[EL] Potter and Colbert

[Paul Lehto]

Query: Perhaps Colbert is not left or right in real world effect but
pro-status quo?  Here's why:

Comedy often raises up ideas that are insightful, because one essence of
much comedy is the element of surprise. Viewing political satire like
Colbert or The Daily Show or certain FOX personalities creates a
viewer-experience that is similar to our reactions to other media forms
like newspapers, in the sense that we all tend to much more readily
identify the "bias" in the comedy that goes against our own predilections,
while missing the "biases" driving in the other direction because we
experience them as "fairness" or "objective truth" or just as background
"neutrality."  Great comedy like great literature is complex, and nuanced.

Is the following perhaps a nuance related to Colbert and the class of
political satirists like him?

Colbert strikes me as *a ground-breaker for the very things he's satirizing*,
blazing the trail for example for persons such as himself with media
platforms to be presidential candidates in a token state for 2008, and now
we see a raft of presidential candidates launching with media platforms.
Colbert's SuperPAC could similarly be seen as normalizing the very thing it
also expressly satirizes, creating an appearance of broad citizen-based
democratic free speech by what are, relatively speaking, a few drops in the
campaign finance buckets.

The above being said, it still does appear to me that Colbert's "true"
beliefs are progressive and liberal in general - he would not be able to be
as good an entertainer as he is without a deep understanding of liberal
thought rarely, if ever, seen in a non-liberal. (The reverse also applies
in other contexts.)  However, because the platform is entertainment in the
form of political satire and claims to ultimate political truth are
expressly disclaimed, both the limitations of the media as well as the
failure to fully lead the horses to water much less "make them drink", work
together to dampen the feared or actual political impacts of his satire.

Ultimately, the comedic pundits of right and left could be seen as the
Court Jesters of our culture today: the net effect once all is added up is
to be a pressure valve or safety release valve, helping to preserve the *status
quo* through the release of laughter and the creation of the
*appearance*of robust free speech without the
*reality* of fundamental political discourse leading to action-for-change
outside the limited world of political TV entertainment.  (None of this
needs to be *intended* for it to be the net effect.)

The fuction, then, is arguably not of left or right "bias" but to what
extent this type of political satire is ultimately relevant in actually
effecting political change on the ground.  To the extent it is not
effective with "electoral intervention" in a broad sense of the word, then
its net force is adding some knowledge and insight via infotainment,
releasing political pressure via laughter, but not fundamentally changing
outcomes (except, perhaps, in the very long run). Thus, the net force of a
satirical entertainer such as Colbert would be in favor of the status
quo.

Perhaps Jon Stewart is making a disclosure in the title of his book
"Democracy *Inaction*"?

The above is food for thought, in case anyone's interested in thinking or
talking along this line, not a final thesis statement for me.  I would
stand by the proposition, however, that left/right, as applied to many
issues, is a false and distorting frame of reference, even though it does
have some meaning.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

PS:  I occasionally watch both Colbert and Stewart's show, and FOX shows as
well.


On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Jon Roland <jon.roland at constitution.org>wrote:

> **
> Trevor is on this list and can speak for himself, but the statement below
> seems to be attributing a reform agenda to Colbert that is not in evidence.
> I have been watching the ways he exploits the rich absurdities of this
> field for their satirical potential, and find no agenda other than to
> entertain his viewers, which he does well.
>
> One can understand perfectly why the rule is in place and also reject the
> reasons as ridiculously unworkable. When the Founders wisely framed the
> First Amendment as an absolute prohibition on Congress, but not the states,
> they did not anticipate that posterity would endlessly debate on trying to
> find ways to work around that prohibition, mainly by treating speech or
> press as some kind of action ("incitement", bribery, fraud, etc.). Nor did
> the framers of the 14th intend that the power to restrict violations of
> private rights by state agents would extend to the actions of private,
> non-state actors, even actions that might violate rights that were
> tolerated by state actors, or to activities like funding election
> campaigns, only to impeding them. The power of Congress to regulate the
> time, manner, and place of congressional elections (except the place of
> senatorial elections) was not intended to extend to campaigns, and there is
> no congressional power outside federal enclaves to regulate or punish
> anyone for bribery, fraud, or perjury, or for the appearance thereof. Only
> the states may have the power to do that on their respective territories.
>
> The entire enterprise of campaign finance regulation is fundamentally and
> irremediably infirm, and satirists like Colbert are to be commended for
> drawing attention to that so that people can stop being gulled by calls for
> "reform" other then for repeal of all the previous attempts at it.
>
> There is no regulatory solution to the public choice problem. People
> should stop trying to do the impossible. The only solution in sight is to
> replace elections with some kind of sortition process and to elevate the
> civic virtue of the entire population.
>
> On 11/10/2011 07:48 AM, Smith, Brad wrote:
>
> some observers, such as Mr. Colbert, fail to come to grips with the
> reasons the rule is in place.
>
>
>
> -- Jon
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Constitution Society               http://constitution.org
> 2900 W Anderson Ln C-200-322           twitter.com/lex_rex
> Austin, TX 78757 512/299-5001  jon.roland at constitution.org
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>



-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20111111/ca55c3db/attachment.html>