This Boston Globe op-ed says that Jon Stewart is destroying the Democratic party. Basically the point is that Stewart and The Daily Show make politicians look like buffoons and therefore young people (who make up The Daily Show's primary audience) are turned off from activism in politics.
While I think that the author makes an interesting point, I also think that his logic is incredibly flawed.
1. Jon Stewart doesn't make politicians look stupid. They do that just fine on their own.
2. If The Daily Show informs 10 people about politics who otherwise wouldn't pay attention and 9 of those are so put off by the state of national discourse, then that still leaves one person who will get involved who otherwise wouldn't.
3. Anyone who's going to take the time to get involved is going to see the bad parts too. Trying to whitewash them won't do any good.
This article and it's assertion came up at the Democratic training seminar that I went to and we discussed the fact that yes, younger people are turned off by the rampant hypocrisy, narcicism, and bullshittery that pervades politics at the national level. One suggestion for increasing youth participation (on the activist and also just voting level) was to foster a program where local officials would speak at local high schools. I added that even though many of the national issues listed above also plague local politics, being able to connect with a local official in a person-to-person way might help to change the perception that all politics is crap.
Change is needed at the national level, but we can't wait for that to happen. Steps must be taken to involve people locally and build the activist infrastructure between election cycles. I personally remember when, as a Boy Scout (I was maybe 10 or 11 at the time), our troop went to a city council meeting. I don't honestly remember what was being discussed, but I remember recognizing the fact that government was in place to actually do things for people. I can't honestly say that my experience that night at as a pre-teen led to my activism today, but it certainly couldn't have hurt.
The guy who wrote the above op-ed piece would rather have us ignore the fact that politics and politicians often do stupid things and hope that no one notices. But frankly, if someone wants to get involved, they're going to see the crappy parts too. Instead, let's work on changing the nature of discourse so that we reduce buffoonery. Let's also expose children and young adults to the positive aspects of our political system so that Bill O'Reilly, James Carville , and Swift Boat Vets for Truth aren't the only thing they think of when they think of politics.
Comments
Dude, James Carville? I don't think he really fits in with the other two examples.
Posted by: Gwen | March 6, 2006 03:04 AM
He's not as bad, but he's loud and somewhat obnoxious. I'm just saying he's not the poster child of civil discourse.
Posted by: Daniel | March 6, 2006 11:39 AM
Loud and obnoxious is not the same as lying and corrupt, though. And he's done a hell of a lot of good for the Democrats. I just wouldn't knock anyone who both helped get Clinton elected and is currently trying to inspire new life in the party.
Posted by: Gwen | March 6, 2006 12:01 PM
You make a good point. So forget Carville. Of course, it probably says something that I'm having a difficult time thinking of a left-wing equivalent to O'Reilly and his ilk.
Posted by: Daniel | March 6, 2006 10:49 PM
I can't think of one either. But in the meantime, you could always throw Ann Coulter's name up there. ;)
Posted by: Gwen | March 7, 2006 01:56 AM