When I heard that The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah held an interview with Final Thoughts’ Tomi Lahren, equally praised and abhorred for her inflammatory and politically incorrect rhetoric, I had expected an interview laden with Noah’s characteristically pithy and sardonic criticisms of far-right ideology. I had expected Noah, as he typically does, to be fueled by his audience’s energy, whether it take form in applause or in jeers. What I had not expected, however, was a cool and composed Noah abstaining from his trademark comic style in a sincere attempt to draw out logic from Lahren’s more extreme stances.
As entertaining and satisfying as they are to hear, I typically try not to assign too much political value to “eviscerations” or “slaughters” of right-wing ideology as made popular by personalities like John Oliver, Seth Myers or Jon Stewart. To me — and I quite safely identify as “liberal” — and to many others sharing my political ideology, these segments beg consumption. The passion and wit driving these criticisms are often so irresistible as to share on Facebook, Twitter and other social platforms.
However, as many of these personalities have themselves admitted, this method of criticism does very little for political discourse (if you’ll temporarily allow me to casually drop such a nuanced and abstract phrase — this concept begs explication beyond that of 500-600 words). While I count myself among those entertained and emboldened by certain “eviscerations” or “epic rants,” I also count them among the more divisive tactics that may have cost the left the election and that may continue to result in more ideological losses. The liberal media (and yes, it pains me to use that phrase, but humor me for just a moment) runs the danger of attracting an exclusively liberal audience and alienating anyone who does not identify as such.
Up until this November, it was plausible to expect that the left would rally together for an all-out brawl against the right. As the elections’ results have made apparent, however, this is neither an effective nor a desirable method of action.
In the days following the results of the election, I found solace in the words of John Stuart Mill’s Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion: “In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him […] Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind.”
As a country that faces a future of divisive and isolationist politics, I believe we can find strength in the very sort of conduct Mill praises. As tempting and delicious as it often is to resort to ridicule and mockery, both left and right wing politics are faced with a reality that requires negotiation.
And while Noah and Lahren’s discourse is a far cry from reaching fruition — and while I speak from a position of privilege (Michael Darer of The Huffington Post gives a few choice words about the danger of the “white liberal ‘discourse’ fetish”), I found Noah’s conduct in his interview a small step in the right direction without compromising core values and beliefs. In order to work toward the dissolve of sharp divides, we ought not draw power chiefly from “slaughters,” “eviscerations” or “epic rants,” but from meaningful thought and discussion.
Coral Ciupak, a Viewpoints Editor for the Voice, can be reached for comment at CCiupak19@wooster.edu.