How Stephen Colbert Saved America

[KazeAizen]

*Starts the article*
Huh, is this new Gamergate-proofing, adding the "this is an opinion"-disclaimer in front of an article? Why is it mentioned so explicitly?
*Halfway through the first page*
Oh, that's why.

Not American here, so I have mostly second-hand accounts of Fox News and the Colbert Report. I think the only O Reilly clip I saw was when he and his guests were trying to paint my hometown, Amsterdam, as an anarchic distopia thanks to our lax soft-drugs laws, and locals made a clip of smiling families traveling through Amsterdam, while overlaying statistics showing that our rate of drug crimes and drug addiction is considerably lower than in American cities.

But I'll leave the discussion to those that have seen either of these shows. Wonder if we'll get fireworks from the conservative posters

Not here it looks like. The comments on the Facebook article linking to this page. That's where you will find your fireworks. Enjoy.

 

[Cidward]

I loved the all-out geeking on The Colbert Report. Proudly mounting Captain America's shield on his wall, redecorating his set to look like Middle Earth, and dropping hints that he's really Superman were all icing on the cake. Bob could have gone further on the real/fake Stephen angle with how he put on a USO show for the troops in Iraq, in one of Saddam's former palaces no less, and all his work for them looked way too genuine to be a parody of anything.

Well, good luck to Larry Wilmore and his new show.

EDIT: And if Stephen could just once compare ISIS to HYDRA, complete with some clips from the Captain America movies and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., I would be soooooooo happy.

Hot damn. Actually kind of surprised he hasn't actually done that yet and probably won't. Now I really want to see that. I hate you now for putting a thought in my brain I know will never become real.

You could always tell when Colbert had a guest he unabashedly enjoyed. His fanboying over stuff like Lord of the Rings and obscure musical acts was joyous. More than anything, I'm bummed that his move to CBS probably means an end to the quirkier end of his guest line-up.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Soon they will have to call this site "The MovieBob Show". Dont know how he finds the time to write all these different articles and shows each week.

He saves a lot of time by not going to the gym.

Hey, fat jokes!

No no, I'm just kidding.

It really is impressive how much content he's able to put out. I may not agree with a lot of his opinions but I definitely respect the amount of work he puts into this site between his movie reviews, his columns, the big picture, and the random midweek episodes and columns he sometimes puts out when big events happen. Then he has other non escapist things like the game overthinker. Bob must barely sleep.

 

[gamefreakbsp]

A damn fine analysis of the Colbert Reports impact on American society. I really respect and admire how Bob can read into these things so effectively and then clearly detail what he sees for other people to read and ponder.

 

[Uriel_Hayabusa]

Hillary will be [running for President] and no matter how you feel about her policies, I think we can all agree that nobody deserves the kind of things she's going to go through as a direct result of her gender.

Certainly, but my point was that this is, sadly, both nothing new and not exclusive to women on the political left. As I said: Sarah Palin got much the same treatment in spite of the fact that her political opponents often define themselves as ''feminists'', ''progressives'' or ''striving for gender equality'', yet there's no shortage of prominent women who've had to endure gendered attacks from so-called progressives because of their views: Ayaan Hirsi-Ali, Jenny McCarthy, Condoleeezza Rice, Suey Park and of course Sarah Palin.

 

[Biran53]

I'm really going to miss the Stephen Colbert character and The Report. For years it has always been dependable for making me laugh harder than anything, whether Colbert was pointedly satirizing politics/news media,or satirizing/celebrating miscellaneous facets of pop culture.

I can't say that I dislike Jon Stewart, but Colbert's program seemed to find more consistently entertaining means of remaining fresh and hilarious without unfortunately devolving into holier-than-thou smugness from time to time.
Yeah. What Bob said.
Thank you, Stephen.

 

[Gorrath]

Conservatism in the United States is strongly associated with the small-government movement. This is still endorsed by the politicians and the base but only in talking points. The tea-party started out as a reaction to this problem but became waylaid by the very same disease infecting the rest of the "right" in the U.S.

I often like to say that conservatism was once about keeping the government out of the private lives of the citizens but it is now about keeping the government out of your life while making sure they have the power to be in your neighbor's. This is overly simplistic of me but basically holds true. I don't like the "No true scotsman" game, but to me you aren't conservative if you don't actually adhere to the ideology. With rampant spending in every Republican administration, expansion of federal police and military powers and whole "conservative" movements based around denying or stripping people (mostly homosexuals) of their rights, I don't see how anyone could claim these people/groups are in any way "conservative."

