Stephen Colbert: Run, Boy, Run!

In recent years, everyone from pundits and politicians, to United States citizens, have developed "Democracy Amnesia." We have no concept of our history, or important laws that activists fought to push through the courts.

Case in point: Ralph Nader. You may remember him as the man who "stole the election" from Al Gore in 2000. An interesting trend has emerged in American politics. I'll call it the "Agree-With-Me-And-Stay-Mainstream" Candidate (at least until I come up with a catchier title).

Suddenly, it's not okay to engage in actual debates. Remember when Barack Obama decided to finally take the gloves off and swing a few fists of justice Hillary's way? I thought the mainstream press was going to have a heart attack. They called Barack everything from a dirty fighter to a hypocrite, since he was the candidate who called for a clean campaigning season. But since when is actually debating issues considered unclean?

With the rare (and petite) exception of Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic debate has been something of an "Agree-With-Me" Fest. However, whenever the candidates do butt heads, the press explodes with titles like BRAWL, ATTACK, and FIGHT as if they're covering a boxing match instead of a cog in the democratic mechanism.

Disagreement is essential in politics, as is diversity. This article is written in response to Eric Boehlert's evil article, "Stephen Colbert's joke is on the press" located here. In it, Boehlert calls fringe candidates (like the joker-runner Colbert) an unnecessary "distraction." However, he expands this thesis from its hilarious core to include any candidate who isn't a frontrunner. Boehlert quotes a cranky Colbert fan:

Now is the time for the fringe players to slip away. Bye-bye, Brownback, so long Kucinich (we predict) and Gravel (we hope). The race is tightening, stakes are getting higher, and the general feeling is that this is where things start to count. The distraction of a spoof candidate -- even the ultimate spoof candidate -- will just get in the way.

Get in the way? Are you fucking insane? By this reasoning, Hillary should just move into the White House in 2009. Why even hold elections, right? Democracy is such tough work, anyway. If only there was a way where we wouldn't have to listen to debates, use our brains, and make grown-up decisions. If only there was a supreme leader to tell us how to live and what to think. Oh! Oh! And can we elect our leader for life so we don't have to hold bothersome elections? Super...super.

Better yet, let's have a dynasty -- a structure of government we'll call Democracy, so we can remain a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. The dynasty will be two royal families: the Bushes and the Clintons, and we'll just cycle them in and out of power every four or eight years. No muss, no fuss.

The thing is: Stephen Colbert is joking. He's a brilliant comedian, and he's fucking with everyone. I love it. No one knows what to do with Stephen because he's slippery and smarter than everyone he talks to. At first, I was content in watching him slowly unravel the democratic process and reveal its gaping flaws, but now I want him to gain momentum. Serious momentum. I want him to ruin, get in the way of, and derail everyone's neatly prepackaged campaigns of commonplace answers and kissing babies. I want him to so utterly surprise candidates that they have to give real answers and act human.

I want him to make America a democracy again, one complete with discussion, diplomacy, and compromise. For that matter, I want my Kucinich, Paul, Gravel, and Brownback. I want all of them in every debate with equal time to speak. Then, in 2009, if Hillary loses the election, she'll have no one to blame but herself.

Nader didn't lose the election for Gore. Gore lost it for Gore. If Gore couldn't beat a hapless retard like Bush, then he was a poor candidate, and didn't deserve the presidency. Lost Floridian counts, and the sins of caged voting aside, that election was way, way too close in the first place. Same goes for Kerry/Bush, and whatever happens with Hillary Clinton. If she's worth her salt as a politician, she'll widen the gap to where she decisively buries her opponent.

Or here's a novel thought: Hillary Clinton doesn't win! Barack steps it up...or! Or...John Edwards? If you scoffed at the idea, ponder why we -- the American people -- have such a gosh darn hard time imagining a third party sitting in the White House. Why is it a fantasy to imagine a leftist candidate winning the whole thing? Because of evil statements like the ones Eric Boehlert makes:

Question: In the history of modern-day American presidential campaigns, has a new candidate ever entered the race polling at roughly 10 percent and then proceeded to pick up an additional 10 percent each week for four weeks running? Ever? Why would anybody suggest that a late-night comedian might be able to accomplish what no other candidate has ever done in American politics? What would prompt somebody to suggest that Colbert, by next month, might soon be garnering 40 percent and be the leading candidate for president?

Condense this statement to read: WHY TRY?

Bohelert answers his own question with "because it's fun." Fun? It's absolutely essential. It's the definition of a democracy.

This is the root of all that is wrong with American politics. It's the "you can't win, so sit down" attitude. Supporters of this philosophy forget that runners don't necessarily have to win to shape public opinion. Victories are won with ideas, and true leaders possess the vision and wisdom to know that sometimes revolutions happen gradually.

Sometimes, revolutions begin with one person standing up and saying: "I know you don't take me seriously. I know I'm the clown in the room, but damnit, I'm trying anyway."

Run on, funny man. Show them how it's done.

