so sure about your notion of 'democracy,' which seems to me to be simple majoritarianism ("what most people want," as you said, but in reality it is what most voters want), and nothing about the demos, or people, ruling. You might be just as fine with those who simply want to strengthen the status quo, but after many years I have come to the conclusion those people are largely the comfortable class who like their politico-technocrats "who know better," and are opposed to people-rule (i.e. the very definition of democracy), and therefore are largely anti-democratic.
You may be happy with them (as you said), but these are the people in the front ranks who stand in the way of the change we need. These are the people who would rather take away our freedoms than see us discuss what we see as important, for example. It was in one of your recent posts in which this was made clear, 'Democrats vs. Democrats.' They have already effectively gutted our right to privacy, and now they are attempting to gut our right to free speech.
It should also be mentioned that this censorship issue has only accelerated because of the Russia-Ukraine War. Forget about anyone who disagrees with burning through hundreds of billions "as long as it takes" (while Flint, Michigan is still drinking poisoned water) they simply are not allowed to speak publicly anymore. It's the narrative, and only the narrative, or else. Independent news sites that have questioned various aspects of the narrative, such as Consortium News, find their social media accounts blocked without any explanation, and their funding threatened by being dropped from Paypal (again with no explanation), and simply for bringing up inconvenient yet provable facts.
Look, if censorship and war are the hills the Democratic Party wants to die on, then they should go ahead and get to the dying part. I will have nothing to do with the party because of these two issues. Their hatred of free speech and love for war, even among the so-called "Progressive" wing (not even to mention the worthless "Squad") is as disgusting to me as anything the Republicans would do. These two issues are the ones they are most zealous over (which I will compare to their lack of action over abortion access), so I want nothing to do with them. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," plain and simple.
Great piece. You've convinced me. I am going to compliment you. Whereas other writers are playing checkers you are playing chess. I like how you've built your argument over the past several apparently non related essays.
Just what we need, another rich person leading us into more wars. No thanks. I also would not vote for Bernie again either, since he has proven himself to be onboard with the endless wars. My number one criterion is a non-negotiable anti-war, pro-peace stance. Biden said "diplomacy is back!" and we see how hollow that obviously was. No more rich Blue Team people for me. Not a chance.
Pure nonsense. Leave out rfk jr the o b lyrics seriousl candidate. Not another war mongering cuk who glorifies baby killers like h I leary and Albright. He a disgusting wono version of himself.
And BTE, Sanders the cuk lost his appeal long ago.
If we are going to waste time on supporting a comedian for President, let’s go with Jimmy Dore or maybe Lee Camp. Someone who would try to make meaningful change, not the leader of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.
As an independent/NPP that thinks the Democratic Party is at a once-in-a-generation pinnacle of depravity and evil (totalitarian neo-communism, abuses of police state power, censorship, absurd regime propaganda), this version of your argument doesn't make any more sense than the first one. FDR was, like Woodrow Wilson, and awful, war mongering "progressive". FDR's version of things was a failure that led to the crap we are facing now. Going back to FDR solves nothing.
Again, Jon Stewart has shown ZERO ability to be consistently trans-partisan and to consistently apply meta-narrative analysis.
His blather about trans gender stuff with the Arkansas governor made clear that he is a partisan tribalist that is incapable of escaping the leftist echo chamber's inability to stay in touch with reality.
The "woke" "left" has conditioned a generation to respond to bizarre, irrational, illberal hate ideology. Jon Stewart shows no signs, as far as I can tell, of reversing the damage from that. He did make a mild statement about how the COVID response was out of line (or something about Fauci's glaring lies?), but that was a classic example of him repeating what others had already said.
His track record is overwhelming: he kisses the ass of the establishment (aprx) 98% of the time.
Note: Changed the title a bit to reflect what I took to be the main point. Thanks for the feedback!
Thomas
Wow. I appreciate the lively discussion.
Please keep my closing in mind. This isn't about Stewart. It's about a way to create a viable Democratic Party primary. Stewart is just a case in point. And yes, it will take a celebrity — someone like Stewart or a political celebrity — to pry that can open.
Absent that, we get what we got last time. For me this is simple. Other thoughts?
Thomas
I can't believe you're still flogging that wet sock Stewart! No, it is not clear in any way "he gets it" just because of a couple of interview quotes. This is one of the Democrat's main problems, they can't give up on their status quo mediocrities, they just love them too much (even the ones who aren't TV celebrities). No wonder we can never get the change we send them to Washington to enact.
Also I'm not so sure about your notion of 'democracy,' which seems to me to be simple majoritarianism ("what most people want," as you said, but in reality it is what most voters want), and nothing about the demos, or people, ruling. You might be just as fine with those who simply want to strengthen the status quo, but after many years I have come to the conclusion those people are largely the comfortable class who like their politico-technocrats "who know better," and are opposed to people-rule (i.e. the very definition of democracy), and therefore are largely anti-democratic.
You may be happy with them (as you said), but these are the people in the front ranks who stand in the way of the change we need. These are the people who would rather take away our freedoms than see us discuss what we see as important, for example. It was in one of your recent posts in which this was made clear, 'Democrats vs. Democrats.' They have already effectively gutted our right to privacy, and now they are attempting to gut our right to free speech.
It should also be mentioned that this censorship issue has only accelerated because of the Russia-Ukraine War. Forget about anyone who disagrees with burning through hundreds of billions "as long as it takes" (while Flint, Michigan is still drinking poisoned water) they simply are not allowed to speak publicly anymore. It's the narrative, and only the narrative, or else. Independent news sites that have questioned various aspects of the narrative, such as Consortium News, find their social media accounts blocked without any explanation, and their funding threatened by being dropped from Paypal (again with no explanation), and simply for bringing up inconvenient yet provable facts.
Look, if censorship and war are the hills the Democratic Party wants to die on, then they should go ahead and get to the dying part. I will have nothing to do with the party because of these two issues. Their hatred of free speech and love for war, even among the so-called "Progressive" wing (not even to mention the worthless "Squad") is as disgusting to me as anything the Republicans would do. These two issues are the ones they are most zealous over (which I will compare to their lack of action over abortion access), so I want nothing to do with them. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety," plain and simple.
Great piece. You've convinced me. I am going to compliment you. Whereas other writers are playing checkers you are playing chess. I like how you've built your argument over the past several apparently non related essays.
Just what we need, another rich person leading us into more wars. No thanks. I also would not vote for Bernie again either, since he has proven himself to be onboard with the endless wars. My number one criterion is a non-negotiable anti-war, pro-peace stance. Biden said "diplomacy is back!" and we see how hollow that obviously was. No more rich Blue Team people for me. Not a chance.
Pure nonsense. Leave out rfk jr the o b lyrics seriousl candidate. Not another war mongering cuk who glorifies baby killers like h I leary and Albright. He a disgusting wono version of himself.
And BTE, Sanders the cuk lost his appeal long ago.
Give us a break from your fantasies.
Stewart's appearance with Ukie nazis at Disney gives me pause.
If we are going to waste time on supporting a comedian for President, let’s go with Jimmy Dore or maybe Lee Camp. Someone who would try to make meaningful change, not the leader of the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.
Because one veal pen isn't enough.