Jon Stewart recently returned to “The Daily Show,” a Comedy Central news and satire program that he took from a shabby afterthought to one of the top programs in late-night television. Although his show always leaned heavily to the left, he never hesitated to skewer liberals in the news. Making fun of his own kind, he has maintained, keeps them honest, with the intention of pressuring them to live up to their ideals and claims.
But beware: Stewart is about to learn a hard truth about the state of media and culture. To liberal Mary Trump, Stewart is now a “danger to democracy” for even glancing toward the political center. To Steve Krakauer, Stewart “has no idea what he’s in for” in being critical of his own side. These are not times for concessions to the opposition. The battlefield accommodates nothing but scorched-earth tactics, and only full-throated support for our team will be acceptable.
Krakauer argues that since Stewart left “The Daily Show” in 2015, there has been a seismic, irreversible shift in public posturing. Way back in 2015, he says wistfully, we “were being served by a media that valued objectivity, basic fairness and intellectual consistency.”
Credit: Contributed
Credit: Contributed
But not anymore, and often, not even then. Only the extremes may be occupied. From the left, he asserts, “there’s a new generation of young journalists who believe ‘objectivity is akin to white supremacy.’” Pointing out that Joe Biden is pretty old, then, is not allowed, even as his main opponent is almost the same age and pretty prone to gaffes of his own. Yet, Stewart criticized Biden’s age and performance anyhow. “Centrist Democrats … were appalled at what they saw as a betrayal by one of their own,” wrote Rolling Stone. “Stewart’s main segment was classic bothsidesism,” wrote Slate.
Stewart’s willingness to call out his own people is one of the reasons I’ve always liked him. It’s more fun to watch him skewer people I find ridiculous, but I also think it’s sobering to understand why the people I vote for have their own shortcomings that benefit from critique. Without a reasoned criticism, especially from within ranks — which I distinguish from the bullhorn denunciations that dominate the mediascape — bad things won’t get better.
I begin with this consideration of Stewart’s new position in society as an archaic appeaser because education has become such a take-no-prisoners battleground for ideological supremacy. From schools to universities, only my politics have integrity. And yours will lead us to a morally decadent doomsday.
To give one example from my own side of the divide: It’s become common for campus liberals to shout down speakers with whom they have a clear difference of opinion. Often I find these speakers’ views to be odious and repellent. Joining a mob of protesters only gives them more attention and provides them and their followers with a sense of victimhood and martyrdom through which they emerge even more powerful to their constituencies.
I believe a university or school ought to serve as what New York University’s First Amendment Watch calls a “community that embraces, rather than shuts down, disagreement. College is intended to be a place for growth, where your ideas should be tested, your debate skills refined, and your critical thinking abilities challenged and sharpened. These skills are vital for learning how to separate truth from fiction for yourself.”
My own education benefited from taking place in institutions where free speech has been practiced for many years, even in the midst of polarized times. My high school and college years included the anti-Vietnam War movement, the Civil Rights Movement, the women’s rights movement, Watergate, anti-policing movements and other disturbances to established authority.
Kenyon College had a reputation for being conservative when I attended from 1970-74. My first year was the second year that women were admitted, with considerable resistance from the old guard. Yet while I was there, the college hosted Jane Fonda, Charles Evers and other liberal speakers. More recently, the students are more liberal, even as some student groups persistently invite speakers to campus who espouse political views rejected by many students and faculty members.
Such events can be polarizing. Yet according to the vice president of the College Republicans, he feels free to speak his mind, and listen to other views: “In being challenged, our beliefs become stronger. I believe that’s why we’re all here, to get a liberal-arts education and to challenge our beliefs.”
My graduate degrees were both from the University of Chicago, often lauded these days for its Chicago Principles asserting “the University’s overarching commitment to free, robust, and uninhibited debate and deliberation among all members of the University’s community.” Listening and considering opposing perspectives is a university standard, no matter how objectionable a speaker might be.
Stewart is now considered by many who share his politics to be a dinosaur because he remains committed to the idea that it’s honorable to criticize our own, and invite discussion with those we oppose. He provides the example we all need in these polarized times. We don’t need more screaming and villainizing. That’s a dead end, for the community and for each of us. We will never grow if we refuse to engage with opposition and, as a result, never emerge from disagreement as better thinkers.
I’d say that engaging with opposing ideas is what grown-ups do. But right now, the grown-ups are the ones setting the worst examples.
Peter Smagorinsky is an emeritus professor in the University of Georgia’s College of Education. He is the 2023 recipient of the American Educational Research Association Lifetime Contribution to Cultural-Historical Research Award.
About the Author
