Colbert's Campaign -- The Climax
From the Skeptic's Eye:
Scene 12:
Camera pans across hearing room, as Stephen Colbert takes his seat at a witness table, reporters scurry as we hear a gavel.
LENHARD: Please, please everybody come to order. Mr. Colbert, you understand the allegations made about the funding of your candidacy. We here at the FEC want to know why we should turn a blind eye to the immense aggregations of wealth of Comedy Central . . . indeed of Viacom. In truthi . . .
COLBERT (shouting): Truthiness? You can't HANDLE the truthiness!
Related Posts (on one page):
- Lessons of the Colbert Candidacy:
- The Colbert Election Experience:
- Colbert's Campaign -- The Climax
- Colbert Is Campaign Finance Scofflaw, and So Can You:
Colbert could probably turn even senate hearings into a joke.
--G
But Colbert hearings would be the amusing, ha ha joke, whereas real senate hearings are the depressing "I pay for this?" kind of joke.
The man SHOULD be president! ;)
Laws do not distinguish between jokes and a real campaign. I hope someone informs him of that fact.
Presuming he actually gets on the ballot (because he can't run without being on the ballot, he would be "Actually running" Albiet for the limited purpose of getting one delegate at the convention.
Can we really say that someone is not "actually running" if they're on the ballot because they don't have the intention to win? By that measure any number of 3rd tier candidates aren't "actually running" because they know they have no chance of winning and are participating in the process to get their opinions heard.
I believe Colbert is doing the same, albiet doing so to air the opinion that what this process has turned into is worth openly mocking.
Why is "democracy" the only criteria here? It's not Colbert's fault that people take him seriously and it says alot about the current electoral environment that they would. If the current Very Serious field is having to compete with a joke, then maybe the major candidates should rethink their strategy.
Our founding fathers knew very well that representative democracy, in order to be successful, required an educated and knowledgeable electorate. The only way to turn this mess around is to reinstitute a meaningful literacy test as a prerequisite for suffrage.
When we are disaffected and ignorant, the special interest groups of all stripes move in and rob us of representation. Colbert has some great lines and flops, like any competent entertainer. His satire has the side effect of keeping peoples' attention on the political arena. Nothing wrong with that.
The better question to ask of our young minds - why do they feel disconnected from the process? We don't force people to participate in town hall meetings or voting, and instead we fill up people with ideas of how to better spend their time, money, and effort.
We shove sports and greed and sex and every other sort of distraction onto people with endless marketing and manipulation, then wonder why co-eds could give a shit about 2 parties that look the same, act the same, and don't represent their core values. Who is to blame? Public education? Parents? The Media? We are all to blame.
I disagree that voters cancel each other out and that special interests control who wins or policy. I believe more often than not people pick bad policies because they want to. Personally rational choice is a bad way to determine voter choice.
As for why democracy on the other post ... because I picked it as the measuring stick. You can use other criteria as well but that was a personal decision by me. Add to it the fact that democracy is the driving engine for our government you get a rather reasonable way to judge Colbert and voters.
Yeah, to avoid making any judgment ("judge not lest . . ."), I always try to vote for both, like you say. Ha ha hee . . . tho' I have doubts as to the capability of the voting machine to accept my fair-minded votes.
We're light! We're light!
I think young adults who are leaning Dem rather than Rep would be inclined to vote Colbert. I say let him keep running.
Whatever one may think of individual aspects of current campaign law, the sum is ridiculous. Lest Byzantium fall, perhaps we should do a fair bit of pruning.
And yes, I do know what happens after a successful pruning. Let's not carry this too far!
No doubt the same people who think the Daily Show is the only real source of news out there--I recently graduated from college and there are a LOT of people who believe this. I find them in general even more apathetic and less knowledgeable about politics than others.
And your perception isn't reality. From The Atlantic Monthly:
You seem to have linked incorrectly, or the link changed, so I can't examine the article you mention, but I would comment that I would definitely fall into the category of "those who got their news from the Web sites of major papers" but NOT "those who watched programs like Colbert" ... it's not clear to me that these groups are linked, nor that the survey you cite attempted to make any distinction between the two.
In addition, nothing you cited makes any mention of whether such people are any less apathetic or likely to get involved in politics (or to vote!)
I'd be interested in the article if there's a working link though.
Well, suppose you are. Paul Krugman's surely smarter than you, in terms of raw brainpower. You want to put him in charge of government?
What they did not know is the game theory behind plurality and why it is not sufficient for a representative democracy. An educated and knowledgeable electorate is irrelevant when faced with an artificially limited number of choices.
I believe Colbert is illustrating the problems inherent in patching a system that is flawed at a fundamental level. He would have my vote if I could give it.