Speaking Truth For Power: What Stephen Colbert REALLY Did

I have already written about Stephen Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents Association dinner held two weeks ago. I shared my thoughts about the very funny Colbert after I watched him lampoon–live on C-SPAN–not only the President, but other public servants as well; and even the press corps. Granted, his barbs hurled at the press corps were infrequent, and paled in comparison to his well-written and well-delivered satire directed at the President. That I found him to be less than his best, even to the point of being tedious, in no way suggests that he is not a brilliantly talented man.

Alas and alack! The blogosphere has been abuzz over Colbert! How can this be when there is so much more to fuss about? Technorati, which tracks nearly 40 million sites (mostly blogs), reports that "Stephen Colbert" was the top search all last week. Some bloggers are eulogizing Colbert as hero and legend, of Mt. Rushmore standing (see Arianna Huffington); while others have not only shown more restraint, they've dismissed him as simply another comedian. Colbert devotees have him "speaking truth to power," while one Washington Post writer has argued that Mr. Colbert did no such thing:

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if you're at work -- take away your office.

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colbert's lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

Well, maybe he was not a bully, but he was clearly not courageous. But if not courageous, what was he? I'll tell you in a moment. But first I want to remind you of something critical: Colbert is not the first (or only) person to use the Correspondents Dinner to "speak truth to power." Don Imus did it in 1996, and he was subsequently vilified. The only substantive difference, really, between the two performances is that Imus truly targeted the media; and while he embarrassed himself and the Clintons, he hardly spent his time lampooning the Chief Executive (read the text here). But talk about a "scorched earth performance" (as Huffington glowingly described Colbert's routine)! Had a forensic expert described the concluding state of Imus' victims, he would no doubt use words akin to "blunt force trauma and exsanguination due to evisceration." This is not to say that Imus was right, funny or even good. It is merely to report that this is all old hat: Imus has been here before. In fact, he was here a decade ago. And he WAS a bully.

Here's the truth about Mr. Colbert: He did not speak truth to power; he spoke satirically solely to secure his fan base. His remarks at the dinner had nothing to do with economics in any theoretical or didactic sense; he did not lecture on the beneficence of socialism or the malevolence of capitalists. But he did speak entirely about the economics of practical implications: He spoke in a shrewd manner that would appeal to his fans, and thus secure his financial future for at least several more years. There was nothing daring or courageous in his remarks, vetted, as they were, by the White House before they were ever vetted by Colbert’s leftist fans on the blogosphere. In fact, it was all rather safe. Colbert appeared, in a sort of WWF-campish way, to be speaking boldly, but it was pure theater. He was merely winning lots of cash, and lots of Colbert-crazed fans, when he played his little game. This was not heroics; this was self-interest, greed, self-aggrandizement and, not inaccurately, grandstanding.

It was all rather charming, seeing this little man pretend to loath power, yet attaching himself parasitically (all satire is parasitism) to the men in charge solely to take charge of his economic vitality. It was capitalism, not parodied, but on parade.

Indeed, all satire is parasitism. There is no satire without subjects to inspire it. A lampoon is nothing if there is nothing to lampoon. Satirists are entirely derivative; their material is created by others. And the satirists' work is all about lust: if pornography incites lust for fleshly pleasures, satire incites the pleasure of mockery and scoffing. It is pornography of a different sort, appealing not to one's prurience, but to one's self-righteousness. It surely arouses, but not lurid sexual yearnings. It arouses a mockery that titillates an audience's anger, resentment and, above all, its pride. And it is not about the weak speaking to the strong. It is about the powerful appearing weak, weak as the Everyman, exploiting an audience for social and financial gain.

Stephen Colbert played the court jester, as he always does, and he jested quite well. His court, of course, is not the President, but his own very loyal audience, an audience consumed with consuming anti-Bush fodder; an audience consumed with making Colbert not only a legend, but a very rich man.

In short, Stephen Colbert's night with the President was a really good gig. Surely he is grateful President Bush is there to help make him a millionaire, glorious tax cuts and all.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

[Addendum, May 18, 2006: It was reported last night on Fox News (oiks!) that viewership of Mr. Colbert's "The Colbert Report" has jumped 30% since his heroic night at the correpondents dinner. However, I cannot confirm this.]

Technorati tags: Stephen Colbert, Colbert Report, White House, White House Correspondents Dinner, Don Imus, Imus, Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington