We are the new media.
 | |  | |  | |  | |  |
By Paul Geary
March 8, 2005
The New Editor
Bill Maher, please go away.
I used to like Bill Maher. The very concept of a program called "Politically Incorrect," where
guests could appear and have a spirited debate without the expectation of false gentility or
self-censorship was appealing.
The mix of guests was often entertaining and volatile: The episode in which Florence
Henderson agreed with nearly everything Marilyn Manson said -- they bonded to the point
that she called him by his given name, Brian -- was a great example. (They both seemed
pretty libertarian.) Republican consultants and preachers discussed the issues of the day
with singers and porn stars and environmentalists. There was often real communication
happening.
In that sense Jon Stewart, another comedian with media/politics clout well beyond his actual
capacity to understand the world around him, was completely wrong when he told Tucker
Carlson and Paul Begala that they (meaning, programs where people argued) were doing a
disservice: Passionate people debating their beliefs in a louder tone than a PBS radio
announcer is not a bad thing for our democracy. Debate is good, discourse is good, and the
pretense of a format where free speech would be encouraged was very good.
"Politically Incorrect" started well, but in its later incarnations degenerated into a simple
debate over President Clinton’s travails, with Maher taking the (politically incorrect?) stance
that we should leave the guy alone; it was only a low-grade sex issue after all. Unfortunately
the program rarely got beyond that in the later Clinton years.
There once was a time when Maher described himself as a libertarian -- he still does, but I
think less often. (It should be less often if it isn't.)
Today he can barely muster up the gumption to get Tim Robbins (actor turned pundit) to
admit that maybe things were worse under Saddam Hussein. Anyone who suggested Bill
Clinton's infidelities might not have been a good thing got pressed harder in the good days of
"PI."
Maybe the occasional comment that "Republicans protect my wallet" snowed me into
thinking that Maher really was some kind of maverick. An appearance at the University of
Texas in 1998, at which Clarence Thomas was the focus of his venom (prompting several
African American audience members to walk out) belied any claim to thinking libertarianism.
Evidently, Thomas’s libertarian-leaning beliefs weren't good enough for Maher, assuming he
knew about them. Of course, we've all learned by now the shallowness of the
actor/musician/comedian pundit, but he was supposed to be different. He knew about the
sexual allegations against Thomas, of course. But I thought it was OK to get the odd sexual
favor? What happened to politically incorrect?
In recent years, Maher must have taken Gore Vidal's advice: Never miss an opportunity to
have sex or appear on television. (OK, I can only vouch for the TV part.) Or maybe he needs
the money. His appearance on "Mad TV" – which should stay away from politics as well and
stick to contemporary urban social satire -- was an abysmal smack-down of George Bush
masquerading as political commentary, or comedy, or something.
Here’s an example of Maher's idea of comedy or commentary (hard to tell which he was
going for).
Fake Talk Show Host: How are you Bill?
Maher (playing himself): I'm great. George Bush won, Osama Bin Laden is dead, the
troops are home, everyone has a good-paying job, Social Security is safe… oh wait, you
have to be an idiot to think that!
Or something like that. It’s not worth my time to transcribe it exactly. You get the idea.
No, today Maher is painfully politically correct. And painfully not funny. He takes these
iconoclastic and nuanced positions: against the Iraq war; George Bush’s sole drive is to help
Halliburton; fears for Social Security (some libertarian!).
This would be somewhat tolerable if he would just laugh more, and make it funny. I’m not
incapable of laughing at jokes emanating from a political view I don't share; in fact I thought
Dennis Miller was much more funny when he was a liberal. Miller's newfound conservatism
is the product of clear thinking but it's probably too new to allow him to be really funny,
though I loved his answer to the question about why he’s become conservative: Because he
realized that liberals are calling George Bush names that should be reserved for the guy
who's actually putting people into wood-chippers.
What makes satire funny is the kernel of truth in the farce. With Maher what you get now is
a blunt to the head. What used to be wistful cynicism now looks not much different than the
scores of angry liberals one sees in Cambridge or Berkeley. A scowl, long gray hair, and a
sneer for anything Bush is no longer rare, and is certainly not funny. So Bill Maher, at least
have the honesty to change the name of your program to "Intellectually Lazy." Or "Angry
Liberal." Or better yet, please just go away.
Paul Geary is a contributing editor for The New Editor.
Paul Geary
David Rogers