Is Jon Stewart bad for democracy?

Guest Post by Michael J.W. Stickings

Jon Stewart? Bad for democracy? Am I losing my mind?

At the Post, columnist Richard Morin points to a study by two East Carolina University political scientists which found that “young people who watch [The Daily Show] develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting”.

College students. Those non-voting bums!

Now, there’s a good deal wrong with the study — and I don’t just say that as one of Stewart’s most ardent fans. As Liz asks at BlondeSense: “[W]hat is wrong with American citizens being less trustful of their government and political candidates?… What is wrong with questioning our governments policies?”

Nothing. It’s the American way, isn’t it? Revolution may or may not be a good thing every now and then, but a healthy skepticism of government is a central democratic impulse. I’m sure Locke and the Founders would agree. Perhaps even Socrates would agree.

For more, see also Shakespeare’s Sister. And Kevin Hayden at The American Street: “You know what the greatest disincentive for voting is? The way the Republicans rigged the vote in Florida, Ohio and elsewhere in the last two presidential elections. The whole electronic voting scam. Politicians that practice cronyism. Leaders who torture in our name… That’s not cynicism. That’s a broken political system.”

And Gloria at The All Spin Zone, who counters this lame study (of which Morin is but the lame messenger) with some reporting of her own: “According to a study done by PA’s Annenberg Election Survey, TDS viewers were the most informed viewers on the issues in 2004. Political knowledge has a direct effect on political choices. Young voters were John Kerry’s strongest supporters and George W. Bush’s most vocal detractors.

Of course, the anti-Stewart right buys the study completely. See, for example, Ed Morrissey at Captain’s Quarters, who assumes, without anything to back up his assumption, that “people who [find] Jon Stewart hilarious [suffer] from a form of superficiality”. He also claims that “reliance on satire and sarcasm alone requires little real courage, especially in a free society”.

Has he even seen The Daily Show? If so, does he get it?

Jon Stewart is an educational satirist. In contrast to the news media, which often report the latest political spin without so much as an inkling of irony, Stewart educates us all — and not just the collegiate among us — in the ways of politics. For example, while the MSM will report on Cheney’s latest remarks on Iraq, and do so virtually context-free, Stewart will juxtapose those remarks with previous, and often contradictory, remarks.

If some of Stewart’s viewers turn into cynics, laughing at leaders who make fools of themselves, that’s only because current political reality itself breeds such cynicism. How is it possible to look at what’s going on at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and not become something of a cynic?

I would hope that many of Stewart’s viewers don’t stop and cynicism and do what they can to remake political reality, but I would much rather have America’s young people, its first-time voters, understand American politics as it is rather than as the Republicans and their spin machine and the news media that report that spin as truth would have them understand it. I would rather have them turning away from the polls holding their noses than voting out of ignorance and fear.

Not voting is a political statement. Voting with knowledge of things as they really are is democratic responsibility. Jon Stewart puts his views on a path to knowledge and responsibility.

Jon Stewart is good for democracy.

Amen!

Stewart/Colbert in 2008!!! 🙂

  • …”young people who watch [The Daily Show] develop cynical views about politics and politicians that could lead them to just say no to voting”. – – – Michael.

    I wholeheartedly agree. What this country needs right now is to have a generation who will stand up and “declare the inalienable sacredness of the individual vote.” Imagine, for a moment or three, if people simply refused to vote “for the lesser of evils.” Or if they demanded the right to “vote FOR a candidate, instead of being forced into the position of “voting against the other guy.”

    Take this one step further, to its logical conclusion, being that ***If the premise of an election is to place competent, qualified, inclusive individuals in positions of authority, then should the electorate not have the right to cast a binding vote of no confidence—a vote for “none of the above”—as an alternative to the coercive measure of (a) choosing from the lesser of evils, or (b) staying home fro the ballot-box?***

    Give THAT kind of power to the voters, and the disparate parties would have no choice but to offer up meaningful candidates. Give the People the power to say “nay,” rather than only a choice of to whom they can give a “yea” that no candidate is actually worthy of—and you would never, ever see the likes of Goerge W. Bush in the oval office AGAIN. Well, maybe as the guy delivering pizza….

  • Ed Morrisey clearly does not get it. Of all the people I know, the ones who watch TDS and enjoy it the most are the ones who understand the source of the humor, the true political schenanigans behind the jokes. These are the people who are very into politics, a superficial interest only makes the show marginally funny. Furthermore, they are if anything, more inclined to vote, directly because they see the effects of not voting, or voting when you arent well informed – that is, electing a chimpanzee as your leader, who is lead around by a bunch of megalomaniacs. And anyone who knew what was going on politically, and knew the history of this bunch of puppetmasters, knew way before the 2000 election that an uninformed and lazy electorate would end up electing (or sort of electing) a disastrous President. Sadly, that is what it came to.

  • I can’t wait to see John’s take on this study. Just imagine his mirth after telling a joke about being able to screen out as superficial anybody who just laughed.

  • I’m with you, Kali. I hope he has a lot of fun with this next week.

    Also, if we’re talking Stewart-Colbert in ’08, what should we do with Rob Corddry? He seems like Atty. Gen. material to me.

  • As opposed to the ignorant masses who rely on a college drop-out and Oxycontin addict for their political news and views?

    Last year, when the Republicans in Congress (led by Duke Cunningham) tried to get an amendment preventing flag burning, and claimed that they were doing it to honor the firefighters who struggled on 9/11, Jon Stewart said:
    “I think the firefighters would reply with ‘Hey, assholes, why did you cut the $270 million in healthcare benefits you promised us (cough, cough)?'”

    We need him, and places like Carpetbagger, to give us a no-bullshit reality check on the three ring circus that’s called the US government.

  • Jon Stewart and The Daily Show remind me of TW3.

    I know I’m not the only one old enough to remember that fine satiric look at the news. Or am I?

  • You had me until you wrote “Not voting is a political statement”. It’s not a statement because no hears it (if a tree falls in a forest…). Also it is a positive for one or more parties who did not have another vote against them.

    Re: 9
    I sort of remember seeing reruns of TW3 in the states.

  • Ummm…Phil….

    “Not voting” is a political statement. It is a commentary of act, rather than word, by an individual, to the mediocrity that is offered up to the citizenry each and every election cycle. It is a silent declaration by one unique being that “my vote is sacred to me, and you have not offered up candidates and issues worthy of that sacredness.” It is the one true thing that no political entity can spin, should the percentage of voters “not voting” outnumber those who do.

    There are those who will say that people have adopted a position of apathy by not participating in the system. Should that system offer a thirsty man a choice between an empty bottle and an empty glass—even though neither satisfies the thirst—the supporters of that system could well argue the point that the thirsty man is apathetic, in that the individual sees no value in choosing between two vessels that both lack the basic minimum requirement of meeting a foundational need.

    Those two empty containers—the bottle and the glass—are simply metaphors for what the electoral process has become. The bottle will argue that the glass is emptier; the glass will promote that the bottle is emptier. All this, with the only fact being that there can be no such thing as “emptier than empty.” This is an arena where the mathematical concept of “integers to the left of zero (zed, for you canucks out there), otherwise known as negative numbers, can not logically apply….

  • The one thing that is bad for democracy in this country is the Republican party– front to back and across its breadth. They promote theocracy and bigotry, ignore the Constitution, and sell government to the highest bidder. Jon Stewart is good for democracy– he exposes the GOP for the corrupt party it is and directs his audience’s attention to the arrogance and duplicity of the GOP– and he does it most efficiently with his humor.

  • Comments are closed.