In the classic novel Don Quixote de la Mancha, the great Spanish writer Cervantes explored the danger of mixing delusions
of grandeur with adventurous combat. Yet, today instead of the man of la Mancha, we have the neocons playing the men (and some women)
of dementia, as ex-diplomat William R. Polk describes.It was over half a century ago that I first read Cervantes' marvelous novel,
Don Quixote de la Mancha. I was then studying at the University of Chile, trying to learn Spanish, and Don Quixote
was the first novel I remember reading. Or, to be honest, "reading at" because my Spanish was still weak and the text is full of
unfamiliar expressions. Also, I was very young and did not know enough about the world to understand fully what Cervantes was saying.
But he had a remarkable gift of writing on different levels. His tale could be enjoyed as just a good story or more profoundly.
So, despite my shortcomings, he caught me in his magical web. A few years later, somewhat better equipped, I dipped into Don
Quixote again in a delightful course on satire I was taking as an undergraduate at Harvard.
So now I have gone back. Or not quite back. Not quite, because I now can put both of those early ventures into a new perspective
from experiences I have had and observations I have made over the last half century. I now realize that what Cervantes wrote about
his own times could be applied to ours.
Cervantes was writing about themes that recur often and are particularly apposite today. Indeed, the auguries suggest that they
may be virtually a prediction. His "Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote" can be read as an amalgam of several of our own "knights errant,"
and his accounts of his hidalgo's adventures foreshadowed some of the wilder forays into combat of our own warriors.
A terrifying thought at least to me is that the hints and themes we can read into his story may be played out in the aftermath
of the next election. So, laugh with Cervantes - or shudder with me - over a few pages of his fable.
He begins by anchoring us in place, En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme ("in a place on the
Plain whose name I don't wish to remember"). As I now transpose it to Washington D.C., he might have written, "at little town in
Foggy Bottom whose name I don't wish to remember."
Then he introduces the target of his satire, Don Quixote: no ha much tiempo que vivía un hidalgo de los de lanza en astillero,
adarga antigua, rocín flaco y galgo corredor ("not much time has passed since there lived one of those gentlemen of the sort
who keeps a lance hanging on the wall, an ancient shield, a bony mare and a greyhound"),
At this point, one stops. Who in our times might fit such a description? Are there such eccentric would-be warriors holed
up in government offices, think tanks or war colleges with the symbols of warfare and the hunt flaunted above their desks?
A memory pops into my mind: yes, I remember when it was quite fashionable to festoon the walls of offices in the Executive Office
Building, the old State and War Departments, of the White House, with the modern equivalents of Quixote's lance. Battle-scarred weapons
fashioned by the Vietcong were particularly favored. Some of us even brought our hounds (but not our nags) into our offices.
But in those far-off days, knights errant were few even in Foggy Bottom. Now, they seem to have multiplied beyond counting. So,
could we single out anyone as our Don Quixote? Names of candidates flow past my inner eye. Indeed, even Cervantes puzzled over the
name of his hero. He offers several alternatives.
We might do the same. The character we need to fit his story is an arm-chair warrior who is carried away by his occult reading
to the point that he is prepared to embark (or at least to send others to embark) on great (and disastrous) adventures in faraway
lands, and whose grip on reality is, like Don Quixote's, to say the least, faulty.
We have a legion of candidates who fit that bill. So it is hard to pick a single name. Never mind. As Cervantes wrote, the name
"matters little for our account; it is enough that the narrative does not depart a single point from the truth." (esto importa
poco a nuestro cuento; basta que en la narracíon dél no se salga un punto de la verdad.)
Being accurate or at least suggestive within reasonable bounds was very important for Cervantes and is also important for us because
the tale we - the combination of Cervantes classically and I in modern terms - relate is hard to believe.
The Land of Neocons
As I say, many of our great statesmen come to mind, but the richest lode is to be found in the neoconservative movement. Whoa!
I pull on the reins of my imagination. Could Cervantes have imagined a Dick Cheney? A Paul Wolfowitz? One of the Kristols? Surely
such figures are to be seen only in our times?
Well, no. Not at all. History provides quite a few ancestors for them. However, as the text of the book makes clear, Cervantes'
hidalgo was a complex character who not only read and fantasized but actually himself also went out and fought. Doing both
narrows the field rather drastically.
It is hard to find one of the great statesmen we read about, much less those we know in our times, who both proclaimed policy
and themselves went into harm's way. In the "leisure of the theory class," as Veblen has been amended for our times, the
armchair was found to be much more comfortable than the helicopter bucket seat. So, Cervantes would have had to invent a combination
of something like Paul Wolfowitz and David Petraeus.
And, of course, he would have transposed Don Quixote's lance, shield, bony mare and greyhound. They don't quite do in our day.
So consider our modern Don Quixote trading them in for a fighter-bomber, a Patriot missile system, an aircraft carrier and, although
this may be stretching it even for Cervantes, a drone in place of the greyhound.
