Obscure Canadian comedian is now dedicating a column to our favorite progressive smarty pants.
Mad About Maddow
By MIKE MYERS
(OP note: image is actually from the source, I didn't Photoshop this.)
Just and Competent.
First of all, let me explain the title of this column, Mad About Maddow. I’m in no way angry with Rachel Maddow. I worship her. The “mad” is the “mad” in Mad About You.
Second, let me explain how I came to be a columnist here at The Final Edition. A few months ago, I met Tony Hendra in the lobby of the Soho Grand.
ME: Aren’t you Tony Hendra!?
TONY HENDRA: Why yes I am.
ME: I’m such a huge fan!
TONY HENDRA: As I am of yours. (Not sure if he said this.)
ME: It’s funny. I was just talking to my friend here about the lack of “edge” and political content in today’s Comedy.
TONY HENDRA: Funny you should say that. I’m starting an online project called The Final Edition that you might be interested in.
ME: When I say there’s a lack of edge and political content in today’s comedy… I would like to point out that I’ve never been edgy or political in my comedy.
We spoke for a while. I pointed out to him that I’d read his amazing book on comedy of dissent called Going Too Far. (If you haven’t read it, and are interested in the history of political humor, run, don’t walk.)
I agreed with Tony that while political content in film comedy may be out of vogue, political content in television comedy has never been more dynamic. Shows like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report are not only brilliantly observed, but are often the first place people get their news. The last time television spoke directly to its politically interested comedy audience was the era of the Smothers Brothers. (Perhaps a little bit with Laugh In.)
Tony also reminded me of the invaluable presence of Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update sequences. I, of course, pointed out the indelible contribution to the political comedy canon by former-SNL head writer Jim Downey. He wrote “strategery...” Enough said.
Ironically, I was not a citizen of this country while I was a cast member on Saturday Night Live, and didn’t feel I could comment on the American political scene. Political comedy has never been my bailiwick.
My love has always been comedy characters. I have always been a devotee of Peter Sellers. Sellers managed to be part of two of the greatest political comedies in the history of film. Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, co-written by Terry Southern (a Tony Hendra colleague) and Hal Ashby’s classic Being There, co-written by Jerzy Kosinski, based on his novella.
But I digress.
Now a US citizen, and taken aback by the vitriol during the 2008 Presidential campaign, I became much more interested in American politics. It was at that time that I discovered…
Rachel Maddow.
TONY HENDRA: Well, if you were to be political, what would you write about?
ME: My undying admiration for Rachel Maddow.
So here we are.
Fortnightly, I will recap and spark off the content of The Rachel Maddow Show (which can be seen Mon-Fri at 9PM ET/PT on MSNBC.)
Beyond the fact that I think she is beautiful and smart and charming, I deify her for the same reasons I deify Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau (Prime Minister of Canada for fifteen years of my life). Trudeau asserted that the only reason to allow oneself to be governed by another person is if that person is just and competent. The basis of authority is that the governed feel the government is good at their job and that they are fair. I believe Trudeau met those criteria. Rachel Maddow exceeds them.
Always ahead of the story, Rachel Maddow leads and the media follows. She is more than a mere “canary in a coal mine.” When Rachel gets a “flu” about a story, the rest of the electronic press start to “sneeze…” And thus ends the full extent of my ability to make metaphors for her prescience.
As an example of her leadership, on February 17th, 2011, Rachel does a story about union stripping in Wisconsin:
Click to viewThe next day CNN does the same
Another reason why I love Rachel Maddow is that she presents to the audience Large Ideas. By large ideas I mean the broader trend of any given story - the macro above the micro.
For example, Rachel pointed out that the self-proclaimed Libertarian Tea Party’s mandate was for small government, and yet the GOP (post-midterm victory) has almost exclusively proposed measures that are of the Big Intrusive Government variety. Big military. A government official in every doctor’s office. And on a state level, the government deciding who can collectively bargain - and in the case of Michigan - who gets to have local government.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Rachel interviews people in an elegant, informed, “conversational judo” style -- i.e. she uses people’s facts against themselves. Unlike “conversation karate”, where “fact force” meets “fact force,” there’s never a “conversational sucker punch.”
The challenge of this column for me will be the need for a bigger thesaurus for words like “adore”, “love”, and “admire.”Take this modest slice of a column as a teaser - a pu pu platter, if you will - of my geekish admiration for one Dr. Rachel Maddow. If my political naiveté is a sickness, I don’t want to be well.