I enjoy Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert (I think the former is more consistently on point, but the latter produces more moments that put the TV in danger from liquid projection of whatever I happen to be drinking at the time). That being said, I'm also glad Stewart is shutting down for the summer; it unclogs the DVR and I think he's become a little stale. I give him credit for trying to be fair and critical of the administration, but it strikes me as mostly forced.
On the other hand (I suppose that's the right hand), I can't abide Rush Limbaugh, even as I grudgingly recognize his talent for skewering his political nemeses (anyone with post 19th century views, IMO). I generally have about a 30-second tolerance for his voice, but have managed to last longer than that on rare occasions. I'll throw Dennis Miller (whom I've heard maybe once or twice when he was first syndicated in St. Louis, but I did read one of his books) onto the pile (or under the bus?), just to keep the sides even.
However, the point I want to make is that ridicule is easy; problem-solving is hard, and complicated. Ridicule works, as often as not, because it takes a complex situation and either manipulates details or creates clever play-on-word comparisons. (Stewart and Limbaugh [and their writers] are especially good at this.) Without disparaging the talents of satirists, making an idea or a person (using words out of context or pushing a position to the point of absurdity) appear ridiculous (and we must give both political parties "credit" for providing so many easy bulls-eyes) is not nearly as tough a task as careful and thoughtful analysis of a problem or proposing a worthy or logical solution.
Of course, proposing an alternative solution further raises the degree of difficulty, as well as subjecting that alternative to the same kind of ridicule that sabotaged any hope for the original. Congress has clearly demonstrated how much easier it is to find excuses to oppose proposals than to productively create solutions, via compromise, to our multiple national dilemmas. In this media age, compounded by the ease of offering opinions via social media, it is no wonder thoughtful people are reluctant to put targets on their backs by offering solutions.
Personally, I'm really good at destruction when it comes to household projects. I can take things apart if there's no expectation of its retaining any useful life beyond recycling. Construction, however, is beyond my abilities. On the idea side, I like to think of myself as a problem-solver, someone who can come up with creative solutions to complicated challenges. I have no problem working with critics, in part because I've generated so many over the years. I recognize that we all need counterbalances (or editors, not someone readily available for a blog) to point out flaws or alternate directions. Nevertheless, I'm guessing those who have been on the receiving end might opine that I'm even better at caustic criticism, and, certainly from their perspective, they might be right.
I'll continue to be amused by the satirists, but I hope I don't fall into the trap of thinking they're actually providing any meaningful solutions to real problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment