There is a bit of a feud going on between Jon Stewart and Paul Krugman, two of my favorite luminaries.
After covering the platinum coin idea on the Daily Show, Krugman criticizes Stewart on their portrayal of the platinum coin.
Stewart defended their segment, ending it thus: “I stand by our research on the topic, the due diligence, and my ignorant conclusion that a trillion dollar coin minted to allow the President to circumvent the debt ceiling, however arbitrary that may be, is a stupid fucking idea.”
Maybe so.
But the question I want to ask Jon Stewart is this:
What Progressive idea, when it was initially proposed, didn't sound like a stupid idea?
Progressives are always on the cutting edge of what might work, and might not work, but nobody knows because it hasn't been tried yet.
Most Progressive ideas are initially mocked and dismissed as ridiculous. Often, the derision is directly proportional to the problem the idea purports to solve.
That alone is not reason to dismiss these ideas. The question that always has to be asked, before asking if an idea is worth mocking, is this: would it work? In fact, proposing ideas that seem ridiculous is the very soul of what distinguishes Progressive from Conservative.
Unions. Minimum Wage. The New Deal. Social Security.
How many of these Progressive ideas were ridiculed when they were initially proposed?
Who would argue against any of them in this era and at the same time consider themselves a supporter of the Progressive agenda?
Everyone agrees that the platinum coin idea was a ridiculous suggestion.
The thing is, it also made a lot of sense. It was completely legal. It would have solved the problem it purported to solve.
It just had never been tried before.
Many suggestions and ideas are, on the surface, ridiculous and laughable. The distinction we need to draw, including the Daily Show, is that even though an idea sounds ridiculous, if it works, should we really be dismissing it.
This distinction is what Jon Stewart fails to recognize, and why in this instance, I have to side with Krugman.
In attacking a progressive solution because of its superficial view as ridiculous and laughable, Stewart strengthens the attack strategy against Progressive ideals that have always fueled the Conservative machine. I wonder how he feels to be helping them in such a way.
In the words of this very profound Bud Light Commercial...
It's only weird if it doesn't work.
I have twitter but don't use it very well. Maybe if someone reads this entry, they can ask him this question on my behalf.