The Belgravia Dispatch: Colbert

May 07, 2006

Colbert

A word on Colbert's recent gig down in DC. I admit to having mixed feelings, to a fashion. I think the Office of the President of the United States deserves some respect. After all, deep down, is it really a happy occasion when we feel the occupant merits such round mockery? Was it Nietzsche who said "a joke is an epigram on the death of a feeling"? The 'feeling' here, of course, being basic respect for our governing class. But it would be old-fashioned and boring of me, wouldn't it, in our brave new post-Watergate/Monica/Hookergate world of incessant cable news cycles, often ginned up faux crises, 24 hour blog blather, and so on--to harken back to ye olde days when the press corps merrily ran about 'in the sack' with Jack Kennedy and Washington was a clubbier, more discreet town?

The reality is, amidst the fevered media cycles, politicans have become all too naked and human, and their foibles and mediocrity and weaknesses come into starker and starker relief to anyone with half a brain (I wonder who the 25% percent of those still supporting this Republican Congress are? It's as baffling to me as the roughly similar amount of people who still support, say, Chirac.) But perhaps large swaths of an Oprah-fied nation like the cycles of rise to power and fall to disgrace, what with the 'inspirational' windows of opportunity afforded by possible 'redemption' and such.

Regardless, and balanced against my discomfort at POTUS being roundly mocked to his face, I end up on the pro-Colbert side of the fence. This is mostly because Bush dwells in an absurdly tight bubble. Cheney and Rummy are still in denial, big time, on the situation in Iraq. So to the extent people can shake the President out of such bubble-slumber, I've got to err on the side of a harsh ribbing here and there. If there are no wise men to do the hard task of persuading Bush that a massive re-org of the White House is urgently required, if too many reporters are dim, pliant ignoramuses (watching domestic CNN is a painful, nightly train-wreck, lacking even the brasher theater of the absurd comedy Fox affords), or have become appendages of the governing apparatus (creeping Woodwardism, let's call it), I'll take comedians trying to communicate to him that his Adminstration is degenerating into something of a joke. If it has come to this, so be it.

P.S. And was the Colbert routine funny, another pressing question occupying the national discourse of late? It was rather long (especially the Helen Thomas--Colbert fiddling with his car keys- Amtrak up to New York burlesque), and yeah maybe not that funny in parts. Bridgeses routine (the Bush impersonation) hit the right Washington notes better. DC is a one-industry company town still, and Colbert's peculiar and highly ironic schtick of posing as faith-based righty didn't play particularly well in the serried ranks of Washington officialdom. So I sensed the tone was rather off-putting to the assembled crowd, probably as it struck pretty close to the bone and was more New York in its aggressive 'in your face' vibe. Good.

Posted by Gregory at May 7, 2006 06:09 PM | TrackBack (0)

Comments

It seems to me that another way of looking at it is, if Bush wasn't such a colossal failure, Colbert wouldn't be saying these things. If Bush hadn't, as you said, stamped his foot and whined, "I'm the decider,", claimed he never looks at polls, doesn't need to read the newspapers, done his heroic landing on the aircraft carrier, did his own where's-the-WMDs schtick, etc., then Colbert wouldn't be able to make fun of all those things. In exactly the same way that Clinton got and deserved all that grief for not being able to keep his pecker in his pants. It isn't Colbert's fault he had all that material to work with.

Posted by: Jake at May 7, 2006 08:03 PM | Permalink to this comment

If you belive that the Office of the President deserves repect please ask yourself if Bush repects the office?

It's really the person that holds the office that we are talking about and to say that you should not speak the truth about that person, or only say it behind his back, is nonesense.

Bush has take the Office of the President to new depths and this country with it.

Give Colbert credit he said what needed to be said and not one of the so-called Washington Press Corp would or will say it. As a matter of fact they can't even laugh because if they did no invite to the White House Chistmas party.