I do not hold a degree in political science so I may very well get eviscerated for this (I'd be happy to) but I see conservatism in the U.S. as being properly characterized by the belief that government should only be as big as is necessary to perform basic functions, that government power should be bottom up (by this I mean all government power should be executed at the lowest level of government possible) and that the federal government should be primarily focused on inter-state issues and foreign affairs, not screwing with bridges in Alaska.

This is why I no longer consider myself Republican but do still consider myself conservative; the party has tossed out these ideals in favor of being only slightly less spend happy (and in some cases, even MORE spend happy) than the Democrats. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other with the only real distinction coming from how badly they want to get rid of the notion of separation of church and state. Anywho, sorry to ramble, though I am happy to talk.

Edit: Incidentally, since we are talking about the Daily Show in some respect, John Stewart collected a bunch of Fox News clips that showed various members of their news team wanting to toss out every one of the first ten amendments to the constitution except the second. No one who claims to be conservative should be saying things like "Burkas should be illegal."; it's so antithetical to conservative theory it's jaw-dropping.

It seems to seem that you adhere to something akin to Libertarianism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism], mixed with a healthy dose of State's Rights [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights]. Sound something resembling accurate? (I have some comments, but I want to make sure I'm not barking up a very wrong tree first)

I have at times considered myself a Libertarian, though I can't seem to align myself with the movement for the same reason I quickly got into and back out of, the tea party movement; the whole place is a stomping ground for anti-government crazies and religious zealots. I guess you could say that I am a reasonable Libertarian; the sort that believes in bottom up government but still believes in government, not the sort that believes taxes are a violation of everyone's rights and that roads should be built only for those who can afford them.

I don't like the term "State's Rights" because it obviously implies states have rights at all, which they don't. I do however believe that states should have power and authority greater than what they do now. I do think the federal government should have the power to reign states in when they try to violate their citizen's civil rights. This makes my beliefs somewhat different from the hardcore Libertarians who believe in "states rights" and often espouse the idea that states should be allowed to legislate basically anything they want. All in all I guess you could say I'm a moderate in all things except civil rights. When it comes to civil rights, I am happy to be an attack dog.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Yeah, Colbert, good job mocking the only cable news network that actually does its job and doesn't cover up government power grabs and scandals. The purpose of the free press is to be a check on government power, not to be the Democratic Party's PR firm or incite racial tension. The Colbert Report is just a dumbed-down version of the mainstream media's propaganda machine, indoctrinating intellectually lazy young people into left-wing politics so the majority of liberals can sound like they almost know what they're talking about.

Thank you, Steven Colbert, you've kept an entire generation submissive and ignorant, just like our Dear Leaders want.

 

[Gorrath]

I do not hold a degree in political science so I may very well get eviscerated for this (I'd be happy to) but I see conservatism in the U.S. as being properly characterized by the belief that government should only be as big as is necessary to perform basic functions, that government power should be bottom up (by this I mean all government power should be executed at the lowest level of government possible) and that the federal government should be primarily focused on inter-state issues and foreign affairs, not screwing with bridges in Alaska.

Your definition isn't too crazy, really. At its heart, conservatism is what is says on the tin: an ideology that exists in opposition to great or rapid societal or economic change. Conservatism by itself is not a movement meant to make government smaller, however it is a side-effect, as conservatives by definition don't want to expand the government. It's wrapped up nicely by Warren G. Harding's 1920 election motto: "a return to normalcy" after Wilson's tenure filled with war and fairly rapid social changes and difficulty.

Conservative feelings can extend to going back to the way things were in fairly recent history, but going far back (like those wanting to return to the social order of the 50s) would be called reactionaries. Those that work to make government as small as possible would be minarchists, while Americans who wish to return to strictly "original intent" Constitutional boundaries when it comes to both economic and social issues would be more akin to libertarians.

The current stream of conservatism in the US was one set forth by Reagan, known as neoconservatism, and stresses supply-side economics and economic non-intervention, a strong commitment to traditional social values, a strong military and foreign presence for the US.

I think the main schism in the party right now is that certain conservatives are starting slip into reactionism due to an almost religious devotion to Reaganesque principles, in addition to younger people being more likely to back more libertarian stances on social issues.

Thanks a bunch for your reply, I freely admit my post was not based on learned academic recitation of the principles but rather my own view of today's politics through the lens of my own belief. I do still stand behind the idea that the Republican party of today isn't conservative. As you say, they are more akin to reactionaries both in the sense you describe but also in how they embrace and push for huge social and governmental shifts that directly oppose a conservative approach. One only need look at 9/11 and the Patriot Act to see just how willing the Republican party of today is to get behind rapid government growth and increased spending.