Never mind. Don't quibble about the tools of the trade. Cervantes, himself, was less concerned with the artifacts than with the
mind of his hero. As he tells us, Don Quixote had read so many romantic tales about the glorious adventures of knights errant that
"the poor fellow lost his reason to such an extent that not even Aristotle could have untangled the wild imaginations that he believed,
were he to be brought back to life just to do that job." (Con estes razones perdía el pobre caballero el juicio y desvelábase
por entendarlas y desestrañarles el sentido que no se sacara ni las entendiera el mesmo Aristóteles, si resucitara para solo ella.)
To try to understand what all the writings were about and what they told him to do, Don Quixote talked with the learned priest
of his village. Just so, our modern Don Quixote, having imbibed and partly understood the neoconservative bizarre view of human affairs,
consulted with the High Priest of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, who held forth in his "village" as the President of the University
of Chicago once referred to its department of political science. But, as we shall see, Don Quixote chose a rather better guide than
did our policy makers.
Cervantes was not kind about the writings of such philosophers. He shows his poor hero dazzled by the intricacies and blind alleys
of the outpouring of his version of the great myth peddler. Cervantes has his spinner of tales, a man known as Feliciano de Silva,
leading his avid but disoriented devoté into a maze with "clarity of the prose and intricacy of reasoning" exemplified by such marvels
as "the reason of unreason affects my reason to such a degree that my reason withers away…" (La razón de la sinrazón que a mi
rasón se hace, de tal maner, mi razón enflaquence…)
That is, put rather more prosaically, logic and facts cease to matter. It is the vision of romantic action against demonic forces
that give the necessary energy for wild endeavors. Thought becomes a banner to signal the grand campaign. And, as Cervantes said,
razón enflaquence…reason withers away.
Finally, as Cervantes tells us, his Don Quixote became so immersed in such readings that he passed the nights from dusk to dawn
and the days from dawn to dusk "until finally the brain dried up and he came to lose his mind. Having filled himself with the fantasies
he had read in de Silva's writings, imaginary happenings became actual for him [and] no other interpretation of the world was more
real."
"As a result, having lost his mind, he hit on the strangest plan that had ever occurred to a crazy person anywhere: it came to
seem to him appropriate and necessary both to augment his own honor and to serve his republic to make himself a knight errant and
take himself around the world with his weapons and on his mount to seek adventures and to put into practice all he had read… becoming
a knight errant, going about the world with his arms and mount, seeking adventures, righting every manner of wrong and by putting
himself in situations of great peril to make famous his name. The poor fellow imagined himself crowned for his valor, at the very
least, with the empire of Trebizond; so with these agreeable thoughts in mind, he immediately set out to put into effect his plan."
But he faced an immediate obstacle: having decided to venture into the dangerous world, Don Quixote realizes that he must be properly
"entitled" - that is, he could not afford to be seen as an outlaw or a war criminal but must be recognized as a person legally or
at least officially entitled to engage in combat to overthrow and to kill the wicked.
So he seeks someone to dub him a knight, which in contemporary terms would give him legitimacy. Just so, the neoconservatives
realized that it was not enough simply to proclaim their doctrine in their journals even if that attracted to their cause real warriors
who could put it into effect. Rather they must be vested with authority. Even intellectuals, after all, need to be "knighted" if
they are to perform acts that when done unofficially or by ordinary citizens are crimes.
Seeking Authority
So, after an agonized delay in which he found no proper authority to knight him, Don Quixote comes upon an inn whose keeper emerges
to welcome him. To our would-be knight errant the inn is a castle and the keeper is its lord just as our Don Quixote found
his authority to be the lord of the White House. Cervantes has his Don Quixote say – and we can be sure that our Wolfowitz-Petraeus
spoke similarly - these magic words,
"My adornments are my arms,
My leisure is to fight."
Then, before the proprietor of the house, Don Quixote falls on his knees, saying "I will never raise myself from where I am, Illustrious
Lord, until you have given me what I seek, that which will spread your fame and do good to all humanity …. that I may go forth equipped
with the necessary credentials as an armed knight such as never before was to be found in the world."
One can only imagine how the modern bond was forged. However it was done, we know that our modern hero-to-be was welcomed into
the "House" by its Great Lord who proceeded to anoint him with the signs of high office. Neither would have been put off by the earlier
hero's expectations:
"Who could doubt that in the coming times, when my glorious deeds emerge in the light of true history … my brave deeds will deserve
to be cast in bronze, carved in marble and painted on canvasses to be seen for all time. Ah you! Wise enchanter of the future! Whoever
you may be. To you will fall the honor of chronicling my great crusade!"
He also admonished the future historian not to forget his warhorse.
And so, in our marvelous age of instant history, it happened as predicted - or requested. It was not long before that very chronicle
appeared. Written not about Don Quixote, of course, but about his modern and only partial successor, Paul Wolfowitz, under the title
Visionary Intellectual, Policymaker and Strategist. The author was so fulsome that he certainly did not forget the "warhorse,"
the great weapons of war.
Back to the Inn/Castle/White House, the keeper/lord/president mentions that although he had not read - he was not noted for his
reading– the marvelous accounts that had so affected both the old and the new Don Quixotes, while still a young man he too had wandered
the world, seeking adventures.
In place of Seville, Malaga, Cordoba and Toledo, in the earlier account, read New Haven, Cambridge, Austin and Dallas - and, after
a number of shady enterprises, as we are told by Cervantes earlier and by the media in our times, they both had entered their "houses."Castle
lords or not, they both were empowered to dub anyone a knight "or at least as much a knight as anyone in the world was." (y tan
caballero, que no pudeiese más en el mundo.)
So empowered, Don Quixote sets out on his first venture, rushing to "regime change" a tyranny. It happened like this:
As Don Quixote was riding along, he heard moans coming from a forest he was passing. Looking for a cause for which to fight, he
exclaimed "I give thanks to Heaven for giving me so soon a means to carry out my calling." With that, he rode into the forest where
he saw a "stout rustic" lashing a poor boy. Don Quixote exploded in anger and, thinking that the rustic was a knight, challenged
him to a fight. The peasant tried to excuse himself by saying that the boy had been stealing from him and was not protecting his
sheep. And "he says I am a miser who does not want to pay him what I owe him."
Furious, our hero threatens the tyrant with his lance and orders him to pay the boy at once or "if not, by The God, I will make
an end to you." (Pagadle luego sín más réplica; si no, por el Dios que nos rige que os concluya y aniquile en este punto. Desatadlo
luego.)
So it happened also that when our modern heroes rode through the deserts of the Middle East, they saw a robust fellow (Iraq) mistreating
a little fellow (Kuwait). When our heroes accosted him, the big fellow said that the little fellow was stealing his oil and not helping
him protect his flock (the Arab nations) from the advancing Iranians. So Iraq, who had no money "with him" as Cervantes says of the
lout Don Quixote encountered, said he could not pay Kuwait what it owed it.
In Cervantes' tale: the bully said he would take the little boy under his control and promised eventually to pay him the money.
The boy was terrified and said that he would never trust the bully. But Don Quixote brushed his worries aside and said that he had
given orders, which the peasant would obey. The boy need not worry; all would be well. And, if the peasant did not pay, he, Don Quixote
would return and punish him.
Waiting until the valiant knight was out of sight, the peasant then tied the boy again to the tree and lashed him nearly to death.
So what happened in the story as it unfolded in our times? Our replacement of the peasant, the dictator of Iraq, consulted with
the American ambassador who told him that we really took no position on what happened to the boy, Kuwait. The Americans apparently
meant that the Saddam Hussein should be allowed a little "beating" of Kuwait, but not too much.
Saddam took that to give him permission, a "green light," as America had flashed to another dictator in far-off Indonesia. So
he grabbed Kuwait. The Americans were surprised by the ferocity of the attack because they thought he would not take all
of the country. That is, not beat the "boy" nearly to death, as Cervantes's rustic set about doing.
"And in this manner," wrote Cervantes, "the valorous Don Quixote righted the wrong, being very happy that everything turned out
so well according to the high ideals of knighthood."
Wisely, Cervantes had his hero ride happily away. It was not so, as we know, in the modern version. Infuriated that Saddam went
too far, the Americans returned to punish him. Then, having announced that they had imposed the high ideals of democracy, literally
at the point of the lance, our modern heroes stayed on at the house of the cruel peasant, tore it apart and killed many of his family
– and are still there.
As Cervantes makes clear and as we know from experience not only in Iraq but in a string of other countries, the intervention
of the great warrior resulted in the total breakdown of social institutions, security, justice and protection of the weak.
Cervantes could not have imagined how many times and in how many places his parable would be reenacted! But already, he realized
that "regime change" gives birth to chaos and misery.
When Don Quixote finally got back to his own house, having been severely beaten in another encounter on the way, his friends decided
that it would be an act of mercy to demolish the fantasies that had driven him mad and had nearly gotten him killed.
The great man's housekeeper thought that all that was necessary was to sprinkle Holy Water on the books in his library, but his
friends thought that the ridiculous doctrine could be erased only by sterner action. They were too late. He was already infected
by the ideas he had imbibed.
I leave it to the reader to draw the modern parallel. Is it too late for us and our valiant leaders to realize how pernicious
are the delusions they have imbed, how many lives they have cost, how much treasure they have wasted? We cannot be sure, but the
trends are against us.
Suffice it to say that the neoconservatives are again plugging their dangerous policies and myopic views of cultures and societies
and urging more mummery despite the record of their past malpractice. Behind the buzzwords of counterinsurgency and "nation building,"
they caused and then justified not only the great harm done to those who stood in their way but also violations of those principles
that have guided our democracy.