This country and its citizens need to grow up and understand just what is happening. We need to worry a lot more about were we are and where we are going then about a comic not being nice to the President. Or whatever Colbert was to Bush.

As for was it funny, humor is always subjective. It's all about the gored ox.

Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2006 10:52 PM | Permalink to this comment

I almost did a spit-take all over my monitor when I read the transcript. It may not have played well inside the Beltway but we were howling and pissing ourselves out here in the hinterlands. And given the target rich environment that the Bush Presidency provides, I actually think Colbert showed admirable restraint.

Posted by: jim in austin at May 7, 2006 11:45 PM | Permalink to this comment

I think we all share Mr. Colbert's vision of an America with a government worthy of all its snarky hipsters.

But seriously, folks....fulsome, even cloying praise of politicians by their supporters is just part of life in a democracy (just as even more fulsome and vastly more cloying praise of dictators is part of life in a dictatorship). It has always irritated me, though, that criticism of President Bush (and for that matter of other prominent elected officials) by other politicians is always so formulaic, couched in stylized language that no one uses in actual conversation and using pedestrian rhetorical devices like alliteration and rhyming whenever possible. And it's never personal at all.

This kind of criticism is safe. The media pick it up without cavil and often without comment. But it doesn't make much of an impact, or establish much of anything about the person making the criticism. It is intensely boring to read, and frustrating in the sense that one suspects those practicing this kind of criticism of keeping their real thoughts to themselves (or, sometimes, of having no real thoughts of their own, which is a different issue).

I suppose part of the blame for this can be placed at the doorstep of the communications revolution -- one can't say anything to a select audience anymore without the risk of its being spread around to everyone, and that makes people more cautious about what they say. Part of it, I'm convinced, is Ronald Reagan's fault. A transparently nice guy with vast self-confidence, Reagan made his most determined critics look shrill and mean-spirited even when they were right and he was wrong. Politicians might have taken away from this the lesson that they should try to be more like Reagan; instead they learned that personal criticism always backfires no matter who the target is.

Look, it will be no secret to regular readers that I dislike George Bush. Leave aside for the moment questions of policy, process and all the rest of it; I just have never liked the guy. I'm quite sure I wouldn't have liked him if he had never become President. I didn't like his father either (apart from his embodying trends in American politics that I dreaded). Don't care for his mother at all. His daughters aren't really my type. I don't have strong feelings about Laura Bush one way or the other, but that's as good as it gets from me.

I don't think I'm the only person who feels this way, or who thinks that some politician's -- any one of them would do -- public rhetoric about the President might reflect this feeling from time to time. Besides, as a matter of political calculation, personal criticism works on this guy (for different reasons, it worked on Clinton too). Bush is not used to it, resents it, and shows this in displays of petulance and inarticulation that are, well, not Presidential. Both McCain and Kerry had this demonstrated to them in person, on television, and never took advantage of it thereafter -- McCain, in 2000, because he was too busy responding to criticism of himself and Kerry because when a line appears to work John Kerry thinks the thing to do is repeat it verbatim over and over again. I don't like Bush, but I don't think he's an idiot. He'd have to be if he let criticism that flustered him in 2004's first debate affect him when it was repeated word for word in both subsequent debates.

Really, though, this is not about George Bush. I just think there is a larger place for spite and venom in our public discourse than politicians allow (bloggers and commentators are another matter, but for most of them expressing spite and venom means using a lot of four letter words, ascribing belief in various repugnant European ideologies to politicians they dislike, and things of that nature. There aren't enough junior high school bathroom walls in this country that they have to put that stuff on the Internet?). Would it kill anyone in Washington to observe of the Treasury Secretary, as Jack Germond observed of the elder Bush, that he doesn't cast a shadow? As we wage war against terrorism at home, we surely don't want any sheep in sheep's clothing (Churchill's gibe at Clement Atlee) but no one else gets appointed to head the Department of Homeland Security in this administration. The prospect of Nancy Pelosi assuming command of the House of Representatives practically writes its own lines.

