This was written in response to a "Crossfire" section in my old school newspaper.
"QO Crossfire" Makes Jon Stewart Cry
An editorial by QO 2004 Alumnus Barnaby Yeh
(WARNING: The following may need a bit of sanitization once it hits the papers)
When my friend gave me a copy of the latest issue of The Prowler, the first page I turned to was the "Crossfire" section, much ballyhooed by said friend as "owned". And I must say: I am not impressed.
Now, some of you may need a little exposition if you don't "get" the meaning behind the title. As a few of you may know, the wildly-popular host of The Daily Show went as a guest on CNN's Crossfire (the real one) to promote his book. (By the way, history and government buffs, go get this book, but only if you or your parents aren't too prudish.) He surprised much of the nation by lecturing hosts Paul Begala (on the Democratic Left) and Tucker Carlson (on the Republican Right) on how their show was "hurting America" by not providing any substantive debate, just "hacks" yelling at each other in a game of "who can spout their point of view louder." Stewart then proceeded to hurl a much deserved (and not unprovoked) insult at Carlson, which I'm not quite sure I'm allowed to say in a school newspaper. I'm not going to do the same for my good friend representing the Republicans in The Prowler's edition of Crossfire... yet.
However, Stewart's larger point on Crossfire remains true. Just two points are fielded, one from the Democratic Left and the other from the Republican Right, rarely providing any sort of compromise, middle ground, or sanity. I'm seeing much of the same in the student version.
Upon looking at the Republican view, I must say that I have not seen something so detached from reality since I saw that PIPA survey a while back. You can't blame me for rolling my eyes, being a liberal Democrat myself (and probably the most liberal one in my now-graduated class). However, one thing that particularly bothered me was [CENSORED]'s echoing of the likes of Robert Novak (the other Republican Right host on Crossfire) in trying to lecture the Democrats in "re-evaluating [their] options." Excuse me? The Democrats are already wrestling with their party establishment on the direction of the Democratic Party, and we don't need anyone on the opposition lecturing us on strategy. Now that I think about it, perhaps the Republicans want Democrats to have an iota of power just so they can have someone to blame for their own mistakes. But I don't represent the Republicans, so who am I to speak for them? (Exactly.)
The Democratic view, however, disappointed me much more. I don't know [CENSORED] personally, but I could not bear to see a fellow Democrat write something so asinine. Looking down at the huddled masses who voted for Bush, he insults their culture and intelligence in what seems so representative of the "liberal elitist" stereotype. Yes, I know we all have those "United States of Canada vs. Jesusland" moments, but you've got to understand that they are just as American as the other half who voted for Kerry, not to mention the rest who didn't vote. What really frustrated me more was XXXXX's call to wait for 2008 in order to field Hillary Clinton in 2008, implying we should hold back now. (I'm careful not to put words in his mouth, but this needs to be addressed.) First of all, running another uninspiring center-left candidate from the Northeast, no matter how charismatic she is, will likely get us to the same place we are in now. Furthermore, we shouldn't focus solely on 2008, as there is much action to be done in between. We can take the first step and stop looking down on the masses like Giles did. Doing nothing between now and 2008 is tantamount to digging our own graves: not just the graves of Democrats, but the graves of liberalism and of pretty much everyone else. Also, regarding Giles's praise of Clinton, I'm not sure if he's amnesiac about Clinton's policies in Iraq, Serbia, and on NAFTA, but then again, we can't ALL be liberals, can we?
The face of politics is no longer the same. The country is now under de facto one-party rule. The Bush Administration, even as it preaches unity with the Democrats, has already taken actions to shaft the opposition. From the purging of the ranks in the CIA, to the persecution of Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), to the actions surrounding the strongarm House leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), it has become increasingly clear that the Republican leadership does not want unity. On the opposition side, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), a man who is even less willing to fight for his cause than Tom Daschle (D-SD), has just been nominated as the replacement for the aforementioned lame-duck minority leader. Conservatives, once champions of limited government, are now in love with Big Government now that they are in control, while liberals and progressives alike scramble to the states, which they previously tried to control from Washington. Everything has become topsy-turvy. It is time to abandon the politics of two-party partisanship hackery, aided and abetted by a complacent media, and it's time for an honest dialogue with the American people. We need to know what they want, and not what the parties' leaders want for them. Only then will we find a direction that's right for the country. (Yet even as I say this, I'm not ruling out a liberal sweep in 2006!)
After all, it's what Jon Stewart would've wanted. And you're not about to defy Jon Stewart, are you?