Cervantes catches this violation neatly. Since one of the books Don Quixote had been reading was called The Knight of the
Cross, Cervantes has the village priest remark that "behind the cross stands the devil." (mas también se suele
decir, "tras la cruz está el diablo.) Or, as we might transpose it to modern terms, behind the philosophical musings of Leo
Strauss lurk the violent warmongering of the neoconservatives and the justifications for the rise of the "security state."
These collections were both pernicious, but undoubtedly the results of the impact of Strauss were far worse. They were directly
harmful to our liberty and well-being.
Sancho Panza
It is here where Cervantes introduces Sancho Panza whom some readers find to be an even more complex character than the great
knight himself. Often a man of good sense, sometimes even noble and generous, he was also greedy and inconsistent. He was fair game
for Don Quixote, and our wild warrior quickly brought Sancho into his court. Who was he?
As Cervantes describes him, he was "a working man, living nearby, a good man (if such a title could be given to a poor man) but
not very bright; so after inveigling him with (soothing) words and (lavish) promises, he got the poor hick to agree to go with him
and serve him as his squire.
Among other things Don Quixote argued was that he ought to be willing to go along because, if their venture succeeded, they would
win some island of which he would become governor. With these promises and others, Sancho Panza, although himself a simple working
man, gave up his fields, left his wife and children and signed on as squire."
It is hard to avoid reading Barack Obama into the character of Sancho. Having listened to the brave words of the neoconservatives,
Obama and many members of Jefferson's, Jackson's and Roosevelt's Party of "the common man," the Democrats, readily gave up their
customary fields of concern, the well-being of their families and fellow citizens, said goodbye to their long-time partners and rushed
off as followers of the new doctrine in pursuit some distant "island" where they could win both laurels and emoluments.
As they rode along together, Sancho (here the opportunistic Democrat) assured Don Quixote (here the Obama convert to Bush's policies)
that "if you give me that island you promised, I will rule it, no matter how big it is."
But, as I have said, Sancho was a complex figure and another part of his personality – his innate common sense – comes out in
the most famous of the great knight's misadventures, the attack on the windmills.
As Cervantes tells the story, the great knight suddenly sighted some windmills and turning to his newly commissioned acolyte said,
"luck has brought us even more than we could have desired; for there you see, Friend Sancho Panza, revealed before you 30 or a few
more vicious giants with whom I think to do battle, deprive them of their lives [and] with whose spoils we will begin to enrich ourselves
for this is a just war and is a great service to God to drive such vile species from the Earth."
An astonished Sancho, blurted out, "What giants?"
"Those you see before you," replied Don Quixote. "those with the long arms…"
"Look, Your Excellency," Sancho replied, what you see there are not giants, only windmills and what seems to be long arms are
just wings to catch the wind and make the millstone turn."
"It is clear," continued Don Quixote, that you do not understand such matters. Those are giants. And if you are fainthearted,
stand aside and say your prayers while I engage them in fierce and unequal battle." With that the valiant knight spurred his horse
into battle. [I have condensed the beginning section of Chapter 8.]
We all have heard the story of what happened next: the windmill's wings caught the knight's lance, pulled him and his horse into
the air and smashed them onto the ground. And, as Cervantes tells us, he was particularly grieved over the breaking of his lance.
To convert Cervantes to our times, imagine, I ask you, that the windmill was the little perceived, simple and otherwise engaged
country of Afghanistan. Without much thought of the danger or the cost and no perceived consideration of alternative actions, we
charged in and like him were caught in the whirling melee of its fiercely independent people.
Don Quixote was, of course, mad, but his action was unprecedented; we, in contrast, whether mad or not, had ample warnings from
the experiences of the British and the Russians. Both the British and the Russians had lost their armies and their "lances" jousting
there. Our Don Quixote, now multiplied by tens of thousands, paid a heavy price both for knowing no history and for having believed
the wild dogmas of the neoconservatives.
Could this painful venture - and all our other escapades in Vietnam, Somalia, Libya (and now perhaps Syria and even Ukraine) have
been avoided? An attempt to answer that question takes us back to Sancho Panza. Sancho was a realist and tried to dissuade the knight
errant from some of his dementia, but he - like modern Democrats - also sought to profit from the dementia. Recognizing Sancho's
venality, Don Quixote promised him a kingdom if he obeyed.
In our times, the "kingdom" is not a faraway and imaginary island but victory at the polls, promotions and even the forges of
"lances." These rewards come about more easily and quicker from sound and fury than from careful and constructive action.
Cervantes got it right. Don Quixote's flights of madness are addictive. Eventually, even Sancho was converted. And today, as we
see almost daily the Obama administration has taken over the major aspects of the neoconservative creed. Looking to a future of the
probable choice between a Hilary Clinton and a Jeb Bush, who will have the will to call a halt to madness?
Cervantes speaks to us all.
William R. Polk is a veteran foreign policy consultant, author and professor who taught Middle Eastern studies at Harvard.
President John F. Kennedy appointed Polk to the State Department's Policy Planning Council where he served during the Cuban Missile
Crisis. His books include: Violent Politics: Insurgency and Terrorism; Understanding Iraq; Understanding Iran; Personal History:
Living in Interesting Times; Distant Thunder: Reflections on the Dangers of Our Times; and Humpty
Dumpty: The Fate of Regime Change.
.... he describes his decision to quit The Daily Show, the American satirical news programme he has hosted for 16 years, as something
closer to the end of a long-term relationship.
... ... ...
At 52, Stewart has the bouncy energy of a man half his age and, unlike most in the public eye, has an aversion to compliments.
If I tell him I liked something about the film, he will immediately deflect the compliment and insist it was all down to Bahari,
or the film's star Gael García Bernal, or the crew. For all the claims of his detractors that Stewart is the epitome of East Coast
elitism, there is more self-deprecating New Jersey grit here than arrogant Manhattan elan.
Much as he might wince to hear it, for the past 16 years Stewart has occupied a place in America's cultural and political life far
greater than the small audience of his cable show would suggest. The Daily Show's simple format consists of a mix of reports from
roving reporters (who have included Steve Carell, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver), monologues delivered by Stewart and an end-of-show
interview. Over time, Stewart has evolved from a satirist to a broadcaster celebrated as the voice of US liberalism, the one who
will give the definitive progressive take on a story.
His moving monologue after the Charlie Hebdo killings in January was widely shared; his frequent on-air support of Democrat senator
Elizabeth Warren helped her evolve in the eyes of the public from Harvard professor to dream 2016 presidential candidate – particularly
among those who find Hillary Clinton too centrist and hawkish. Stewart's energetic campaigning on behalf of the 9/11 first responders
(the emergency services who were first on the scene, many of whom later suffered debilitating illnesses), prompted the New York Times
to compare him to Walter Cronkite and Edward R Murrow, the most revered newscasters in American history. It is a delicious irony
that in the world of American TV news, one populated by raging egotists and self-aggrandisers, the person who is generally cited
as the most influential is Stewart – a man so disinterested in his own celebrity, he often didn't bother to collect his 18 Emmys,
preferring to stay at home with his family.
When George Bush left office in 2008, some worried that Stewart would run out of material. This proved as shortsighted as the hope
that Obama would be America's grand salvation. Stewart, who describes himself as "a leftist", has always hammered the Democrats with
the vigour of a disappointed supporter, and subjected Obama to one of his most damaging interviews during his first term: the
president admitted that his 2008 slogan probably should have been "Yes We Can, But..." At the time, Stewart laughed, but today
he admits with a shrug, "It was heartbreaking. It's generally heartbreaking – that's what the gig is."
Jon Stewart gave Barack Obama one of his toughest interviews, suggesting his 2008 election slogan should have been 'Yes
we can, but…'
His seemingly effortless interview with Tony Blair in 2008 cut through Blair's crusader mentality in a mere six minutes, as Stewart
calmly rejected Blair's theory that any kind of military action can keep the west safe. As Blair stammered, huffed and shifted in
his seat, Stewart concluded that: "19 people flew into the towers. It seems hard for me to imagine that we could go to war enough,
to make the world safe enough, that 19 people wouldn't want to do harm to us. So it seems like we have to rethink a strategy that
is less military-based." This was Stewart at his best; it's also fair to say that some of the interviews, generally those with actors
and authors, seem like mere puffery, a point with which Stewart agrees (he embraces criticism as eagerly as he deflects compliments).
... ... ...
Stewart likes to credit "the team", but given that he has always been deeply involved in the script (unusually for a host), writing
and rewriting drafts right up to the last minute, the show will be a pretty different beast without him. He has described his successor,
the South African comedian Trevor Noah, as "incredibly thoughtful, considerate and funny", and defended him when it was discovered,
to widespread fury, that Noah had in the past tweeted offensive jokes about Jews, overweight women and transgender people.
The furore over Noah's tweets reflects just how high Stewart has set the bar. There was such an outpouring of grief when he announced
he was stepping down, that he mused on air the following day, "Did I die?" Even the normally dispassionate New Yorker magazine claimed,
under the headline Jon Stewart, We Need You In 2016, "the last hope for bringing some rationality to the 2016 Presidential field
died". Not since Oprah Winfrey announced her retirement from network television has a US TV host's departure received such international
coverage, but Stewart bridles when I make the Winfrey comparison: "If Oprah can leave and the world still spins, I honestly think
it will survive me."
And it should be noted that not everyone was distraught. Fox News, displaying its mastery of making colour-based accusations about
the kettle from its pot-based position, reported that Stewart was "not a force for good" and that his sustained criticisms of the
right "had no foothold in the facts". The Daily Show duly responded with a Vine of Fox News' best factual distortions.
