Politics By Smug

In the wake of Trump's electoral victory, the YouTube algorithms have been feeding me clips of "sensible liberals" like Bill Maher supposedly coming around to more common sense views and rejecting the woke excesses of the Left. Such as Maher are, at least by these curated clips, trying to change the course of the Democratic Party in the wake of a system shock that left the party powerless but for the Senate filibuster its most prominent voices had aspired to kibosh.

I have never been drawn to talking head political punditry. I found the typical format, where people would talk over each other, where sound bite was far more prevalent than in-depth explanation, and where the latter was rarely given space to fully form before a host would interrupt, a waste of time and bandwidth. The "gotcha" aspect of it all mirrored my disdain for political debates, which are more theater than policy exposition.

My disinterest doesn't make it go away, unfortunately. Many people devote many hours to watching such programming. Moreso, for many people such talking head punditry is their primary, and perhaps sole, source of political news and commentary. I recall reading that, in its heyday, Jon Stewart's The Daily Show was the only news show that millions of young people watched.

I have never watched an episode of the Daily Show in my life, but no matter. I have been exposed to countless clips, excerpts, and snippets via other sources. Ditto for Real Time With Bill Maher, Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, The Colbert Report, and the rest of the "political-satire" genre. That the bulk of this content (I acknowledge the existence of Gutfeld!, The Five, etc.) skews left reflects the political leanings of most of the mainstream media, but it also reflects a cultural problem.

That problem is illustrated in this interview of Milton Friedman by Phil Donahue. Donahue was, in his day, considered a liberal firebrand, easily the equivalent of Maher, Stewart, et al today. Yet he actually gives Friedman the space to speak and to put forth fully composed thoughts and responses. He listens, and questions, and doesn't interrupt, and doesn't look to simply shut down or shout down.

Most of all, Donahue is earnest. Sometimes jovially so, sometimes seriously so. Today, "earnest" has given way to "smug," and viewers apparently lap it up. "Smug" has a whole lot of overlap with "condescending," and neither is conducive to the exchange of ideas and viewpoints.

I have a couple acquaintances in my extended circle who lean left and argue - if I am to be generous in calling what they offer "arguments” - with smugness, condescension, and dismissiveness. It is often accompanied with the aforementioned "talking over" and interrupting. My gut response to this - a response I devote great effort to keeping to myself - is one of anger. It also prompts me to play the talking-over and interrupting game, which is not ideal (to put it very mildly) but is often the only alternative to simply going mute and accepting the walk-over. The latter is, rationally, the saner approach, because the signal they send is that they've no real interest in a dialogue. So, of late, I try to do less reaction and more "let them suck the air out of the room, then walk away." I don't always succeed, but when I do, I feel better.

How individuals interact is one thing. How the people who seek to inform others is another. One doesn't have to be a mirthless stone-face, but there's a difference between cracking jokes and dripping dismissive smugness down upon the half of the country that doesn't share your slant. The latter is corrosive and certain to curtail the political diversity of your viewership. It builds and reinforces echo chambers. It has brought us to where we are today, where people choose what they watch based on what they want to hear, and on who is getting dunked on.

Unfortunately, I don't see this changing. About the only thing that might change in the wake of The Great Rejection is the servility to the Left. As I noted at the open, Maher is positioning himself as a "reasonable" liberal, who gives reality its due rather than arguing that biological men who've gone through a bit of hormone therapy should be allowed to compete in women's sports. The same smug used for years on anyone who's not on Team Blue is now also being aimed at the Left. While that's a good thing - the Left has been the undoing of the Democratic Party, and a return to more traditional Blue-Red disagreements would be a positive step - the smug will continue to sow blind partisan division. The only way out, and I don't see it happening this political cycle, is a return to more respectful discourse. For that to happen, we the consumers must want it to happen, and must reward those who act that way with clicks and eyeballs.