Some nights, The Daily Show is bifurcated. Jon Stewart does his usual funny job of pointing out hypocrisy and insanity in the news…and by the way, after the last week or so, those who argue that he only slams Republicans and Conservatives really need to stop trying to "game the ref" by claiming that. Anyway, some nights, his interview segment runs so long that it turns into another, almost-as-long-if-not-longer show of its own.
Last night, the chat was with Edward Conard, a former Bain Capital exec who's out selling his book about how we need more of the Bain way, not less. The part of the conversation that ran on Comedy Central lasted seven minutes and then it continues on the Daily Show website for an additional 34 minutes. I won't embed them but here's Part One, here's Part Two and here's Part Three.
I find these little discussions fascinating on two levels, one being the content. This one loses its way in Part Three and peters out…but before that, Stewart manages to get to the core of the critical question facing our nation's economy: Do we run it for the money managers or do we run it for the small investors whose money those managers are pumping into high-risk, high-return slot machines? And there's the ancillary question, as well: In that model, who are the risk-takers? Mr. Conard thinks we need to "incentivize" the next Mark Zuckerberg and that a difference of a few percentage points in that person's tax rate will make a difference. I think Stewart "wins" that debate here partly because he has Home Court Advantage and a friendly audience but mainly because he manages to point out essential contradictions in Conard's argument.
The other way I find these one-on-ones of interest is that no one else does them. No one but Jon Stewart, at least on TV, sits down with folks of opposing viewpoints and has a friendly discussion largely free of pre-scripted talking points — plus, he also manages to be funny and entertaining. When I watch or listen to other political-type debates on TV and radio, each guy parrots arguments he's made before and there's no real attempt to arrive at a consensus. Stewart's in there looking for common ground, trying to dig out the points on which both sides can agree…and when he can't find any, he crystalizes the illogic on the other side of the table while still making his guest comfy. It's not Pro Wrestling. It's two intelligent people talking. We don't get enough of that. Boy, do we not get enough of that.