The Moral and Political Power of Stephen Colbert
In a thread below, Joe K. asked about the influence that Colbert and Stewart have on moral and political discussion. Today’s strongly worded — too insulting, in fact, — NYT op-ed from Frank Rich furnishes a good evidence that the influence is considerable, thanks in part to the viral nature of video clips. Rich applauds and highlights Colbert in the course of making his own point.
1. The National Organization for Marriage, run by Maggie Gallagher and Robert George, produced a commercial against same-sex marriage.
2. The Colbert Report spoofed the commercial in a heavily watched skit.
3. Instead of getting angry, Maggie Gallagher THANKS Colbert for the publicity!
She’s smart enough to know that attacking Colbert will backfire. Prophetic denunciation is ineffective against satire. It only brings on more satire.
I thought the point of Rich’s op ed (and yes he’s clearly a somewhat abrasive vouice from the left a lot of times)was that even the christian Right including Rick Warren were on board or moving on board to at least civil unions for gays.
And, importantly, we were moving to splinter off civil marriage from religious notions.
Isuspect that is a process in motionass the ‘rights” argumen tseems to have reached the younger folk of today.
So, as Cathy points out, reactions to the process will be importatnt strategically.
Yes, Bob, that’s the point of the op-ed. But in making that point, he paid a lot of attention to Colbert. When a NYT columnist makes a big deal of your influence, IMHO, you are a big deal.
That’s why I think it’s important to pay attention to the Daily Show and Colbert –not least because they address hot button moral issues. . .
Though. . . come to think of it. . . I’ve never seen Colbert address abortion. I wonder why?
I think we take Colbert & Stewart seriously for the same reasons that we take Jonathan Swift or King Lear’s fool seriously. Satire has always been a powerful force for substantive criticism, and it has the advantage of palliating itself with wit. Colbert’s message is a painful one: when we can’t count on the media to serve as an objective watchdog to political power, we’re left with partisan co-option of fictive news. Colbert’s address to the press should go down in history as one of the greatest moments of “speaking truth to power” of our generation.
I’ve been a fan of Colbert for some time, but I am increasingly worried about his effect — and Stewart’s effect — on the culture.
Watching them, it’s as if nothing is what it seems; everything has to be, or can be, unmasked. Thus, people — especially my peers (mid to late twenties) — decreasingly take things seriously. The predominant response is, “What is so-and-so REALLY saying?” Or, “What’s the best ‘gotcha’ line exposing the frailty in so-and-so’s position?” To borrow from another field, Stewart and Colbert breed a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” wherein all is folly or a field for easy wit. And, of course, Colbert has the luxury of not being called to task: no matter what he says or how controversial he becomes, no matter whom he makes fun of, he can always blame his character. He can criticize relentlessly and make fun of others–and yet never be responsible for his own convictions or decision-making. Both he and Stewart hide behind their irony. Such an attitude, needless to say, is greatly appealing for a generation which dislikes commitment, both in life and in morality.
To be clear: I think irony and satire can be extremely important for a healthy and open society. I often enjoy their humor. Stewart’s interview of Jim Cramer and Colbert’s interview of the “Ten Commandments” congressman come to mind. At the same time, I think we have to recognize that their unceasing irony can decrease moral seriousness — and therefore moral discourse — and lead to a profound moral immaturity.
Cathy, great post. My man-crush on Steven Colbert lives.
And part of that crush comes from the fact that I think he’s unable to be boxed politically. While I don’t agree with Maggie that he is a conservative, I do think he’s a committed Roman Catholic…which means he can’t be either a liberal or a conservative. I think a fun game is trying to figure out when he’s truly in character and when he’s being himself. I’ve played both of his clips when he has on Peter Singer in my classes numerous times and I think both times, when he hammers him, he’s being himself. I wonder if the whole bit about ‘what’s to stop a contract taking place between three people?’ (to which Kmiec gave a weak response) was really Colbert or just the Colbert character. Do you have any thoughts about whether Maggie is right to think that at least some of this was ‘real Stephen?’
No, it’s not good that opinion makers like Colbert and Stewart are front page news. Politics and economics should be more serious than this.
Maggie of NOM is a smooth operator, even if her video was a flop. But actually gay marriage is a conservative cause. David Brooks even said that not only should gays be allowed to marry, they should be made to. There is a danger of gay rights being redefined around marriage so that the unmarried gay person becomes a target of licensed discrimination.
Matt, you may be right. I see satire as a response to prophetic discourse gone wild–and we’ve had a lot of that in the past few years. So making fun of false prophets is the best way to defuse them–as is making fun of true prophets, by the way. It’s a rhetorical not a moral point.