... ... ...
In 2010, Stewart hosted a Rally To Restore Sanity in Washington DC, attracting 215,000 people, who cheered him on as he berated the
media, or "the country's 24-hour politico–pundit-perpetual-panic-'conflictinator'."
... ... ...
My biggest objection to Fox News, I say, is not the scaremongering, it's the way it's reshaped the Republican party. It will misrepresent
social and economic issues, and promote the more extreme elements of the party, politicians such as Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee,
in a way that is hugely detrimental to American politics. (For the record, Rupert Murdoch disagrees, and last year claimed that Fox
News "absolutely saved" the Republican party.) "Watching these channels all day is incredibly depressing," says Stewart. "I live
in a constant state of depression. I think of us as turd miners. I put on my helmet, I go and mine turds, hopefully I don't get turd
lung disease."
... ... ...
Jon Stuart Leibowitz was born in New York and raised in New Jersey, the son of a teacher and a professor of physics. He grew up
in the shadow of the Vietnam war and Watergate, events that left him, he has said in the past, "with a healthy scepticism towards
official reports". He jokingly recalls the time his older brother fired him from his first job at Woolworths as one of the defining,
"scarring events" of his youth. But his parents' divorce when he was 11 was clearly more so, prompting him to drop his surname and
eventually legally change it to Stewart. He has described his relationship with his father as still "complicated". "There was a thought
of using my mother's maiden name, but I thought that would be just too big a fuck you to my dad," he says. "Did I have some problems
with my father? Yes. Yet people always view it [changing his surname] through the prism of ethnic identity."
So it was a family thing as opposed to a Jewish thing? "Right. So whenever I criticise Israel's actions it's [he puts on a Yiddishy
accent] 'He's changed his name! He's not a Jew! He hates himself!' And I'm like, 'I hate myself for a lot of reasons, but not because
I'm Jewish.'"
After college, Stewart performed on the standup circuit in New York, landing his own talkshow on MTV in the 1990s. In 1999, he took
over the then little-loved Daily Show on Comedy Central, turning it from hit-and-miss satire to the news- and politics-focused programme
it is today. Coming to it at 38, he says, the job was so ideal, "I couldn't have created one better".
Since Stewart announced his departure, much has been written about him being the most trusted news source for young Americans. Stewart
kiboshes this as "conventional wisdom. In the sea of information that surrounds people of that generation, I'd be truly surprised
if their only news comes four days of the week, for a few minutes a night." He laughs when I describe him as a celebrity ("I'm not
Madonna!" he hoots, raising an eyebrow). The only restriction fame has put on his freedom, he says, is "I don't hang out on the Upper
West Side during Sukkot". Isn't he being a bit faux modest, I ask, especially when he insists that what he does is comedy and not
news? That comes with a certain profile. He thinks about this for a few seconds. "It's not that I… I mean, it's satire, so it's an
expression of real feelings. So I don't mean that in the sense of, 'I don't mean this.' What I mean is, the tools of satire should
not be confused with the tools of news. We use hyperbole, but the underlying sentiment has to feel ethically, intentionally correct,
otherwise we wouldn't do it."
'Would I watch Fox News? If it was a nuclear winter and it might help my family'
... ... ...
IMNonsuch Alyeska 18 Apr 2015 18:29
I would have gone for Tina Fey, or Amy Poehler, but preferably Tina. I think the show could do with a woman and her talent
for absurdity dishep up with a straight face would fit the bill exactly.
IMNonsuch 18 Apr 2015 18:22
It's not possible that he doesn't realise why he is considered the most trusted news source by so many. Underneath the satire,
there is a layer of perspective that he offers. And precisely because he offers it, but doesn't thrust it upon his viewers, that
is why he is trusted by his audience. And as I wrote above, it's inconceivable that he is unaware of that.
fraac1 tankerton 18 Apr 2015 18:12
I've watched The Daily Show and, until it finished, The Colbert Report for several years by torrenting them as soon as they
appeared (very quickly). Both far superior to news commentary we have in Britain.
Nicholas Rios 18 Apr 2015 18:08
Television icon. Modern philosopher. Thanks Mr. Stewart.
Alyeska bjammin187 18 Apr 2015 18:06
I'd offer Samantha Bee double to please please retire from television. She's not funny, she's just irritating.
John Oliver would have been the perfect choice - or, Tina Fey!
Nicholas Rios Wynters 18 Apr 2015 18:04
John Oliver was on Stewart's show. Even hosted it for 3 months. Are you daft?
Westy61 MsTeatime 18 Apr 2015 18:00
Every Iranian government post-revolution has abused the human rights of the people it finds threatening.
That would be every single Iranian government after the CIA/MI6 lead coup that overthrew the democratically elected Mosaddeq government
and installed the despot Shah-an-Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi whose CIA trained SAVAK secret police were notorious for torture
and executions, wouldn't it?