The way I see it, Democrats tend to be progressive liberals who often want to see social change enacted through legislative means. I don't see the Republicans any differently than that. As you note quite astutely, many of the current crop of Republicans have these romanticized ideas about Regan-era administration and 50's style social politics. They aren't even chasing the past here but some sanitized version of it that only exists in the propaganda pieces of those eras. There's a good sized group of Republicans that actually want to pass a constitutional amendment to define marriage. It is simply beyond the pale to think that going so far as to amend the constitution in order to enforce their own religious inspired definition of marriage is a conservative approach.

Thanks again for your post and I hope I was able to give some more weight to my argument that today's Republican party isn't really a conservative one. You seem to acknowledge this when you point out how they are almost reactionaries. I think they do want rapid social and governmental change, they just want it to go in a different direction than the progressive liberals.

 

[KazeAizen]

Yeah, Colbert, good job mocking the only cable news network that actually does its job and doesn't cover up government power grabs and scandals. The purpose of the free press is to be a check on government power, not to be the Democratic Party's PR firm or incite racial tension. The Colbert Report is just a dumbed-down version of the mainstream media's propaganda machine, indoctrinating intellectually lazy young people into left-wing politics so the majority of liberals can sound like they almost know what they're talking about.

Thank you, Steven Colbert, you've kept an entire generation submissive and ignorant, just like our Dear Leaders want.

I honestly can't tell if you are joking or if you are serious.

 

[Dakkagor]

I was JUST going to say that. Seriously, WTF?

 

[shirkbot]

Yeah, Colbert, good job mocking the only cable news network that actually does its job and doesn't cover up government power grabs and scandals. The purpose of the free press is to be a check on government power, not to be the Democratic Party's PR firm or incite racial tension. The Colbert Report is just a dumbed-down version of the mainstream media's propaganda machine, indoctrinating intellectually lazy young people into left-wing politics so the majority of liberals can sound like they almost know what they're talking about.

Thank you, Steven Colbert, you've kept an entire generation submissive and ignorant, just like our Dear Leaders want.

Say what you like about me or anyone in my generation, but do you genuinely believe the (at maximum) 0.87% of the last several years someone might have spent watching Colbert could be enough to keep an entire generation "submissive and ignorant"? Just for comparison consider the other 65.79% of the time in which one could be doing literally anything else (The other 33.33% is sleeping). Colbert isn't an icon because he set the views of the generation, he just resonated with the views already held and/or taking shape.

OT: I'll miss The Colbert Report simply because it was such an unusual platform and resulted in some very interesting times in Washington DC, including a Rally, a congressional hearing and the founding of Colbert SuperPAC. Fun times.

 

[hentropy]

Thanks again for your post and I hope I was able to give some more weight to my argument that today's Republican party isn't really a conservative one. You seem to acknowledge this when you point out how they are almost reactionaries. I think they do want rapid social and governmental change, they just want it to go in a different direction than the progressive liberals.

It's hard to categorize the party as a whole as being conservative, it's true, but I think the mainstream core of the party can still be described as conservative. After all, they have spent more or less the entire Obama Presidency simply opposing what he has tried to do- and in some ways that is pure conservatism. Even neoconservatism is still ultimately conservatism and not necessarily reactionary, it's just conservatism with some more well-defined and rigid parameters. It's true that certain aspects of the party tread into reactionism and other ideologies (like theocracy), but as a whole "conservatism" isn't really a bad label, although most people refer to it as "American Conservatism", a category more of its own.

 

[Alin Bujor]

I'm an european who's been watching Colbert and the Daily Show almost every day for the last 3 years; I know more about US politics than my own country's. Been watching a lot of the Colbert I didn't know on youtube, like when he was a guest on O'Reilly Factor or when he hosted the White House Correspondents dinner, and I gotta say I have new found respect for the guy. I will surely give his new show a try; until then , long live The Daily Show.

 

[Nixou]

I must say, the fact that the guy who spent a decade satirizing right-wing hacks shares his name with the father of mercantilism remains the show's best meta joke.

***

Effectively a 24-hour mouthpiece for the right-wing political views of Newscorp/Fox boss Rupert Murdoch,

Don't forget Roger Ailes: Fox News would never have existed in its shape without Ailes' unfading hatred of journalists (Ailes doesn't hate left-wing journalists: he hates every and all members of this corporation because during his Television News Inc. the journalists working under him -even the conservative ones- proved to be too professional to be manipulated and turned into mere propagandists) and burning desire to bully them into absolute submission.