Honestly, we have a lot of Americans today who turn for wisdom on current events to comedians. That ought to be a humiliating state of affairs to any politician not desperately insecure about his own position or future and possessed of any spirit. Of course the universe of such politicians today may be quite small.

Posted by: Zathras at May 7, 2006 11:54 PM | Permalink to this comment

The people in the audience who didn't think Colbert was funny should perhaps reflect on the fact that, when Colbert was doing Daily Show faux-interviews with podunk town mayors and such, there probably wasn't much laughter on the interview set either. But the audience watching the interview later certainly find it funny.

Posted by: Jon H at May 8, 2006 02:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

They should also consider that perhaps it's the case that the butt of Colbert's jokes who don't find them funny.

Posted by: Barry at May 8, 2006 03:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

Respect a POTUS who does a "looking for WMD" routine years earlier, GHWB doesn't deserve respect after that shameless video. I thought Colbert's satire was great, it was directed at the whole audience, press and politicians.

Posted by: Rudi at May 8, 2006 04:39 PM | Permalink to this comment

If you haven't seen it, here's another place to watch it.

http://sharperthandull.blogspot.com/2006/05/dropping-c-bomb.html

Posted by: GaggleofDeerTM at May 8, 2006 07:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Shameless \| Main \| Too Little, Too Late? » May 07, 2006 Colbert A word on Colbert's recent gig down in DC. I admit to having mixed feelings, to a fashion. I think the Office of the President of the United States deserves some respect. After all, deep down, is it really a happy occasion when we feel the occupant merits such round mockery? Was it Nietzsche who said "a joke is an epigram on the death of a feeling"? The 'feeling' here, of course, being basic respect for our governing class. But it would be old-fashioned and boring of me, wouldn't it, in our brave new post-Watergate/Monica/Hookergate world of incessant cable news cycles, often ginned up faux crises, 24 hour blog blather, and so on--to harken back to ye olde days when the press corps merrily ran about 'in the sack' with Jack Kennedy and Washington was a clubbier, more discreet town? The reality is, amidst the fevered media cycles, politicans have become all too naked and human, and their foibles and mediocrity and weaknesses come into starker and starker relief to anyone with half a brain (I wonder who the 25% percent of those still supporting this Republican Congress are? It's as baffling to me as the roughly similar amount of people who still support, say, Chirac.) But perhaps large swaths of an Oprah-fied nation like the cycles of rise to power and fall to disgrace, what with the 'inspirational' windows of opportunity afforded by possible 'redemption' and such. Regardless, and balanced against my discomfort at POTUS being roundly mocked to his face, I end up on the pro-Colbert side of the fence. This is mostly because Bush dwells in an absurdly tight bubble. Cheney and Rummy are still in denial, big time, on the situation in Iraq. So to the extent people can shake the President out of such bubble-slumber, I've got to err on the side of a harsh ribbing here and there. If there are no wise men to do the hard task of persuading Bush that a massive re-org of the White House is urgently required, if too many reporters are dim, pliant ignoramuses (watching domestic CNN is a painful, nightly train-wreck, lacking even the brasher theater of the absurd comedy Fox affords), or have become appendages of the governing apparatus (creeping Woodwardism, let's call it), I'll take comedians trying to communicate to him that his Adminstration is degenerating into something of a joke. If it has come to this, so be it. P.S. And was the Colbert routine funny, another pressing question occupying the national discourse of late? It was rather long (especially the Helen Thomas--Colbert fiddling with his car keys- Amtrak up to New York burlesque), and yeah maybe not that funny in parts. Bridgeses routine (the Bush impersonation) hit the right Washington notes better. DC is a one-industry company town still, and Colbert's peculiar and highly ironic schtick of posing as faith-based righty didn't play particularly well in the serried ranks of Washington officialdom. So I sensed the tone was rather off-putting to the assembled crowd, probably as it struck pretty close to the bone and was more New York in its aggressive 'in your face' vibe. Good. Posted by Gregory at May 7, 2006 06:09 PM \| TrackBack (0) Comments It seems to me that another way of looking at it is, if Bush wasn't such a colossal failure, Colbert wouldn't be