Comments

[joem]

I am from michigan and our right in the primaries seems to have been denied by the democrats. I absolutely intend to vote for Colbert in the primaries (I will write him in) and probably for president as well. Colbert is a protest vote in my view. A protest against the system that has been destroyed by the parties. I was to vote against a two-party dictatorship that has removed thought and choice from "democracy". These parties are criminals, and the MSM collaborates with them to maintain it (Of course, the MSM does it mostly out of laziness and greediness, I think). In any event, as I said, I will be voting for Colbert, and i hope it destroys the shitty system that we currently have.

[Nonamnesiac]

Excellent post, Allison. Boehlert quotes fellow sanctimonious, Nader-baiting, Democratic Party sycophant Rachel Sklar as support for his self-righteous assault on free speech.

But the Dems are relentless. You will see this neo-liberal, group-think coming from them at all levels -- leading to voting for Trampling the Constitution (Patriot Act, Protect America Act and, soon FISA Reform with retroactive exoneration for the criminal acts of the telecoms) -- for never ending war (92-3 vote for Bush's war budget with restriction and Kyl-Lieberman attack Iran resolution) and the 3 frontrunners refusing to commit to getting out of Iraq by 2013, just to name a few.

And sanctimonious jerks like Sklar and Boehlert are worrying about Stephen Colbert's ability to impact on this election -- pushing to get progressives out of the race so that only Bushocrat, neo-liberal pro-war-in-deed, anti-war-in-word Democrats are left?

Give me a break.

The willingness of these folk to simply ignore free speech shows them to be just a press front for the neo-liberal frontrunning Democrats ready to continue to prosecute the war.

Stephen Colbert for President of South Carolina from both parties. As Stephen says, America needs another middle-aged, White, Christian, Jesus-trumpeting male to run for President.

Colbert/Putin in 2008!!!!!!!!!

[cynara]

"With the rare (and petite) exception of Dennis Kucinich, the Democratic debate has been something of an "Agree-With-Me" Fest. "

Sen. Gravel also added wonderfully inconvenient doses of truth to the debates . But the other candidates apparently couldn't stand the heat and managed to get him eliminated from the last debate. Which is a huge shame, because someone has to challenge the so-called front runners on the issues.

The "second-tier" candidates are of HUGE importance during the primary since the challenge the beltway wisdom of the front-runners and guide the debates towards important topics that are of huge importance to the American people.

Remember when Mike Gravel said "Shame on you" to Hillary for voting for the Iran war vote (Kyle/Leiberman), he stuck it too her, the MSM picked up on it, and the other candidates jumped on the anti-Iran-war bandwagon. I thought that the telephone-company immunity bill was a lost cause (as well as my faith in the Democratic party), until Sen. Dodd decided to put a hold, and partially because of his presidential run, he got the attention of the MSM, and the other presidential candidates were forced to clarify their positions on the collusion immunity.

God bless our second tier candidates, without them the front-runners would blissfully be talking about getting out of Iraq in 2013 (thank Bill Richardson and Chris Dodd for making them defend that), telephone companies could violate the constitution and get off scott free, and the Kyle Lieberman ammendment would have been framed as a "move towards diplomacy".

[Lon]

Boehlert is wrong because his argument assumes that the space, actually pretty small, that the media is devoting to Colbert's run would otherwise be used for incisive political discussion. It wouldn't.

Kilkenney is wrong to think that the fact that Gore cost himself the election is inconsistent with the fact that Nader also cost him the election. While it is true that Gore should have run a better campaign, the campaign he was running was out in public to be seen by all. So that is a weak rationalization by the Naderites.

I did like the (intentional?) dismissal of the Huffinton Posts Media correspondent as "a cranky Colbert Fan."

[NoFactsJustTruth]

While Stephen Colbert may accept money from Doritos' lobbyists, Stephen Colbert NEVER would.

Vote for Stephen Colbert, NOT for Stephen Colbert!


*** In Stephen WE Trust ***
******** Colbert '08 ********



Not Paid For...

[alkamm]

One of the reasons Giuliani might win is that he has learned to at least fake a sense of humor. Hillary's stage laughter is counterfeit in comparison.
Beware of candidates who cannot stand and deliver punch lines toe to toe with the likes of Ronald Reagan. They want to keep the "conversation" on the humorless level because their own sense of seriousness is armor against impertinent questions.
The media used to ask impertinent questions, but they've settled for pundit shared talking points and simulated outrage. Real outrage lampoons and ridicules.
We need our court jester, Stephen Colbert, to satirize and lampoon our would-be emperors. The Edwards campaign response to Colbert showed that Edwards can dish out some humor, and that's an essential part of winning my vote.
So let's start laughing at Hillary's artifice, her seriousness, her bald attempts to regain power by clever triangulation and log rolling.

[DanBest]

If Rudy does become the Republican nominee and if the Democrats really want to win this election (should I even finish?), this would be their campaign commercial: A montage of Rudy dressed in women's clothing set to the striptease song. At the end fade in the title "This man for President?"