Now. . . has satire gone too far? Possibly. Does it prevent people from engaging in serious moral reasoning. . . well, a few months ago I would have said no, but now I think the question does have merit.
How do you diffuse satire gone haywire? That’s an extremely hard and important question. In person, it’s something like the withering stare. It’s, at its core, a type of adolescent humor. . . although Stewart and Colbert are middle-aged men. So you’d have to convey 1) they’re not in fact funny; and 2) they have no dignity. (Now I”m not advocating this. .. . I’m interested in the relationship between practical reasoning, prophecy, and satire.)
So maybe, I’d have Joe K. sit stone-faced before them –or at least Colbert –in a roman collar. That would screw up his mojo big-time.
Charlie, the endlessly fascinating question of who the real SC is. My own view is that he’s a Rorschach test–so people tend to put the line between real and fake where there own views lie. I think Maggie is not alone in thinking that the real Colbert supported her–I think that’s a common reaction.
I actually agree with you. . . I thought he was asking questions to Kmiec in his own voice, not the Character’s. But Mollie thinks he remained in character. I think the Character would have been a lot more foolish and sharp about the questions, which were reasonable and nuanced. If there’s one thing the Character isn’t, it’s reasonable and nuanced.
Was Maggie’s video a success–well, as a piece of moral reasoning designed to convince the unconvinced on the underlying issue, no–obviously. But it seems to me that what the video was designed to do was increase anxiety in people already worried. So I think, for her purposes, the video did just what she wanted. I think she was seriously thanking Colbert for the exposure. She’s not targeting the people who disagree with her. She’s writing them off in this video. But the more exposure to people who could agree with her the better. And people sympathetic to her will dismiss Rich’s column as the screeching of the left-wing of the culture war.
I think those who look disapprovingly at the influence of satirists like Colbert must have sensibilities so refined as to render ordinary life incredibly painful. But, then, I live in rural Michigan where cow jokes are high-larious.
While I understand Matt’s fears to some extent, as a once loyal reader of MAD magazine and the National Lampoon, I can say that most of us outgrow the phase that whatever The Man is doing is grist for the satire mill.
Moreover, I might have gone mad during the Bush administration were it not for “The Simpsons.” Satire is largely fueled by outrage and anger, and provides an acceptable outlet for it.
Re Maggie Gallagher: She was on “Talk of the Nation” on NPR last week. She was refreshingly free of the “save marriage for Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” schitck, focused instead on allowing citizens to make decisions about marriage and drew differences between Vermont, where popular opinion decided the matter, and other states where courts had made the decisions.
While I believe that gay civil unions would contribute to more rather than less social stability, Gallagher’s contribution to the discussion kept it focused and civil. She came very close to making a point I’ve heard Cathleen make, that laws that a society is not willing to accept will be failed legislative experiments (e.g., Prohibition).
I guess the issue I have for Matt is. . . there are serious moral arguments against SSM, and Maggie Gallagher may have made some of them. . . but this particular commercial really wasn’t one.
So two questions:
1. Is satire more appropriate as a response in cases where the object of satire isn’t, in fact, a serious moral argument, but something else, in this case a commercial? (I think Colbert’s best line was in fact that the commercial was like watching the 700 Club and the Weather Chanel at the same time–he’s satirizing its lack of moral content.)
2. Are there some subjects that shouldn’t be satirized no matter what the immediate provocation? I really do think it’s interesting that we’ve had very little satire on abortion from Colbert, and very careful satire of religious belief.
I wonder if the Colbert/Stewart phenom is in part a generational event. While any such anaylsis is a broad generalization, Gen-X-ers are known for their disdain for sacred cows of all kinds, preferring a more pragmatic “whatever works” approach to moral issues, rather than the boomers’ idealistic approach. For a principled boomer approach, recall Keith Olbermann’s powerful comment against California’s Prop. 8, arguing that, when all is said and done, marriage is about love. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY)
Here is a little passage from Jonathan Glover’s Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century. He is discussing Nazism and a cultural moment’s predilection for obedience and conformity:
“One absent cultural tradition may have played a part. Although there were political satirists in the Weimar Republic, there seems to have been no widespread irreverence towards political leaders. In some places everybody laughs when someone says the Leader is pure reason in human form” (p. 330).
I think Matt makes a very important point up above, but I also think that there is something serious in the Stewart-Colbert satire. On the one hand, irony can undermine all commitment to the good; on the other, it helpfully clears away nonsensical talking points tarting themselves up as commitment to the good so that perhaps discourse can elevate. Stewart especially is consistently calling for the media to improve and to rid itself of a twofold strategy of moral abdication: (1) the parasitic relationship between “news” shows and politicians, and (2) the idea that “we just give people what they want.” Stewart wants analysis before anyone reports something, and an attempt at moral consistency among politicians. Colbert is a tougher one for me since I feel like he skates closer to the absurdist line than Stewart.