Bluejil 18 Apr 2015 17:58
"the country's 24-hour politico–pundit-perpetual-panic-'conflictinator'."
Hilarious and not something that only happens in the US, we have it here too and so very true!
I was living in the US during the first Bush term, after 9/11 it was quite frightening, the media pandering to Bush. Stewart
was the only voice telling the truth and challenging the media. For sixteen years he continued to do so and he deserves high
praise for that, a remarkable and very funny man.
George Silversurfer 18 Apr 2015 17:50
i used to feel Colbert was the right successor to David Letterman...but now i believe John Stewart might have been a better
fit.
DCJ1987 18 Apr 2015 17:46
He has multi-millions of dollars, got tired of doing the same O same O, & needs a change in his mid-life. He'll play golf with
friends like of Bill O'Reilly, Will Ferrell, Sean Hannity, Tavis Smiley, & Rush Limbaugh. Go on shows like Bill Maher's, Tonight
with Jimmy Fallon, & the New Late Night with Stephen Colbert. He'll be paid $275,000.00 for speeches, too.
bjammin187 harpedonaptae 18 Apr 2015 17:38
Just wondering if you voted for G W Bush. If so, what did you confuse for leadership there?
bjammin187 reddan 18 Apr 2015 17:33
Nope. He made Blair squirm. What should he have done? Perform a citizens arrest?
Nicko Thime 18 Apr 2015 17:31
The world is a better place for John Stewart having done the yeoman work he has done for the past years. Those who are his
audience have long been recognized as the most informed, mostly due to his efforts.
I am sad to see him leave, but look forward to new blood in the spot as well was wishing this great observer of the American
condition the best of luck.
Thanks, Mr. Stewart.
Phil Smith 18 Apr 2015 17:16
I've just read this sentence: "The furore over Noah's tweets reflects just how high Stewart has set the bar." ... which is
of itself a reflection on how Twitter, currently, has the sway, as the lazy current affairs writer's Wikipedia, I think... mind
you, I'm writing below the line and it is a little late.
goto100 18 Apr 2015 17:08
Someone who thinks Elizabeth Warren (ex-Republican, neo-liberal supporter of Israel above everything and frenemy of banks)
is the solution to all the world's ills, is "left wing"? And the man who "headed off the real left wing at the pass" with his
"rally to maintain the status quo at all costs, because, well...hell...I'm more tan alright, Jack", is on the side of the good
guys?
Wow, that shark you jumped was big, Guardian.
Thomas19999 Sue Cormack 18 Apr 2015 16:44
Always assuming your intelligence intellect and interests are not restricted UK air space only, please watch a few days of
the Daily Show
If you have an interest in US and world events and politics it will help you appreciate the show and laugh more often
SonOfTheDesert percy123 18 Apr 2015 16:42
The Guardian has more readers in the US than anywhere else.
Why is anyone still making a fuss about this?
1984farm 18 Apr 2015 16:37
Over the Iron Curtain, in Poland during the 70-s,the government allowed that kind of political satire on the state radio (
channel 3 ) as a safety valve.
Since I moved to the West ,Jon Stewart and old reruns of Monty Python helped me to adjust to the brave new world.
I hope , one day there will be people just like him.
Wynters Mike Resvit 18 Apr 2015 16:28
Kudos for the irony (although it's a bit too thick), but have you ever heard of John Oliver? I know he's a Brit and so he's
probably not made it onto the the US circuit (and someone like Jon Stewart would never be seen dead on the same network, let alone
in the same room) but he's pretty good.
RonnieHubbard tankerton 18 Apr 2015 16:12
there are many ways to watch the daily show in the uk
and there really aren't many better comedians than him, but to say he's a comedian is too simplistic. It's like saying Ricky Gervais
is just a comedian. Like they are both comedians, but they're a different style of comedian to say Jack Whitehall or Jimmy Carr
There isn't really a British version, (unless you count John Oliver) of him. There isn't a British show anything like his.
Thomas Seymour LetThemSnortCoke 18 Apr 2015 16:11
I was ten when the US participation in the Vietnam war ended. It cast a shadow on US culture and politics for many years after
that.
Mike Resvit tankerton 18 Apr 2015 16:09
Yeah, that's why so many Brit comedians are so well known over here...not. We know some of your actors, we know some of your
politicians and your royals but pretty much none of your so-called comedians. It's because they're not funny. They simply can't
cut it here. Some have tried, a few standup comedians, but they ended up running back to merry 'ol England with their metaphorical
tales between their legs. You people wouldn't know funny if it smacked you in your face like a yob high on molly. Your Eurocentric
existence precludes you from having much of a personality or a sense of humor.
It's an "American thing, you wouldn't understand" is appropriate here in that life in the US, when compared to every other
nationality on earth, is so unique, so different, that foreigners cannot begin to comprehend. You simply have to "live here" to
get it and you have to live here for years, if not decades. The rest of the world is like 1960's America when it comes to pretty
much everything social. We honestly feel sorry for you guys for being so backwards.
