Fox News vs. Comedy Central: Jon Stewart pulls his punches in "class warfare" debate with Bill O'Reilly

By Nicholas Wilbur

(Ed. note: Sorry for the lack of posts today. I'm exhausted after a long week that included a significant electoral event in the provincial jurisdiction in which I live. But, no, I don't blog about Ontario. Anyway, I'll have more soon, but here, for your blog-reading pleasure, is a post by Nicholas on a recent Stewart-O'Reilly showdown that you may have heard about. Enjoy. -- MJWS)

Whenever Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly meet to rekindle their bromance on live TV, Stewart consistently backs The O'Reilly Factor host into a corner – then proceeds to beat him over the head with context, facts, perspective, and the general "reality" O'Reilly just can't seem to grasp.

I enjoy the exchanges, the theatrics, the beatings, and the odd fascination these TV show hosts have for one another. Their meetings feel like a modern version of the Vidal-Buckley debates – only funnier, less snobbish, and in color.

What bothered me about their latest debate over tax increases was that Stewart, an intellectual giant compared to Billo, balked at the moment when he could have knocked O'Reilly out of the studio.

O'Reilly was up against the ropes, taking blow after blow as Stewart mauled him with facts and figures over the plight of the middle class, the myth of equality, the hypocrisy (and irony) of those "poor rich people" complaining about the lowest tax rate in decades, and the truth behind this country's 30-year corporate-funded campaign against the middle class.

"You are not living in reality," Stewart said. "Here's the reality. Top one percent take in nearly 25 percent of income today... The top one percent control 40 percent of the wealth. Twenty five years ago it was 33 percent. Top one percent have had incomes rise 18 percent over the last decade."

Stewart was already doing a victory dance as the audience roared over his closing argument: "I'm not saying we shoot them, but we shouldn't act like returning to the tax rate of the 1990s is class warfare on par with Lenin and Marx! That's what I'm saying!"

But it was too late. He'd missed his opportunity to nail the coffin shut and send O'Reilly sulking off the stage. 

 

Instead, O'Reilly returned to his studio and said this on his next show:

Stewart and many other progressives remain unconvinced that the federal government has a responsibility to operate efficiently and honestly before demanding more tax dollars. But I'm not giving up. I'm determined to convince the left that class warfare is damaging America.

He'll go about that mission by continuing to press two irrelevant and unsubstantiated talking points – talking points that Stewart could have annihilated if he'd postponed his victory dance by 30 seconds.

One is the government efficiency issue.

What Stewart failed to point out is that Washington is being more efficient. This administration, not Bush's or Reagan's but Obama's administration, has agreed to cut a historic $1.5 trillion from the federal budget over the next 10 years. He is drawing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have cost this country a conservatively estimated $1.3 trillion. His health care reform bill saves $210 billion over the next decade, and his student loan reforms save another $60 billion.

This administration actually is cutting spending. Today's Democrats are being responsible with taxpayers' money. They are reducing the debt.

You can't demand more efficient government spending when this administration is actively working to recall the bloated spending of the last three Republican administrations – unless you're not called out on it, and O'Reilly wasn't.

The second issue is O'Reilly's insistence that the rich are actually paying higher taxes now, overall and since the recession, when you take into account state taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes.

This is the type of claim that makes liberals cringe. But rather than dismissing the argument and turning the conversation back to the fact that the top one percent owns 40 percent of all wealth in America – and therefore, since they only pay 28 percent of all taxes despite owning nearly a majority of all wealth, perhaps the top one percent should pay closer to a majority of all taxes – progressives should take the issue head on.

Yes, the rich are paying higher sales taxes, property taxes, and state taxes, depending on where they live. But... drum roll please... SO IS EVERYONE ELSE!

The tax increases O'Reilly is whining about are no higher for him and other millionaires than they are for laborers, middle-class folks, even the working poor – at least not comparatively. They may have bigger houses and gas-guzzling SUV stretch limos, and they may contribute a greater portion of individual sales taxes compared to their poor neighbor, but they're not any more affected by these tax hikes than the rest of society. These increases in daily living costs mean that a greater portion of the average, middle class American's wages must go toward paying the mortgage, the gas bill, the grocery bill. They have to reduce their economic footprint in order to ensure that a roof remains over their head, that they can transport themselves to work and back, and that there is food on the table.

When the middle class has less money to spend, the impact on their local economies is evident, because when the masses spend less, local businesses, local municipalities and even state and federal governments collect less revenue. That is not even comparable to the impact of millionaires, who are far fewer in number, don't have to budget for increases in gas prices, and don't live paycheck to paycheck.

The question that should be asked is, When the federal tax burden is at a 60-year low, income inequality is at an 80-year high, and the national debt is "out of control," according to the Republican Party, why aren't the rich – the only people not suffering from the recession – not contributing more in taxes?

Stewart won the debate, but mainly because he was in his own studio, surrounded by his audience, and because the viewer's takeaway from this exchange – indeed, the media's takeaway – was that he bested O'Reilly by forcing the Fox News talking head to admit that "on some things" he's a Democrat. What was reported in the press, in the blogosphere, and in online news media sources – what the masses who missed the segment heard – was that O'Reilly agreed that the rich have been better off in the last 20 years because of the tax code and that he would agree to higher tax rates on the rich if the federal government got its spending habits under control.

But Stewart didn't win the progressive argument. He didn't defend the middle class by correcting O'Reilly's claim that the rich are paying higher state and sales taxes when, in fact, everyone else is as well. And he didn't defend Democrats who have sacrificed the support of the liberal base by agreeing to the very "efficiency" standards O'Reilly is demanding.

As a disclaimer, I must say that I understand that The Daily Show is entertainment. It is a highly political, highly progressive nightly satire routine where "schnicks and giggles" matter more than investigative reporting and deep political analysis. I get that.

That said, Stewart is one of if not the most-watched liberal on television. His 2.3-million-member audience dwarfs all other Fox News show demographics. Only The O'Reilly Factor – supposedly a news program – has better ratings than The Daily Show – a comedy program!

Perhaps it's wrist-slittingly sad that one of the most popular and mainstream advocates for modern progressivism is a side-splitting comedian, but Stewart has earned his reputation. I just wish he'd stop pulling punches and show O'Reilly, and conservatives in general, that the left knows what "class warfare" truly is.

We've been living it for decades.

(Cross-posted at Muddy Politics.)