Just as one is likely to hear criticism of [Michael] Moore in liberal circles or carefully qualified appreciation, i.e. “I like him, but I wish he wasn’t so strident,” one will never hear any blasphemy spoken against the idol of modern, urbanite, educated liberal culture, Jon Stewart.Personally I think Stewart is much more likeable than Moore, but I found myself nodding my head at the observation that many Daily Show fans don't like embarrassing displays of emotion or undignified tactics - things like LGBT activists glitter-bombing anti-gay politicians.
It’s impossible to understand the hatred of Moore from the cocktail party and faculty lounge scene of the liberal establishment without also understanding the same politically impotent group’s love for Jon Stewart. Understanding the juxtaposition of Moore and Stewart reveals the true depths of the failure and soullessness of modern American liberalism.
As the article puts it, "The liberal character enjoys irony for irony’s sake, parody for parody’s sake, and prefers detached satire as the ultimate weapon of political persuasion." I suspect only those with a certain amount of privilege can maintain that kind of ironic detachment, particularly with issues like poverty, racism, sexism or homophobia. They can be distant and "objective" because those issues don't affect them personally, and they have an annoying habit of declaring that if you get emotional - all girly-like - you're automatically wrong.
On the other hand, friends of mine who are quite aware of privilege but have no sympathy for Moore think the article pushes anti-intellectualism and buys into stereotypes of liberals as elitists who can't connect with "Real America". And Moore himself can be amazingly dense about his own privilege as a rich white dude, no matter how many scruffy baseball caps he wears.
It's a tricky one, but worth mulling over.
No comments:
Post a Comment