PotholeKid easternCanada 18 Apr 2015 16:04
Yup.. he gives just a little taste of reality... but the truth, well Americans can't handle the truth.
Sue Cormack Eric Walker 18 Apr 2015 16:02
Exactly. I know we export a load of crap to the US and, good on you for rejecting a fair whack of it.
Thomas Seymour BlogAnarchist 18 Apr 2015 16:01
Should have cut off that last sentence at the dash - or maybe just a word shorter.
Tanvirnator Sue Cormack 18 Apr 2015 16:01
Because his integrity and sense of social justice is inspiring.
Sometime in the future...
"And now, ladies and gentlemen, if you'll just follow me over in this direction, I'd like to show you one of our rarest and most
reviled species here at The Human Zoo – it's the proverbial 'Reagan Democrat'.
"Most of your younger visitors here at the Zoo have no idea what a Reagan Democrat could be, so I always like to take the time
to explain it to them. Indeed, most of them don't even know what Reagan was, except that they keep hearing the people who wrecked
Old America talk about this wrinkled prune faced guy with the Gumby hair as if he were some sort of deity. I get a lot of questions
about how someone could actually have done things that don't sound even remotely plausible, but I generally leave that for the historians
to explain, other than to remind people that injecting religious dogma into politics doesn't just mean stupidity only when it comes
to policies related to sexuality, war, taxation, the economy or the environment.
"But already I digress... The Reagan Democrat (technically, Imbecelicus politici) was always the strangest and most contemptuous
of species from the habitat of American politics, as you've perhaps already heard. Try to imagine another example from the animal
kingdom that could be so readily counted upon to bring harm upon itself and others. There are some of course, but usually they are
simply ignorant animals, often with very limited cranial capacity.
"The Reagan Democrat, on the other hand, was simply obnoxiously greedy, and took great pains to aggregate to itself as much stuff
as was possible, including even meaningless psychological affirmations of its existential worth. It wasn't very long, of course,
before another animal in the jungle noticed this tendency, and established a parasitic relationship with the Reagan Democrat. These
others were known as The Wealthy (Plutocratus illegitimi), and they got very rich – though they could still never seem to
achieve happiness – by exploiting the opportunities provided to them by the Reagan Democrat. A very mean-spirited and deceitful group
of marketing gurus like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were generally the weapon of choice for accomplishing this.
"Anyhow, before we enter the exhibit, perhaps I should stop now and take any questions. Yes, you, young lady, what can I tell
you?"
"Well, sir, you've never quite defined what a Reagan Democrat is. And, especially, why someone associated with Mr. Reagan would
be a Democrat. Wasn't he from that other party, the, uh..., the... Regressocans? ...the Degenocrats?"
"Ah, fine questions, indeed, and you're quite right that I've been remiss in not explaining those fundamentals so far. It's an
occupational hazard, I suppose. We zoo curators get so caught up in admiring our own erudition that we sometimes we forget to do
our jobs properly!
"Speaking of which, where were we...? Oh, yes, I was going to answer your questions about the meaning of this term. First of all,
let's get that political party name straight. Reagan was a Republican. That's what makes the creature we're about to see so interesting.
It came from working class roots, often recently arrived just a generation earlier from some very poor Eastern European country or
such. Its local social unit had only recently been elevated to the middle class, and this achievement had everything to do with the
progressive policies the Democratic Party. For the first time ever, and because of these policies, it had a good job, a house in
the suburbs, two cars, and it could send its offspring to institutions of higher education which had previously been reserved exclusively
for elites, as represented by Mr. Reagan's party.
"But it was very, very greedy, and thus differentiated itself off into a new species which was marked by the fact that it could
have its underdeveloped psychology readily appealed to for purposes of exploitation by Republican operatives, representing the economic
elite species. In fact, it was actually pretty easy to do. All they had to do was throw some line about an evil foreign bogeyman
down to the Reagan Democrat, or perhaps a story about uppity darker skinned members of the genus, or some televised ruse about how
very, very bad people were out to destroy Christmas, the silly religious holiday of yore... Anything like that would generally work.
"It really didn't matter very much what ploy was chosen, though the more naked the appeal to greed or vanity, the better. For
instance, a handful of elites could carve out for themselves massive chunks of the commonwealth's (formerly) common wealth, but as
long as they tossed a few pennies in the direction of the Reagan Democrat at the same time, the latter was sure to support what amounted
to his or her own financial undoing, every time. Likewise, since the Reagan Democrat tended to be the most fearful and the most self-loathing
of animals in the human sphere, the basest appeals to its vanity could also buy votes en masse, and on the cheap, too. You just had
to make him feel a little bigger than someone else – women, foreigners, brown people, homosexuals – it didn't really matter. Then
you could get his vote and pick his pocket."