saying these things. If Bush hadn't, as you said, stamped his foot and whined, "I'm the decider,", claimed he never looks at polls, doesn't need to read the newspapers, done his heroic landing on the aircraft carrier, did his own where's-the-WMDs schtick, etc., then Colbert wouldn't be able to make fun of all those things. In exactly the same way that Clinton got and deserved all that grief for not being able to keep his pecker in his pants. It isn't Colbert's fault he had all that material to work with. Posted by: Jake at May 7, 2006 08:03 PM \| Permalink to this comment If you belive that the Office of the President deserves repect please ask yourself if Bush repects the office? It's really the person that holds the office that we are talking about and to say that you should not speak the truth about that person, or only say it behind his back, is nonesense. Bush has take the Office of the President to new depths and this country with it. Give Colbert credit he said what needed to be said and not one of the so-called Washington Press Corp would or will say it. As a matter of fact they can't even laugh because if they did no invite to the White House Chistmas party. This country and its citizens need to grow up and understand just what is happening. We need to worry a lot more about were we are and where we are going then about a comic not being nice to the President. Or whatever Colbert was to Bush. As for was it funny, humor is always subjective. It's all about the gored ox. Posted by: Hal at May 7, 2006 10:52 PM \| Permalink to this comment I almost did a spit-take all over my monitor when I read the transcript. It may not have played well inside the Beltway but we were howling and pissing ourselves out here in the hinterlands. And given the target rich environment that the Bush Presidency provides, I actually think Colbert showed admirable restraint. Posted by: jim in austin at May 7, 2006 11:45 PM \| Permalink to this comment I think we all share Mr. Colbert's vision of an America with a government worthy of all its snarky hipsters. But seriously, folks....fulsome, even cloying praise of politicians by their supporters is just part of life in a democracy (just as even more fulsome and vastly more cloying praise of dictators is part of life in a dictatorship). It has always irritated me, though, that criticism of President Bush (and for that matter of other prominent elected officials) by other politicians is always so formulaic, couched in stylized language that no one uses in actual conversation and using pedestrian rhetorical devices like alliteration and rhyming whenever possible. And it's never personal at all. This kind of criticism is safe. The media pick it up without cavil and often without comment. But it doesn't make much of an impact, or establish much of anything about the person making the criticism. It is intensely boring to read, and frustrating in the sense that one suspects those practicing this kind of criticism of keeping their real thoughts to themselves (or, sometimes, of having no real thoughts of their own, which is a different issue). I suppose part of the blame for this can be placed at the doorstep of the communications revolution -- one can't say anything to a select audience anymore without the risk of its being spread around to everyone, and that makes people more cautious about what they say. Part of it, I'm convinced, is Ronald Reagan's fault. A transparently nice guy with vast self-confidence, Reagan made his most determined critics look shrill and mean-spirited even when they were right and he was wrong. Politicians might have taken away from this the lesson that they should try to be more like Reagan; instead they learned that personal criticism always backfires no matter who the target is. Look, it will be no secret to regular readers that I dislike George Bush. Leave aside for the moment questions of policy, process and all the rest of it; I just have never liked the guy. I'm quite sure I wouldn't have liked him if he had never become President. I didn't like his father either (apart from his embodying trends in American politics that I dreaded). Don't care for his mother at all. His daughters aren't really my type. I don't have strong feelings about Laura Bush one way or the other, but that's as good as it gets from me. I don't think I'm the only person who feels this way, or who thinks that some politician's -- any one of them would do -- public rhetoric about the President might reflect this feeling from time to time. Besides, as a matter of political calculation, personal criticism works on this guy (for different reasons, it worked on Clinton too). Bush is not used to it, resents it, and shows this in displays of petulance and inarticulation that are, well, not Presidential. Both McCain and Kerry had this demonstrated