ideological purity

We're coming up on the five-year anniversary of Jon Stewart's verbal skewering of Crossfire in particular and the whole genre of left-right cable gabfests in general.  Stewart said these kind of shows were "hurting America" because of their general blather and failure to ask politicians good, sharp questions. 

Stewart's appearance on Crossfire generated quite the navel-gazing among the commentariat, and played no small role in the eventual disappearance of Crossfire, The Capitol Gang, Hannity & Colmes, and shows of that ilk.  

So, five years later, I have a half-assed blog question to ask -- did Jon Stewart hurt America by driving these shows off the air? 

If you're expecting a lengthy defense of the Crossfire format right now, well, you're going to be disappointed.  My point rather, is to question what replaced these kinds of shows on the cable newsverse.  Instead of Hannity & Colmes, you now have.... Hannity.  Is this really an improvement?   

As inane as the crosstalk shows might have been, one of their strengths was that they had people with different ideological and political perspectives talking to (and sometimes past) each other.  You could argue that the level of discourse was pretty simplistic and crude -- but at least it was an attempt at cross-ideological debate.  People from different ideological stripes watched the same show and heard the same arguments.  Nowadays, if you're looking for that kind of exchange, you either have to fast all week until the Sunday morning talk shows, or go visit bloggingheads. 

Instead of Crossfire-style shows on cable news, you now have content like Hannity, Glenn Beck, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, etc.  These programs have no cross-ideological debate.  Instead, you have hosts on both the left and the right outbidding each other to see who can be the most batsh**t insane ideologically pure.  These shows attract audiences sympathetic to the host's political beliefs, and the content of these shows help viewers to fortify their own ideological bunkers to the point where no amount of truth is going to penetrate their worldviews.  Which allows these hosts to say any crazy thing that pops into their head and hear nothing but "Ditto!" after they say it. 

Again, you have to discount this as a half-assed blog observation, but it seems to me that shows like Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann are now sucking up the available oxygen in the cable newsverse that programs like Capitol Gang use to breathe.  Is that really a good thing? 

So, five years later, I'd like to ask Mr. Stewart a question -- was your rant good for America? 

UPDATE:  Two quick responses.  First, this commenter argues that the Glenn Becks of the world are far worse than the Keith Olbermanns of the world, and that this post has a "plague on both houses" quality to it. 

OK, let's stipulate that the bulk of the output that I'm decrying in this post comes from the right rather than the left.  I'll even further stipulate that Rachel Maddow represent the best of this kind of format.  So stipulated. 

Feel better now?  Does that stipulation in any way affect the argument I made above?  No, I didn't think so. 

Second, James Joyner responds with this observation:

Contra-Tucker Carlson, I actually believe shows like Stewart’s “Daily Show” and Stephen Colbert’s “Colbert Report” do a better job of illuminating issues than the screamfests did.  But that’s a rather low bar. 

Well...... maybe.  When Stewart is on his game, he is quite the interrogator.  But Carlson was correct about one point -- politicians had a clear incentive to duck the screamfests in favor of "soft news" formats like the morning network shows, late-night talk shows, "fake news" shows like Stewart's or SNL, or even Oprah.  How many politicians now choose to duck Stewart's show entirely for even softer news outlets.  And, to repeat -- what replaced the left-right screamfests?  Ideologically pure screamfests. 

Thanks, but no thanks. 

Arlen Specter is now a Democrat, which means that:

• Minnesota election law lawyers are going to get to triple their fees overnight; and
• We're going to get to see how the GOP handles defectors, in much the same way that Democrats had to deal with people like Richard Shelby back in 1994. 

So far, I'm not encouraged.  Here's GOP chair Michael Steele's written statement: 

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let's be honest -- Sen. Specter didn't leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record.

This is pretty incoherent.  If Specter really did have a left-wing voting record, then why wouldn't he leave based on principle as well as personal interest? 

Second, if GOP leaders keeps talking like this, then Democrats won't have to wait for Al Franken to be seated to have a filibuster-proof majority. 

Politico's Martin Kady II and John Bresnehan report on Senator Olympia Snowe's reaction: 

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) a fellow moderate, didn't seem surprised. On the national level, she says, "you haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words of how they [Republicans] view moderates. Either you are with us or against us."

“Ultimately we're heading to having the smallest political tent in history they way things are unfolding,” Snowe said. “We should have learned from the 2006 election, which I was a party of. I happened to win with 74% of the vote in a blue collar state but no one asked me how did you do it. Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican party to find out so we could avoid further losses."

There might be more conservatives than liberals in the United States, but there's an awful lot more centrists than conservatives.  Playing to the rump might provide some ideological comfort, but it's also a sure-fire method to becoming the minority party for the next generation.  If the GOP keeps this up, Snowe's prediction will likely come true. 

Ramesh Ponnuru gets this:  "The Democrats are growing by appealing to formerly Republican moderates while the GOP is being reduced to a conservative rump."

One odd foreign policy effect out of all of this:  Obama's bargaining position on some issues with the rest of the world might actually be weakened.  Domestic constraints can sometimes function as a source of bargaining strength on the international stage.  At this point, however, the domestic constraints Obama faces seem ever smaller, even if things haven't changed all that much in practice.