Are there some subjects that shouldn’t be satirized no matter what the immediate provocation? I really do think it’s interesting that we’ve had very little satire on abortion from Colbert, and very careful satire of religious belief.
Cathleen,
Great question. As a Colbert fan, my guess is that he might be nominally pro-life. I watch his show somewhat regularly, and I own his book. He skewers social conservatives, especially people who are blatantly homophobic (e.g. the “God hates ****” crowd). But he doesn’t touch abortion. He doesn’t satirize pro-lifers.
He’s definately a believer. He is someone I think that the more conservative crowd might call a, gulp, Commonweal Catholic. I think the real Colbert steps out of his fake character in his take-down of that Zimbardo guy who says Lucifer was the good guy in the Fall story.
He gives a cogent defense of Catholic teaching on free will and the existence of evil that could have come from Augustine or Athanasius. Of course, no Patristic theologian would have used Colbert’s awesome punchline: “I teach Sunday School !@#$%!”
Are there some subjects that shouldn’t be satirized no matter what the immediate provocation?
You mean like passing a law against satirizing certain groups or individuals? No, siree.
Or do you mean that Catholics should show restraint about satirizing certain groups or individuals? Interesting question. My guess is that satirizing the pro-life movement in any way could be construed by some bishops as sanctioning abortions and thus grounds for instructing Catholic satirists not to present themselves for communion.
No. No law. Or even. . . why do we restrain ourselves from satirizing some thing–almost instinctively/
Hello Cathleen and Sean (and All),
I have to admit I haven’t got the hang of Colbert yet. Maybe this is tone-deafness on my part. Most of my friends loved Seinfeld and I was never able to sit through an entire episode. But I did love the recent clip posted where Fr. James Martin visited Colbert.
“He’s definitely a believer. He is someone I think that the more conservative crowd might call a, gulp, Commonweal Catholic.”
I can’t resist asking, Sean, do you have some sense of what it means to be a Commonweal Catholic? I don’t myself. When I see the term used it is nearly always in the pejorative, like the terms “cafeteria Catholic” or “modernist Catholic”, terms that have no clear meaning but are used to refer to Catholics who are bad (but bad in what respect?).
can’t resist asking, Sean, do you have some sense of what it means to be a Commonweal Catholic? I don’t myself. When I see the term used it is nearly always in the pejorative, like the terms “cafeteria Catholic” or “modernist Catholic”, terms that have no clear meaning but are used to refer to Catholics who are bad (but bad in what respect?).
I’m sorry Peter. I wasn’t clear. I was gently playing the part of conservatives who do not understand Commonweal and use “Commonweal Catholic” in the same derogatory tone they’d use to call someone a “Cafeteria Catholic.” Or, a staunch conservative might also say an “NCR Catholic.”
My apologies. Just an attempt at humor.
My sense is Commonweal writers and readers would identify the magazine as a Catholic intellectual perspective on faith and culture and politics. Much the same as First Things. To an outsider, I would say Commonweal is “liberal” Catholic and First Things is “conservative” Catholic, although I know that the terms liberal and conservative in both instances are problematic and don’t begin to encapsulate the mission of either.
Oops, I meant to only italicize the first paragraph, where I quoted Peter Vanderschraaf. I’m still getting used to HTML code (italics, bold, and links, that is)
Hello Sean (and All),
Now I am the one who is sorry for not being clear. I did not mean to suggest that I thought you were using the term in a mean-spirited way, only that the term is used pejoratively in most places I find it.
Anyway maybe I should have saved this serious question for another time since we are supposed to be talking about Colbert. Maybe Colbert will have a segment of Commonweal Catholics sometime and then we’ll all be in the know?
We don’t satarize some things because we don’t pour salt in open wounds, and we don’t invite the local TV station to see the fresh bodies we buried in the basement.
A bit off topic -
As Cathleen Kaveny observes above, “when a NYT columnist makes a big deal of your influence, IMHO, you are a big deal.”
Imagine then, if you can, the enormous influence, the sheer power, the irresistible force of a noted blog three of whose contributors are cited in a single essay by a New York Times columnist. Inconceivable, some would say. But here it is. Clyde Haberman, a columnist for the local section of the NYT, cites Paul Moses, Margaret O’Brien Steinfels, and David Gibson about the reception of Archbishop Dolan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/nyregion/17nyc.html
Wow. . . way too cool for me.
