Democracy Needs Colbert

Before the 2000 catastrophe surrounding hanging chads and butterfly ballots, few people were watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart or knew its veteran correspondent Stephen Colbert. Since then, however, the two comedians have come to be recognized by Time Magazine as among the most influential figures in American politics. Politicians have become eager to be special guests on their shows, indicating the perceived power these two men have over a contingent of relatively young, often disillusioned voters.

Oftentimes these appearances come across as a little cynical: Candidates seem too clearly to be vying for the “Colbert bump,” which Mr. Colbert claims launched Governor Mike Huckabee to his meteoric fame. At the same time, nevertheless, the shows’ political guests often end up genuinely having fun (or being the object of it), and showing a lighter side to politics that will helpfully get Americans more civically active.

For Americans who are used to seeing—or, judging by ratings, not seeing—their aspiring leaders interviewed on policy questions by stern news anchors, guest appearances on talk shows and comedy programs are often a more interesting and sometimes more informative alternative.

This is not to make the mistake of understanding shows like Stewart’s as mere expository news programs. For example, Sarah Palin’s appearance on Saturday Night Live did not exactly enlighten the audience about her feelings about Alaska Senator Ted Stevens’s downfall, and Michelle Obama’s stop by The Daily Show was more superficial and light-hearted than any conversation she might have with Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News.

In this manner at least, politicians’ appearances on comedy programs do ring a little false, as they make Machiavellian attempts to seriously embed a message in an otherwise frilly half-hour of television, meant for the listless 18-to-24 voting bloc.

However, once on the show, the aspirant leaders of men are submitted to a trying test—of their sense of humor. Mrs. Obama’s ability to keep up with Stewart’s (admittedly friendly) shtick with soft comic jabs of her own at her husband’s expense humanized both her and her husband. When former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich took on a challenge, joking his way through an early endorsement of Governor Sarah Palin in September, the effect was much the same.

In this way, even the less-substantive interviews on comedy programs achieve a higher end: They lower the barrier between the population at large and the lofty political elite. One of the factors in low voter turnout in the United States has been a too-strong distinction between everyday life and the conduct of government, a psychological chasm separating voter from candidate. If humor and banter can serve as a vehicle for making the electorate think about the issues of our time and take a stake in their government, then our culture should not hesitate to make use of that vehicle.

Hopefully, voters will not simply vote for a candidate because he or she has appeared on a particular TV show, but rather will be motivated to seriously reconsider politics with a little less apathy and resentment. Most Americans don’t get to meet their politicians, and the television set or the internet are, however imperfect, our greatest tools for allowing the denizens of “Main Street” to learn more about what’s happening in the ivory towers of Washington. While we cannot guarantee that politicians’ appearances on comedy shows will lead to higher ratings or more informed votes, it has certainly created an interesting new avenue for voters to learn more about their leaders.


Nafees A. Syed ’10, a Crimson editorial writer, is a government concentrator in Leverett House.