Wag of the Finger

Stephen Colbert’s short-lived presidential campaign has hit a major roadblock. Just weeks after the host of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report” announced that he would run in his home state of South Carolina—both as a Democrat and as a Republican—an executive committee has denied his bid to get on the ballot.

Colbert was able to file the necessary paperwork and $2,500 check to enter into the South Carolina Democratic Primary, but the serious-minded state Democratic Party refused to certify him, rejecting his application by a vote of 13-3. Party Chairwoman Carol X. Fowler told the New York Times that Colbert failed to meet the basic requirements “that the person be generally acknowledged or recognized by the media as a viable nationwide candidate; and be actively campaigning for the South Carolina primary.”

Perhaps these South Carolina Democrats should take a closer look, because Steven Colbert is the most viable candidate out there. At least, he is according to Facebook.com.

Colbert’s candidacy has taken Facebook by storm: “1,000,000 Strong For Steven T. Colbert” is the largest political group on Facebook, boasting over 1.4 million members (which, interestingly, is more than 10 times the number of people who voted for the winner of the 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary, John Edwards). And if it continues to grow at anywhere near its current rate, it will soon become the largest group on the entire social networking site.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama had no trouble getting onto the South Carolina ballot, yet it took his Facebook group, “Barack Obama: 1,000,000 Strong for Barack” eight months to garner 381,000 members. Colbert’s had 750,000 in less than a week.

Facebook isn’t the best measure of serious political sentiment in the country—probably not many of Colbert’s 1.4 million Facebook backers intend to cast a vote for Steven come primary day. But the unprecedented level of support for him speaks volumes about the popular perception of presidential politics. Colbert is a satirist who mocks the system—his entire character is a self-parodying illusion. The fact that a “fake” candidacy can generate so much more enthusiasm than any of the various “real” candidacies out there reveals the extent of the disgust many people, especially young people, feel for politics.

Colbert’s candidacy may be more publicity stunt than anything else, but the sentiment behind it is genuine. This mock-run is not the first manifestation of a surprisingly widespread desire to put Colbert or his fellow fake news show host Jon Stewart in the White House. (A popular line of “Stewart-Colbert ’08” t-shirts already surfaced earlier this fall.) Certainly the belief that Colbert and Stewart could fix the nation’s political woes is a fantasy, but perhaps it’s a more compelling fantasy than the slogans and clichés offered by any of the other campaigns. When you watch Colbert or Stewart’s satire of the political process they seem to recognize something very fundamental about the state of political discourse that no pandering politician can grasp.

Colbert makes you think and he has a real contribution to make to political dialogue—at least as much as other long-shot Democratic hopefuls like Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich do. So let your native son back on the ballot, South Carolina! This is, after all, a man who “tripled” the population of African elephants by getting his viewers to alter their Wikipedia page. Just think of what he can do for Iraq.

Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Adams House.