to them in person, on television, and never took advantage of it thereafter -- McCain, in 2000, because he was too busy responding to criticism of himself and Kerry because when a line appears to work John Kerry thinks the thing to do is repeat it verbatim over and over again. I don't like Bush, but I don't think he's an idiot. He'd have to be if he let criticism that flustered him in 2004's first debate affect him when it was repeated word for word in both subsequent debates. Really, though, this is not about George Bush. I just think there is a larger place for spite and venom in our public discourse than politicians allow (bloggers and commentators are another matter, but for most of them expressing spite and venom means using a lot of four letter words, ascribing belief in various repugnant European ideologies to politicians they dislike, and things of that nature. There aren't enough junior high school bathroom walls in this country that they have to put that stuff on the Internet?). Would it kill anyone in Washington to observe of the Treasury Secretary, as Jack Germond observed of the elder Bush, that he doesn't cast a shadow? As we wage war against terrorism at home, we surely don't want any sheep in sheep's clothing (Churchill's gibe at Clement Atlee) but no one else gets appointed to head the Department of Homeland Security in this administration. The prospect of Nancy Pelosi assuming command of the House of Representatives practically writes its own lines. Honestly, we have a lot of Americans today who turn for wisdom on current events to comedians. That ought to be a humiliating state of affairs to any politician not desperately insecure about his own position or future and possessed of any spirit. Of course the universe of such politicians today may be quite small. Posted by: Zathras at May 7, 2006 11:54 PM \| Permalink to this comment The people in the audience who didn't think Colbert was funny should perhaps reflect on the fact that, when Colbert was doing Daily Show faux-interviews with podunk town mayors and such, there probably wasn't much laughter on the interview set either. But the audience watching the interview later certainly find it funny. Posted by: Jon H at May 8, 2006 02:51 PM \| Permalink to this comment They should also consider that perhaps it's the case that the butt of Colbert's jokes who don't find them funny. Posted by: Barry at May 8, 2006 03:23 PM \| Permalink to this comment Respect a POTUS who does a "looking for WMD" routine years earlier, GHWB doesn't deserve respect after that shameless video. I thought Colbert's satire was great, it was directed at the whole audience, press and politicians. Posted by: Rudi at May 8, 2006 04:39 PM \| Permalink to this comment If you haven't seen it, here's another place to watch it. http://sharperthandull.blogspot.com/2006/05/dropping-c-bomb.html Posted by: GaggleofDeerTM at May 8, 2006 07:21 PM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Awake" --New York Times "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan "Honorary Chair--American Appeasement Blogs" --Hugh Hewitt Recent Entries Lugar States The Obvious, Yet Again... Water-Boy Central In-House Note Self-Parody Watch Awesome Humor on the Hill! Not Sure It's Making Us Safer, But It's Certainly In the National Security Interest... Anyone at 1600 Penn. Part of the "Brain Trust"? Hey, Just A Casual Lift to Tikrit... Comedy Central: Georgia & The Revolutionary Guards... "See What Might Develop Out of That" Search Search this site: About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda The Blogs Across the Aisle America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Huffington Post Innocents Abroad Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Red State Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias Columnists Anne Applebaum Tony Blankley David Broder David Brooks Roger Cohen Jackson Diehl Maureen Dowd Thomas Friedman Bob Herbert Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland Richard Holbrooke David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Nicholas Kristof Paul Krugman Howard Kurtz Sebastian Mallaby Robert Novak The Reliable Source Frank Rich Mark Steyn John Tierney John Vinocur Washington Whispers George Will Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Law & Finance Barron's Bloomberg Bruce MacEwen Bull and Bear Wise CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog D.C. Toedt DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street The City Curbed Gawker Lockhart Steele NY Magazine Nick Denton NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Walk Through Village Voice Archives September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Syndicate this site: Belgravia Dispatch Maintained by: www.vikeny.com Powered by

	© 2007 Belgravia Dispatch