Monday, March 17, 2014

The Depths of the Jon Stewart Collapse

Butler Shaffer writes:

When Rush Limbaugh first appeared on network radio, he was a rather interesting character. He had an almost “libertarian” tone to his commentaries, being critical of Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals alike. On any given morning, he could be heard ripping into George Bush I, as well as Teddy Kennedy. He was, for a time, a critic of government itself, until the Republicans seduced him with an overnight slumber-party at the White House. From then on, he was talk-radio’s voice of the GOP.

Jon Stewart’s early television shows had a comparable agenda, being critical of the political establishment in its varied manifestations. Of late, however, he has become for the Democrats what Limbaugh became for the Republicans. The depths of his collapse were reflected in his recent program in which he brought in three establishmenteers to counter – which they failed to do – Judge Napolitano’s factually-grounded critique of Lincoln and the Civil War.  As I watched Stewart’s fiasco – having never before seen him interview his “guest” with four critics to tear him apart – I was reminded of the old definition of “democracy” : a system in which four wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner.

I hope Stewart is able to recover his initial style. As the established corporate-state order continues its collapse, and with younger people seeking alternatives to the vertically-structured society that go beyond “conservative/liberal” definitions, Stewart might discover – to his great benefit – an expansive market for his talents. He has shown himself to be much more creative, humorous, and entertaining than Limbaugh ever was. It would be a shame to see him sink at the shallow end of the pool, appealing to an emerging audience less and less interested in praising the likes of Lincoln, FDR, or Obama.

The above originally appeared at

Tom DiLorenzo discusses the Napolitano segment of the Daily Show, here.


  1. I completely agree. I used to love a lot of what Jon Stewart did, though recognizing his underlying lefty views. At least he seemed mostly intellectually honest and did a great job of skewering those in power; even on the left.

    But over the last many months I haven't been able to watch at all (peeking in every once in a while on line to see what the latest is). Too much propaganda on gun control, climate change, and other lefty crap that is just painful to watch as he misinforms his gullible lefty audience.

    I can't help but think that I'm not the only libertarian (and "independents" too) who feels this way. I wonder what his viewing audience numbers look like over that time period.

    1. Once a mindless lefty drone always a mindless lefty drone.

  2. Stewart has said it himself many times: he's a statist, through and through.

  3. Judge Napolitano’s critique of Lincoln and the Civil War is not " factually-grounded."

    1) His claim that Lincoln used federal marshals to round up slaves is based on a 40 year book that DiLorenzo did not even use as a source when he wrote a Lincoln bashing book
    2) His claim that Lincoln tricked the South into firing the first shot is merely an opinion and not a very credible opinion.
    3) The slave states seceded to protect slavery, not to avoid a tariff. Read South Carolina's article of secession.
    4) According to Walter Block, Napolitano's position on abortion is a throwback to slavery so it's incorrect for Napolitano to claim that he abhors slavery.

    1. Jerry Wolfgang's critique of Judge Napolitano's critique of Lincoln and the Civil War is not "factually-grounded".

      See how easy that was troll?

    2. As i noted earlier, it really isn't important why the South wanted to secede, the North could have let them go. The North choose war, not the South. And they choose war to maintain control of the South's resources and manpower. Ending slavery was a political move in that action. The first shot nonsense is also immaterial. The South asked the North to leave their territory, the North could have complied and withdrawn from Sumter. They did not. As far as Block's confused theory of evictionism, a better and truer reading of a pregnancy is that of the child held captive by the mother. The child did not magically appear, an issue Block ignores, but was placed there by the mother and in a situation where the child was dependable on the mother for survival for several month.