 

[carpathic]

We really just have two kinds of liberals here now, progressive liberals and religious liberals.

Morbidly curious now... what is your ideal of conservatism? I'm assuming we aren't talking 'tea party' philosophy here, since Fox was quite happy to hold them up as paragons...

Conservatism in the United States is strongly associated with the small-government movement. This is still endorsed by the politicians and the base but only in talking points. The tea-party started out as a reaction to this problem but became waylaid by the very same disease infecting the rest of the "right" in the U.S.

I often like to say that conservatism was once about keeping the government out of the private lives of the citizens but it is now about keeping the government out of your life while making sure they have the power to be in your neighbor's. This is overly simplistic of me but basically holds true. I don't like the "No true scotsman" game, but to me you aren't conservative if you don't actually adhere to the ideology. With rampant spending in every Republican administration, expansion of federal police and military powers and whole "conservative" movements based around denying or stripping people (mostly homosexuals) of their rights, I don't see how anyone could claim these people/groups are in any way "conservative."

I do not hold a degree in political science so I may very well get eviscerated for this (I'd be happy to) but I see conservatism in the U.S. as being properly characterized by the belief that government should only be as big as is necessary to perform basic functions, that government power should be bottom up (by this I mean all government power should be executed at the lowest level of government possible) and that the federal government should be primarily focused on inter-state issues and foreign affairs, not screwing with bridges in Alaska.

This is why I no longer consider myself Republican but do still consider myself conservative; the party has tossed out these ideals in favor of being only slightly less spend happy (and in some cases, even MORE spend happy) than the Democrats. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other with the only real distinction coming from how badly they want to get rid of the notion of separation of church and state. Anywho, sorry to ramble, though I am happy to talk.

Edit: Incidentally, since we are talking about the Daily Show in some respect, John Stewart collected a bunch of Fox News clips that showed various members of their news team wanting to toss out every one of the first ten amendments to the constitution except the second. No one who claims to be conservative should be saying things like "Burkas should be illegal."; it's so antithetical to conservative theory it's jaw-dropping.

I am not American, and am in no hurry to eviscerate you.

If I recall correctly, the biggest difference between Liberals and Conservatives breaks down thusly: Conservatives think it is the job of the local community to look after those who need help. Liberals believe it is the role of the government.

It sort of follows from that ideology that Liberals believe in a big, strong central government, where conservatives should be fine having strong city governments backed up by church and other family-related structures but would abhor a strong central government. During the founding of the USA, these views were on display, check out the dispute about creating the Federal Reserve Bank, or slavery, or the creation of the US Army or pick any topic with National Repercussions in the 'States and you will see the same story written again and again. Some people see something that should happen, not happening because it had been delegated to a local community (say starving orphans or monetary policy) and that issue gets pushed up to become the responsibility of a larger, better funded government.

In a lot of ways Conservatives would appear to desire to keep things the same as they were, even if they weren't working brilliantly and Liberals would prefer to try something different - even if it won't work brilliantly.

Most of the rest of us sit somewhere in the middle trying to figure out how to make life work for us and the people we care about.

Ideas like "government should be small" or "no burkas in public" are really nothing more than a reflection of "It is the community's job to look after its own". (burkas because someone separating themselves from the community through choosing to be distinct is antithetical to a conservative who really want everyone to believe similar things to themselves...libs are no better)

 

[Gorrath]

We really just have two kinds of liberals here now, progressive liberals and religious liberals.

Morbidly curious now... what is your ideal of conservatism? I'm assuming we aren't talking 'tea party' philosophy here, since Fox was quite happy to hold them up as paragons...

Conservatism in the United States is strongly associated with the small-government movement. This is still endorsed by the politicians and the base but only in talking points. The tea-party started out as a reaction to this problem but became waylaid by the very same disease infecting the rest of the "right" in the U.S.

I often like to say that conservatism was once about keeping the government out of the private lives of the citizens but it is now about keeping the government out of your life while making sure they have the power to be in your neighbor's. This is overly simplistic of me but basically holds true. I don't like the "No true scotsman" game, but to me you aren't conservative if you don't actually adhere to the ideology. With rampant spending in every Republican administration, expansion of federal police and military powers and whole "conservative" movements based around denying or stripping people (mostly homosexuals) of their rights, I don't see how anyone could claim these people/groups are in any way "conservative."

I do not hold a degree in political science so I may very well get eviscerated for this (I'd be happy to) but I see conservatism in the U.S. as being properly characterized by the belief that government should only be as big as is necessary to perform basic functions, that government power should be bottom up (by this I mean all government power should be executed at the lowest level of government possible) and that the federal government should be primarily focused on inter-state issues and foreign affairs, not screwing with bridges in Alaska.

