Leading Horses to Water: Confessions of a Daily Show Junkie

Abstract

I report the news on this broadcast, people say I'm making it up. When you make it up, they say you're telling the truth. - Bill Moyers to Jon Stewart, 7/11/03 Cohen reminds us of Moiklejohn's admonition that education should arouse and cultivate all members of the body politic, a desire to understand what our national plan of government is. This seems a reasonable enough argument on its face, but the generally agreeable nature of his statement masks some important assumptions. Moreover, the challenge currently facing journalists and journalism educators is a fundamentally different one, one that may require rethinking the journalist's role. At What Price Political Interest and Involvement? In his statement, Meiklejohn raises the specter of cultivating political interest and enthusiasm all members of the body public. Leaving aside the issue of how realistic or practical such a goal might be, I wonder whether it is truly desirable. I say this for two reasons. First, I think citizens are what they are, and probably always have been-largely inattentive except when momentous events drive them to follow political news closely. For this reason, I think it is fruitless to spill yet more ink arguing for a more dutiful citizenry, one that takes its democratic: responsibilities more seriously. I am not convinced that such a citizen has ever existed. Moreover, I must confess that I am not really bothered by the level of voter turnout we currently experience in American elections. I say that somewhat sheepishly because there is probably no more esteemed variable in my field of research. At the same time, the persistent lack of representativeness of the electorate bothers me a great deal. The self-selected subset that regularly voices its political views, whether through the ballot box as well as through other means, is consistently skewed toward the better-educated, financially advantaged segment of the population. Higher education certainly has a responsibility to model and promote democratic values, but it is for this reason that I do not see it as the best venue for promoting democratic engagement. Given that those with college educations are already over-represented among the ranks of the politically involved, voting public, I can only imagine that efforts centered in America's colleges would make matters worse. To promote even higher levels of participation among the well-educated could only make electoral outcomes less representative. Of course, advocates of political participation typically describe their goal as one of full representation, and thus representative by definition; indeed, 100 percent participation is the hypothetical held up as the standard against which American success or failure is evaluated. But a simple thought experiment may give one pause in this regard. What would the country look like if politics were first and foremost on everyone's mind? Would we really want a nation of political activists if we could have one? Personally, I can imagine nothing scarier than living in a country where 100 percent of the population voluntarily and enthusiastically turned out to vote and eagerly pursued political causes on a day-to-day basis. Political engagement is important, to be sure, but political activists are typically motivated by the sense that their position is the correct one. Ideological extremism is the best motivator of political engagement, and homogeneous social settings are ideal for producing the kind of zeal that fuels political engagement. While political activism is important and necessary to our system of government, a nation chock full of activists would not be conducive to a tolerant political culture. Maximal participation would come at a cost, and it is not one I personally would be willing to pay. The results of my own research also suggest that if politics were at the forefront of every citizen's mind, then simply getting along on a day-to-day basis would become quite difficult. …