Stephen Colbert’s short-lived campaign for the presidency, despite its obvious shortfall of being a joke, did surprisingly well in college circles, as Colbert himself bragged that his Facebook group surpassed that of actual candidate Barack Obama virtually overnight.
This might not be surprising. While most Democrats joining Facebook groups related to their candidate are prone to split themselves up among the various “Support our Candidate” groups, all probably joined the Colbert group, realizing his candidacy was unlikely to translate into policy. A good number of Republicans probably did so also, entertained by Colbert’s satire. A large number probably actually supported Colbert, finding he was the best candidate.
As funny as Colbert’s Doritos-sponsored campaign was, it might be the most serious thing to happen this year in American presidential politics.
To me, the race has been incredibly frustrating. Since the midterm, I’ve been hit with questions from friends about who I’m supporting for president. I do appreciate engagement and interest in discussing the decision that will help shape America’s future, but the excessive media coverage and almost sport-like obsession with this extended presidential contest is simply nauseating.
There are the Democratic candidates, who are largely a group of anti-war activists who originally voted for the war. This generalization has a few exceptions – front-runner Barack Obama and, well, let’s say, “underdog” Dennis Kucinich. I humbly suggest to today’s Democrats this simple test to determine your favorite candidate: If they voted for the war, they’re out. You’ll be surprised how much this narrows the field. My problem with the pro-war vote back in however long ago this nonsense began is not the supposed “hypocrisy.” The fact that someone might be a hypocrite doesn’t make their argument any less true. So it’s usually poor argumentative reasoning to point out a hypocrite, no matter how much fun it might be.
I would even argue that the most irritating refrain of the whole 2004 debauchery was the “flip-flop” accusations of the Republicans. Not only did it sound like material out of a middle school play, it also carried no argumentative weight. Of course politicians should change their minds in light of new information. There are few reasonable people who don’t do that. A Democrat who voted for the war and hasn’t changed their mind given the outcome would probably at this point no longer be a Democrat, or simply would be crazy.
But my problem with the pro-war vote by Democratic front-runners is actually the lack of foresight it demonstrated. While it is arguable they were duped by the administration, and the outcome couldn’t be expected, or they never expected the president to actually go to war when they told him he could, there were still a good many Democratic senators, not to mention congressmen, who seemed to see through the BS. Among them was Oregon’s own Ron Wyden, who voted against the measure, and Russ Feingold, the Wisconsin badass made famous by standing alone against the ill thought-out PATRIOT Act only weeks after Sept. 11, 2001. If so many could see something was wrong with the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of 2002,” why couldn’t they? (An “Authorization” is what passes for “Declaration of War” these days – God forbid we actually take this war seriously enough to declare it.)
In the other corner, there are the Republicans. For the most part, they tend to be people who believe this war is the greatest fight of our lives, but still don’t have the balls to levy taxes, initiate a draft, ration supplies, or ask for any realistic sacrifice by the whole American people. I think this is because they know our best chances of having the political support necessary to win is to not really ask for commitment to something as grave as real war.
I generally agree with Republican views on the right to bear arms, restraining government waste, and limiting the federal jurisdiction, yet unfortunately there’s hardly a Republican in the running today who would actually maintain this agenda (again, a few exceptions exist: libertarian Ron Paul and, on good days, John McCain). The otherwise libertarian, fiscally conservative Republican seems to be co-opted by either a loud minority of social conservatives or, perhaps more fearfully, some crazed post-Sept. 11 bloodlust that consists in national security through the less effective but more vengefully gratifying means of torture, wiretapping, detainment without charge, patriotism as a weapon and so on and so forth.
And so, given the insanity of federal politics, I’ve tried to keep myself sane by staying away from them. I’ll surely vote in the presidential primary, I’d just rather not decide until at most two months before I cast it (Oregon doesn’t vote until late May, meaning I have until um, next March to decide on the race that’s been going on for a year). With this big a mess, it’s no wonder Stephen Colbert got the early vote.
[email protected]
Colbert’s appeal underscores seriousness of political crisis
Daily Emerald
November 12, 2007
0
More to Discover