We Need More Bill Mahers
Liberals who loved him during Trump hate him now; why they're wrong
Bill Maher is an unabashed libertarian, pot smoking atheist comedian. He’s sympathetic to left positions culturally but regularly bemoans their sense of cultural overreach. When there is a Republican in the White House, he’s their hero, arguing blisteringly hilarious satires that will make you laugh until you hurt, like when he mocked Trump’s birtherism by trying to get anyone to prove Trump wasn’t the sire of an orangutan (something for which Trump sued him for $5 million, and subsquently withdrew his suit).
However, when there is a Democrat in the White House they regularly complain about how conservative he is, a sign he’s closer to the middle and mainstream America than they are. Whereas many comedians stick the coasts and cosmopolitan big cities, Maher travels the country, taking in a wide array of thoughts, opinions, conversations and meeting people where they are. It’s why even though he lives in California it is very easy for him to criticize California.
The criticisms can be boiled down to three complaints: 1) certain groups should be immune to criticism, 2) liberal mischaracterization and 3) giving Republicans a platform
There is no Immunity for Criticism
To hear some groups online talk, they are immune from criticsm. To criticize giving puberty blockers to young kids is to be a trans-phobe. To criticize a jihadist mindset is to be an islamophobe. To criticize CRT or the 1619 Project is to be a racist.
None of it that is true. Groups and opinions are not immune to criticism, ever. It’s like something else I’ve talked about here:
Groups can, and regularly do, go too far in their activism. To a cynical satirist like Maher, this kind of overreach is a prime target. The groups respond in kind, labeling Maher with whatever label most harshly smears him for the criticism. Thing is, more often than not, he’s right to criticize, and they look worse for the smear.
Liberal Mischaracterization
Liberal sites consistently misrepresent what was discussed on the show, overelaborating both the scale an scope of his criticisms. Take this one for instance:
By the headline and the article, you’d get the sense that he singly leveled the finger at Democrats for George Santos. In fact, he pointed the finger everywhere. At the right (who supported him and have continuously assented to keeping him around), the left, the media (who failed to vet a candidate), the campaigns (who did zero oppo research and let him get a pass); a lot more than just pointing at liberals and saying it was only their fault. Here is the whole segment on George Santos:
This much more accurately describes what he talked about, which is that serial liars like Santos can get away with it longer when they try to be everything to everyone. Somehow, getting away with all of these lies that are so obvious now, but failed to receive any scrutiny by Democrats, in a Democratic district, BEFORE the election, is not to be attributed to Democrats in any way. It’s like someone’s talked about this before, but….oh yeah, I did.
But liberals feel they have no complicity at all for turning a blind eye to a story that frankly appealed to them. Now that the story has blown up and Santos has become a joke, they just want to tie that rope Republicans like an anchor around their neck, but it doesn’t absolve them of the fact that all of it was easily investigated and found prior to the election and they were asleep at the switch. That’s what Maher was saying.
Another popular mischaracterization is that he is an islamophobe, when his criticisms are much broader than just Islam. He doesn’t hate Islam, he hates RELIGION, and to be more precise, it’s ORGANIZED RELIGION. Listen to him talk about Christianity/Catholicism and you realize he is opposed to the kind of blind faith that leads people to do stupid things, particularly for the good of an organization in some cult-like way. He’ll criticize any person or group who does something dumb they claim is in the name of religion.
Sure, his “pious atheism” does not protect him from criticism on spirituality and he can get tedious and smug at times on the subject. However, it doesn’t prevent him from booking religious people or representatives of religious groups either. Some of his best discussions on the show are when he has someone of faith (regardless of which faith) talk about issues from their perspective. Among one of his best repeat guests is friend Salman Rushdie, often talking about faith and where it goes wrong. The purpose of the program is to bring more varying erudite and articulate positions and perspectives and have them talk things out. That’s the goal of any good forum. To hear many liberals discuss it, Maher should never invite anyone contrary and discuss nothing that doesn’t innately appeal to them like a pat on their back in some safe space. The world is more complex than this simple view of it.
Giving Republicans a Platform
When Maher first aired his show, “Politically Incorrect,” on Comedy Central, the premise was simple; have one from the left, one from the right, and a couple entertainers on a panel show to discuss politics and issues. It was meant to be loose and funny, not overly serious like news shows typically are. The show has changed networks and formats somewhat, but the concept is the same; get newsworthy people regardless of position on the show to talk in a loose way about what is going on in the world.
It is one of the very few shows on television which puts both Republicans and Democrats on that is not directly intended to be confrontational, just conversational. Some of the best shows are where there are very candid and genuine discussions between people on the left and the right. Maher’s job isn’t necessarily to interject (though he always does) but to keep the conversation going and keep it interesting. Panelists routinely object to Maher’s position and each other. That’s what good discussion is.
Among his usual guests are as diverse ideologically as Andrew Sullivan and Ann Coulter on the right, Nancy Pelosi and Rob Reiner on the left, and a slew of entertainers and politicians in between. All of these people come on the show becaue it is a good time, good conversation and they interact with others they don’t normally. It’s like a wine party without the wine. You get the sense, regardless of political stripe, that they are relatively decent people whom you may have just a difference of opinion with from time to time. That’s probably closer to the truth than the gung ho- win at all costs- bloodsport that is usually depicted in our politics and government.
Yet liberals never view the intent of the show as a conversation, they think it should be an opportunity just to cast down Republicans, that giving them a platform at all is somehow traitorous. A recent interview with former Attorney General Bill Barr demonstrates that:
Liberals felt Maher was too polite, too uncritical and too nice. As if opening up with an anecdote and some jovial humor to start a conversation were a mortal sin. They criticized him for not going after Barr hard enough and giving him a pass. He didn’t. He confronted him directly in the interview here:
That’s longer that Barr has talked directly about this than you’ll see on any news show. Yet, somehow, that’s not good enough. That he treated him decently or politely at all (something that is seriously lacking in our discourse) is seen by liberals as a crime.
Opening the forum to others of varying positions is a good thing. Liberals want to shut it down and turn it into a safe space like Rachel Maddow (occassional Maher guest) where it is specifically from a point of view attacking the other side. That’s a boring show and not a very funny one for a comedian.
We don’t need that. We need forums which brings people together to discuss the issues of the day from various points of view. We need less forums like FOX and MSNBC, and more like Maher.
PurpleAmerica’s Recommended Stories
Maher has a new video podcast called “Club Random,” where he gets high in his basement with famous people talking, and of course, because drugs are involved every person Maher has on isn’t political. Some of these are really great conversations. For instance, I can watch him and Quentin Tarantino talk about movies all day.
PurpleAmerica’s Obscure Fact of the Day
Maher began his career as a comedian and actor. He was host of the New York City comedy club Catch a Rising Star in 1979. Maher began appearing on Johnny Carson's and David Letterman's shows in 1982.
Like a lot of people starting out, he made limited television appearances including on Sara (1985), Max Headroom (1987), Murder, She Wrote (1989, 1990), and Charlie Hoover (1991). His feature film debut was in D.C. Cab (1983). He later appeared in Ratboy (1986), House II: The Second Story (1987), Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (1988), Newhart (1988), hosted the talk show Midnight Hour on CBS (1990) and Pizza Man (1991).
Here he was on Murder, She Wrote
Parting Thoughts
This is from a year ago, but strikes the right note. It’s something I genuinely believe Democrats can do a better job of and that hasn’t changed now that Republicans are in charge of Congress.