Jon Stewart and the legacy of the left
*Aaron Sanchez gives us a poignant view of Jon Stewart’s followers – the remnants of the new left. He says that Stewart, for all his popularity and legacy, “leaves his audience with nothing more than a sharper wit, cynicism wrapped in irony, and political detachment that parades around as a cool, trendy “awareness.” It is cool to be informed because you get the punchline to the jokes, not because you want to participate in making something better. Sadly, Stewart’s followers have nowhere to go.” VL
By Aaron E. Sanchez, Commentary y Cuentos
Jon Stewart is leaving his post at the Daily Show after sixteen years. Rolling Stone wished goodbye to him as the “last honest newsman.” He was one of the few people who kept both the media and politicians honest. [tweet_dis]The Daily Show and Stewart rose to prominence in an era when Americans had very little faith in news and politicians.[/tweet_dis] He leaves a vacuum in American satire, commentary, and politics but also leaves a legacy in form of the shows hosted by Larry Wilmore and John Oliver.
[pullquote]The young white middle class youth who would comprise the New Left grew up in a nation of plenty.[/pullquote]Stewart is part of a longer tradition of the New Left
While he leaves his own legacy, Stewart is part of a longer tradition of the New Left. The New Left came about in the 1960s and 1970s. They were young college students upset with the Vietnam War, inspired by the Civil Rights movements across the country, and made comfortable by the plenty of the post-WWII economy. The New Left set itself apart from the old left of the 1920s and 1930s. The old left was a political tradition worried about the inherent inequality of the capitalist system, focused on the need to organize workers on the shop floor, and tried to resist the efforts of a global bourgeoisie. The New Left was not interested in the Marxist alienation from the means of production, instead their alienation was personal. They were disenchanted and disaffected. They felt themselves empty and sought a truer form of authenticity.
The young white middle class youth who would comprise the New Left grew up in a nation of plenty, one that celebrated consumption and encouraged conformity in the 1950s. In the Cold War culture of the 1950s, which had helped dismantle the old left, America was the model for the world, evidenced by their model homes, model kitchens, model cars, and attractive female magazine models. For society during this time, authority was to be respected, rules were to be followed, and government was good. The nation was directed by the right people and all that was left for everyone else was to heed their decisions and buy all the products of their hearts content. But the cracks in a society built on conspicuous consumption and political redbaiting started to show as early as the mid-1950s. The Beats, writers like Jack Kerouac and Allen Ginsberg, wrote about their disaffection. The New Left would be influenced by J.D. Salinger’s Holden Caulfield, calling out nearly everybody as a “phony” and a son-of-a-bitch. The masses blindly following orders and buying things were “squares.” People smart enough and cool enough to understand what was really going on would resist authority.
[pullquote]Their pursuits were individuality, authenticity, personal fulfillment, and self-realization.[/pullquote]A generation of privilege
The generation after the Beats was one that had never experienced the scarcity of the Great Depression or the sacrifices of global war. They were a generation of privilege. They were born into comfort. They read the works of the important authors of American disaffection and found in them growing truths of the emptiness of American consumerism and capitalism. The New Left rejected the culture of their parents. They rejected the cultural normativity of the previous era and railed against conformity. Their pursuits were individuality, authenticity, personal fulfillment, and self-realization. They sought the cure for cultural alienation in an authentic search for the meaning of life, whether that was in drugs, eastern religion, hippy communes, free love, or cultural appropriation.
The politics of the New Left rejected the moderate liberalism of the mid twentieth century. Liberalism, for them, was too attached to the “squares” who listened without thinking and followed the rules without questioning. They had reason to believe that moderate welfare state was indeed becoming “Big Brother.” [tweet_dis]It was liberal politicians and leaders who produced the atrocities of Vietnam, a war that measured its success in the body count, and lied to the public about the war[/tweet_dis], as the publication of the Pentagon Papers proved to the country. The 1970s brought further proof that the government was corrupt and a force of repression. The National Guard killed four college students protesting the Vietnam War at Kent State. President Nixon resigned in disgrace for the Watergate scandal. The New Left’s, and increasingly America’s, faith in government eroded.
[pullquote]They challenged and broke down, but never built institutions or agendas.[/pullquote]The remnants of the new left have been depoliticized and deformed
Much of the more radical politics of the New Left have declined. We are left with a very uneven legacy of that era. The remnants have been depoliticized and deformed. Free love, a radical political statement of the time, has been replaced with a hook up culture that still rests firmly on heteropatriarchy. Drugs that were once thought to “expand your mind” led to increased drug addiction. Perhaps most importantly, what was left in its wake was the coolness of resisting authority and sex appeal of political cynicism. What began as political protest turned into political disaffection. Rock music, edgy journalists, and commentators made “sticking it to the man” in all forms, an end to itself. The New Left made rebellion and resistance with no purpose cool. The New Left had something that the Liberal Consensus never had: they were the cool kids—the rebels without a cause. They burnt their candles at both ends. And because of that they didn’t need to have a plan or an agenda. They challenged and broke down, but never built institutions or agendas. Combined with the postmodern turn, they didn’t need to formulate one because a larger vision or unifying plan was inherently hegemonic, racist, or imperial. They were mainstream deconstructionists—breaking down but never building up.
This is the lineage of Jon Stewart.
He certainly deserves all the praise he receives. His show has been fair, sniping and snarking at both Left and Right, forcing them to be honest. More young people get their news from The Daily Show than cable news. The Daily Show has even won a Peabody Award. But the generation raised on Stewart’s satire has no political plan. This is not Stewart’s fault entirely, much of the fault rests on the political establishment. He has been adamant in maintaining that he is first and foremost a comedian. This is true, but it is not wholly correct. He is this generation’s newsman of choice. His honest, heartfelt statements after events like 9/11, Ferguson, and the murder of Eric Garner spoke to his viewers, touched upon the very emotions they were feeling. His opinion carried influence. His editorial choices left an impact. He’s led a generation through their political maturation, through 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush years, and the Obama administration. The bumper stickers calling for a Stewart/Colbert presidential ticket were only half in jest because people actually listened to him. He leaves an important legacy with Oliver and Wilmore, but he also leaves his audience with nothing more than a sharper wit, cynicism wrapped in irony, and political detachment that parades around as a cool, trendy “awareness.” It is cool to be informed because you get the punchlines to the jokes, not because you want to participate in making something better. Sadly, Stewart’s followers have nowhere to go.
Again, Stewart was a comedian not a politician, not a newsman. But he continues in the tradition of the New Left that allowed the New Right, with their social conservatism and neoliberal ideas to gain hold of politics because of their hesitance to participate.
This article was originally published in Commentary y Cuentos.
Aaron E. Sanchez is the editor of Commentary and Cuentos, a blog focused on issues of race, politics, and popular culture from a Latino perspective. The posts place these issues in historical, cultural, and intellectual context to better understand our present. Aaron received his Ph.D. in history from Southern Methodist University. He is a happy husband, proud father, and an avid runner.
[Photo courtesy Comedy Central]
