THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
What bothered me about Jon Stewart’s return
Like most humans with a sense of humor, I was excited to see Jon Stewart back in The Daily Show anchor chair.
In fact, the first thing I did this morning was pick up my phone and stream his 20-minute monologue. And, to the satisfaction of me and I’m sure many others, Stewart’s wit was as sharp as ever.
But he has long since evolved from being a comedian—for whom the joke is the point—to being a social commentator for whom the serious point is the point, even though there are plenty of jokes along the way.
And the point Stewart was trying to make last night, in my opinion, was wrong.
More on that, but first, here’s the latest from the Washington Monthly:
***
Surviving Joe Biden’s Brain Freezes: Contributing Editor Jonathan Alter offers a seven-step strategy for overcoming the age issue. Click here for the full story.
Based on Incomes, Americans Are a Lot Better Off Under Biden Than Under Trump: Contributing Writer Robert J. Shapiro lays out how the “Biden Boom” is putting more money in our pockets. Click here for the full story.
A Textbook Case of Social Justice Medicine Run Amok: Psychiatrist and American Enterprise Institute fellow Sally Satel critiques a new textbook from the American Psychiatric Association’s publishing arm. Click here for the full story.
***
I am not a fan of ageism on its merits. As I wrote for the Monthly in August:
Some of the oldest people in Washington—chiefly Joe Biden—have produced a slew of bipartisan legislation in the last three years, addressing Ukraine, gun safety, infrastructure, semiconductor manufacturing, and postal service reform. And some of the youngest members of Congress—such as Representatives George Santos, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Elise Stefanik, and Marjorie Taylor Greene—are unhinged ideologues.
Stewart, unfortunately, began his second TDS stint with an ageist argument against old people running for president:
We have two candidates who are chronologically outside the norm of anyone who has run for the presidency in this country in the history of this country … We’re not suggesting neither man is vibrant, productive, or even capable. But they are both stretching the limits of being able to handle the toughest job in the world. What’s crazy is thinking that we’re the ones, as voters, who must silence concerns and criticisms. It is the candidates’ job to assuage concerns, not the voters’ job not to mention them.
(Note the above is in no way a joke. It’s a serious argument and worthy of a serious response.)
Stewart’s attempt to skirt the ageism charge only amplified it. If Joe Biden and Donald Trump are vibrant, productive, and capable, then how are they “stretching the limits of being able to handle the toughest job in the world”?
The notion that there is a specific age limit at which one is deemed ill-suited to handle the job, regardless of their capabilities, is literal ageism (an argument pushed by Nikki Haley and Dean Phillips in the presidential primaries, to little effect).
And the problem with ageism, like any other type of discrimination, is it deprives society of the talents of capable people. Worse still, ageism might lead you to choose a less capable, less honorable person to carry out essential tasks.
Of course, when old people mix up names, places, and dates, many of us are quicker to presume dementia than when younger people do the same. But neurological experts tell us memory loss is more complicated than just mixing up names.
As one neuroscientist recently explained in The New York Times, “inattentively conflating the names of the leaders of two countries” is not the same thing as “being unable to remember that you had ever met the president of Egypt.”
Stewart is correct when he says, “It is the candidates’ job to assuage concerns, not the voters’ job not to mention them.” But that is just a truism of politics. Every voter gets to establish their own criteria for earning their vote, no matter how unfounded or irrational, and the candidate’s job is to figure out how to meet that criteria.
But the journalist also has a job, at least in a functional democracy, to educate voters, so they can hold informed opinions—so whatever concerns they have, to the greatest extent possible, are based on facts and not mere vibes.
And in his current role, Stewart is a journalist. He may be the most hilarious opinion journalist alive, but that’s a type of journalist nonetheless.
His commentaries, like those of any newspaper columnist, are reliant on factual research, and in turn, his viewers rely on him for accurate information. He retains the right to voice an uninformed, poorly researched opinion, but when that happens, he’s not exercising his right in a way that informs voters.
Stewart ended his commentary with a tangential plea to de-emphasize the importance of a presidential campaign that is going to “suck,” and focus on the work we all can do before and after Election Day:
The work of making this world resemble one that you would prefer to live in is a lunch-pail f***ing job, day in and day out, where thousands of committed, anonymous, smart, and dedicated people bang on closed doors and pick up those that are fallen and grind away on issues until they get a positive result, and even then, have to stay on to make sure that result holds.
Here, I agree with Jon Stewart.
Except that I think one of the best examples of a person who has lived by this creed is Joe Biden.
FIND THE MONTHLY ON SOCIAL
We’re on Twitter @monthly
We’re on Threads @WAMonthly
We’re on Instagram @WAMonthly
We’re on Facebook @WashingtonMonthly
Best,
Bill