But. . . Let me make a prediction (or bet) . .. Timothy Dolan is the first (almost-and soon-to be-) prince of the church to appear on the Colbert Report. He really needs to atone for that Yankees uniform. . . .
By the time of the Commonweal reunion in October.. . . If this hasn’t happened, I’ll buy a round of drinks at the reunion.
Archbishop Dolan . . . Mr. Colbert. . . . I’m counting on you. . . .
Cathy (et al):
Thanks for your questions. Sorry for the delay. Long day.
Question 1: “Is satire more appropriate as a response in cases where the object of satire isn’t, in fact, a serious moral argument, but something else, in this case a commercial?”
My Answer: I don’t know. I suppose it depends on what exactly the object of the satire is and how the satirist does the satirizing. Mocking a bad commercial is different than mocking a serious discussion; but by serious discussion I mean a discussion that, on the whole, lacks the platitudes, euphemisms, and fatuities often infecting public discourse. It seems to me, however, that genuine moral argument undercuts the point of satire, or at least drastically reduces the need for it. Satire often arises to expose lack of authenticity, lack of openness, or sheer absurdity (Soviet-era literature comes to mind). But if honesty and openness are present, what’s to satire? What’s to mock about serious and open moral discourse? Isn’t that what an open society strives for? Now, the response is probably best captured by “The Onion”: we don’t need satire only for great political issues; we find cathartic hilarity satirizing the trivial. Sometimes it’s pleasurable to relish in mockery of minor things, things quintessentially human. (See http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/stop_anthropomorphizing_me).
Question 2: “Are there some subjects that shouldn’t be satirized no matter what the immediate provocation? I really do think it’s interesting that we’ve had very little satire on abortion from Colbert, and very careful satire of religious belief.”
My Answer: I don’t know. At the moment, I haven’t given it enough thought to say anything conclusively. My inclination is to say that we should draw a distinction between the subject of the satire and the way the subject is delivered. Which is to say: it would seem foolish, and perhaps objectively wrong, to satirize a subject qua subject (to mock, for instance, the same-sex marriage issue as an issue); however, my instinct is to say it’s legitimate to satirize opinions, statements, or expressions regarding those subjects that seem untrue, inauthentic, extreme, hollow, etc. For instance: the role of religious symbols and their placement in public life is a serious issue. But the congressman interviewed on “Better Know a District” demonstrated a total lack of authenticity: he proclaimed himself a champion of the Ten Commandments and yet couldn’t name more than one or two. Colbert brilliantly exposed what appeared to be the Congressman’s feigned concern.
(Sorry for the excessively labeled and segmented response; not sure how to work HTML code to bold and italicize.)
I think it’s unfair to satirize people who can’t hit back at the satirist–and that usually includes the sick, weak, marginalized and impoverished.
Of course, that assumes you can tell who’s actually being satirized.
The “Retarded Republican babies for McCain Palin” T-shirts were beyond allowable limits of fairness, though, in truth, I don’t think it was the babies who were being satirized, but those whom the satirists believed were using Palin’s son with Down Syndrome as a campaign chip.
OK, I’ve hogged enough space here.
Jean said the Maggie Gallagher came close to making a point that Cathleen Kaveny make(s): “ …. laws that a society is not willing to accept will be failed legislative experiments (e.g., Prohibition).” I think her underlying assumption is that laws re: gay marriage, unless voted upon by citizens, will not be accepted.
America has some history of this not being true. One good example: Harry Truman issued an Executive Order to racially integrate the US military at the end of WWII, and at a time when integration was far from popular with the masses. To this date the military has done a better job of integration than the general society. Granted, the military is a culture that is conditioned to accept orders generally in the manner in which they were issued. However, I would like to point out that Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (a poorly issued Exec Order) has been circumvented by the military brass in support of their own unproven biases about good order and discipline.
In the case of gay marriage, however, it has been noted in the NY Post … http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/gay_marriages_earned_victory_164101.htm — “As older generations are replaced by young voters, acceptance of gay marriage will become the norm. Opponents will seem marginal, perhaps even despicable. An Iowa poll released this month put statewide support for gay marriage at 36% — but nearly 60% among voters under 30.”
And, “Those who say that gay marriage just isn’t popular should take note of Vermont’s unusually muscular notion of representative government. As the Gay Patriot blog notes, Vermont has so few residents and so many elected representatives — its lower house has nearly twice as many lawmakers as California’s — that there’s practically no boundary between the people and the politicians, who anyway legislate only part-time and live in such a small state that they spend most of their time home with their constituents.”