This is why I no longer consider myself Republican but do still consider myself conservative; the party has tossed out these ideals in favor of being only slightly less spend happy (and in some cases, even MORE spend happy) than the Democrats. It's six of one, half a dozen of the other with the only real distinction coming from how badly they want to get rid of the notion of separation of church and state. Anywho, sorry to ramble, though I am happy to talk.

Edit: Incidentally, since we are talking about the Daily Show in some respect, John Stewart collected a bunch of Fox News clips that showed various members of their news team wanting to toss out every one of the first ten amendments to the constitution except the second. No one who claims to be conservative should be saying things like "Burkas should be illegal."; it's so antithetical to conservative theory it's jaw-dropping.

I am not American, and am in no hurry to eviscerate you.

If I recall correctly, the biggest difference between Liberals and Conservatives breaks down thusly: Conservatives think it is the job of the local community to look after those who need help. Liberals believe it is the role of the government.

It sort of follows from that ideology that Liberals believe in a big, strong central government, where conservatives should be fine having strong city governments backed up by church and other family-related structures but would abhor a strong central government. During the founding of the USA, these views were on display, check out the dispute about creating the Federal Reserve Bank, or slavery, or the creation of the US Army or pick any topic with National Repercussions in the 'States and you will see the same story written again and again. Some people see something that should happen, not happening because it had been delegated to a local community (say starving orphans or monetary policy) and that issue gets pushed up to become the responsibility of a larger, better funded government.

In a lot of ways Conservatives would appear to desire to keep things the same as they were, even if they weren't working brilliantly and Liberals would prefer to try something different - even if it won't work brilliantly.

Most of the rest of us sit somewhere in the middle trying to figure out how to make life work for us and the people we care about.

Ideas like "government should be small" or "no burkas in public" are really nothing more than a reflection of "It is the community's job to look after its own". (burkas because someone separating themselves from the community through choosing to be distinct is antithetical to a conservative who really want everyone to believe similar things to themselves...libs are no better)

Thanks for your reply, I appreciate you taking the time. I tend toward conservative thinking because I generally believe in slow change over time that lends itself to proper consideration of as many details and repercussions as possible. I think it's fair to say that most politicians in my country don't act that way, regardless of which party they belong to. The Patriot Act had sweeping changes and repercussions for my country and was backed by nearly every "conservative" politician we had. Knee-jerk reactions to tragedy have become the norm. I understand that this is because our citizenry has largely become like this themselves.

You talk a bit about top down vs bottom up government, which is certainly a major distinction between the liberal and conservative movements in the U.S. The reason I believe in bottom up government is because I find that top down government tends to be particularly wasteful and poor at providing services. Services that are provided and managed locally tend to fit the needs of the local community better than ones that are provided and managed from afar. I wouldn't say that I believe communities should simply take care of themselves, I would say that each level of government should have specific, well defined responsibilities. Too often, you have various levels of government stepping on or over one another when trying to fix issues.

Take for instance the U.S. interstate highway system. This type of national highway system would be an absolute mess if it were managed by local communities. Each town/city/county would have its own ideas and own desires as to how and where the roads should run and would generate huge conflict between them. It makes no sense to manage such a system at that level. So, the best thing to do is manage that project at the federal level since it is an interstate project. So it's not so much that I would eschew having a central government, it's just that the central government's duties, responsibilities and authority should be well defined and limited. This prevents the central government from being paralyzed because every problem becomes their problem.

Now I agree with you that there is a strong sentiments among those that call themselves conservative that the local community needs to be homogeneous. But that sort of thinking isn't really a part of conservative government ideal. Often "conservatives" in my country want reactions to issues that are just as extreme as their liberal counterparts. This is why Bob rightly points out that Fox News has essentially nothing to do with Republican Conservative ideas. Half the time when I see "conservative" people speak, I just shake my head and roll my eyes.

Maybe conservatism has passed me by or maybe it never was what I thought it was to begin with. But what I do know is that our two party system is a broken mess. As much as I oppose most liberal democratic thinking, I would hope that they would have the fortitude to get things done where the Republicans continue to fail. Instead it's all partisan political thinking and the actual work of governing be damned. Each side will simply blame the other for the lack of progress, but really that's just a political game. Neither group has the high ground here. I think I've become more cynical than anything about America's political process and government.

Please excuse my rambling, I do hope I was able to get something across with all this. All in all, I don't disagree with almost anything you say. Thanks again for your time and attention!