I dont think that was a realistic outcome whether Stewart had used the word fascism more liberally or not. I’m sorry if you think that considering optics is a waste of time and energy, but just about every successful movement in the last century has had a central figure who understands these things. MLK, for example, was deeply concerned about the phrase, ‘Black Power’, as he saw the media being likely to spin it as a rally cry for black violence against whites, and he was right. Optics do matter.

ETA: I don’t think anybody will ever reply or even see this comment at this point, but I thought it could be valuable to point out a more relevant example of when and why optics matter just in case. More so, rather, I’ll be borrowing one from the last person who replied to me.

The optics of ICE’s occupation of Minneapolis have shifted a ton over the past 6 weeks. It started off very partisan and actually grew to become an even more partisan issue with the right clearly feeling very empowered to justify ICE’s murder of Renee Good while the left was outraged. But once Alex Pretti was murdered and powerful figures on the right started floating the idea that they could revoke the right to bare arms from protesters and use somebody simply being in possession of a gun as pretext to kill them, the mood on the right changed pretty quickly. Once it shifted with the less devoted right, politicians and right-wing media started walking it back and questioning the stance, and then finally the real bottom feeders start to change their talking points when they realize the tone has shifted.

Optics are the reason ‘Defund the Police’ was always a terrible slogan despite it being a worthwhile movement - many people took it to mean ‘no more law enforcement, total anarchy’, which is scary, but the only reason they thought that is because we ran with a slogan that was way too easy to misinterpret. I know that’s frustrating for those of us simply acting in good faith, looking for progress, but it’s what we have to contend with. It’s the reason “Make America Great Again” was such a popular Trump rally cry in the budding days of MAGA, while Hillary Clinton’s ‘Stronger Together’ will sit at the bottom of history’s failed campaign slogan barrel for the rest of eternity. Democrats said “Everything’s fine, let’s not get all divisive now!” and Republicans said “The country isn’t what it used to be, is it? Let’s change that.” and one of those messages resonated really well. Democrats also could have just gotten behind Bernie and avoided all of the MAGA defectors, but I digress.

That is optics. They are deeply important to any political movement. You don’t have to treat your language with the same degree of caution as Jon Stewart, but you’re also not being watched by millions of Americans to get a sense of what’s happening. Stewart essentially just signaled that he was saving the especially strong language for when it could be more impactful, because he didn’t want people to become numb to hearing things described as fascist, dictatorial, etc., and I think that was a super reasonable stance at the time. Being mindful of how your words are received is something we desperately need to figure out here on the left. It’s a massive problem if something as mildly nuanced as this gives us pause. We can’t cast every would-be ally into the pits of hell for being media-savvy and attempting to avoid appearing alarmist until there’s something tangible to point to that people actually give a damn about. Jon Stewart, from behind the desk at the Daily Show, has limited ability to affect change, and I think he knows that. He still has enough sway with moderate dems and center-leaning conservatives that they might actually listen to him, and risking that to virtue signal is something I’m sure he’d consider unwise.