Jon Stewart’s penchant for skewering Democrats when their antics become too absurd has placed him in a category of leftists like Bill Maher who occasionally dip into the realm of reason. While these moments are refreshing compared to the usual sycophantic media coverage of progressive politics, they often stop short of grappling with the broader institutional rot and double standards that underpin the Left’s failures.
Stewart’s recent segment mocking Democratic “cope” following their latest electoral losses is a prime example. He took aim at the party’s tendency to spin bad news into superficial victories, pointing to Rep. Pramila Jayapal’s (D-WA) celebration of identity-based milestones among incoming Democratic members of Congress as an embarrassing distraction.
Stewart rightly noted the absurdity of clinging to trivia like electing “the youngest member ever from New Jersey,” joking that the milestone was less groundbreaking when the “youngest” member turned out to be 38 years old.
His takedown of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) was equally biting. Stewart mocked their attempts to sugarcoat the election by touting Democrats’ regaining of “almost” all the House seats lost in 2022. Stewart quipped, “’Almost’ is doing a lot of work in that sentence,” and accused Democrats of spinning a narrative out of nothing to avoid reckoning with their defeat. His criticism culminated in the segment title, The Audacity of Cope, a jab at the Left’s refusal to confront reality.
Jon Stewart thinks the Democrats are brightsiding this election a little too hard. pic.twitter.com/6HnUm2kaYU
— The Daily Show (@TheDailyShow) November 19, 2024
While it’s satisfying to see a left-wing figure lampooning his own side, Stewart, like Maher, often misses the forest for the trees. He pokes fun at Democrats for playing by the rules while Republicans, in his view, exploit loopholes. But that framing ignores the elephant in the room: Democrats aren’t just “playing by the rules”—they’ve actively rewritten them to tilt the playing field in their favor.
Consider the weaponization of federal institutions like the Justice Department, as seen in the relentless pursuit of Donald Trump. Democrats have wielded legal and administrative tools against their opponents with breathtaking cynicism, whether it’s targeting conservative activists, smearing Supreme Court nominees, or turning January 6th into a pretext for political persecution. This isn’t about “following the rules”; it’s about using the rules as a cudgel.
Stewart’s critique also glosses over why Republicans often succeed where Democrats falter: Republicans understand the stakes. When Democrats lose elections, they retreat into identity politics and performative self-congratulation. When Republicans lose, they reassess, recalibrate, and find ways to push their agenda forward despite institutional resistance. That pragmatism is what makes Trump’s recess appointment strategy so appealing—it’s a refusal to let bureaucratic inertia or partisan obstruction dictate outcomes.
Despite his limitations, Stewart’s critique is still notable because it reflects a growing dissatisfaction within the Left’s own ranks. Figures like Stewart and Maher serve as canaries in the coal mine, highlighting the Democratic Party’s tone-deafness and inability to connect with ordinary Americans. But until they’re willing to address the deeper structural and cultural hypocrisies that have alienated voters, their criticism will remain little more than a clever punchline in a losing argument.
