Colbert whores for the U.S. empire

[OP ED]

chigger, I think you've got the wrong emphasis. I mean that COLBERT decided to go there because the TROOPS are American. HE'S engaging in jingoism.

And I just watched it, too (or the first 10 minutes of it).

No.

Stephen Colbert is full-time-Character-Acting [Alice Cooper] a Jingoistic Stereotype. [almost always]

his methods have proven fruitful. moreso than marginalisation ever accomplished anyone. he makes extremely wide exposure of the obvious and universal chinks in the armor of the Machine. Vulnerable places which a clever aftercomer with a more narrow focus and less corporate sponsorship can exploit to great effect if said aftercomer be so inclined. i suppose he could be doing something more worthwhile, such as surfing the internet and marching in designated "free-speech zones".

also:

the TROOPS are not your enemy. They are only resposible for following their own rules in a particular theatre. They're not responsible for deciding what the rules are and/or how those rules are enforced nor are they the deciders of which theatre they've been scheduled to play in. These decisions are those of the american citizenry, ultimately, always. And they share responsibilities in that sense only equal to that of any other citizen with the ability to interact with the will of the state. The United States supposedly takes great pride in this state of affairs but rarely does its citizenry treat this responsibility responsibly.

furthermore ignoring the soldiery when taking stock of one's allies may be a grave mistake. the very fact that they are soldiers means that their opposition, both as soldiers who understand and wish to avoid implication in war crimes and/or as citizens whose politics move them towards more effective political means of achieving international goals (etc) is a highly profitible alignment for activism of many sorts. Soldiers can and do stop wars, and eventually, if you don't: they will. Mostly by dying. I'd personally rather it didn't have to happen that way.

why cannot we take this fucking seriously?

if you really want peace in Iraq and Afghanistan what you're going to need is either a million and a half soldiers in the theatre or one tenth that many in the anti-drama movement.

decide.

[stickdog99]

What a load of divide and conquer nonsense.

Sadly, Colbert currently serves as the intellectual conscience of the nation.

I'm fairly certain that Jonathan Swift had detractors who felt he was a sell out as well.

[Avalon]

“I know his persona is all pro-American,” Lieutenant Klempan said, trying to explain the math of Stephen Colbert and “Stephen Colbert” and which one of them had come for what reason. Finally he gave up.

“I’m glad either one of them showed up,” he said.

-- from the New York Times article

[RocketMan]

Raw Story on Colbert's Iraq appearance

Caught in a simplistic black-and-white, Manichean, non-productive mindset as I am, this still makes me extremely uncomfortable. One of the awkward highlights was suggesting that the U.S. army could help straighten out things back home, too. Which is actually a viable proposition now that Posse Comitatus no longer applies.

on edit: Obama does deadpan like it's no one else's bidness! Props for that.

[bks]

OP ED wrote:
Stephen Colbert is full-time-Character-Acting [Alice Cooper] a Jingoistic Stereotype. [almost always]

In his decision to entertain the troops USO-style, Colbert (not the character) has materially becomes part of the war effort, whatever his character might say that is critical of it. He introduced a general to a cheering audiences of troops. That was not satire. He also made fun of the destruction of Iraq (very bad taste) and, yes, also made some pointedly critical comments of the military.

The Army isn't in the business of giving anti-war dissidents an audience with its front-line troops, is it? Yet there was Colbert. The brass understood they had little reason to feel threatened by whatever he might say, and they were right. To its right-wing constituency, the Army comes out of this looking like the reasonable ones.

his methods have proven fruitful. moreso than marginalisation ever accomplished anyone. he makes extremely wide exposure of the obvious and universal chinks in the armor of the Machine. Vulnerable places which a clever aftercomer with a more narrow focus and less corporate sponsorship can exploit to great effect if said aftercomer be so inclined. i suppose he could be doing something more worthwhile, such as surfing the internet and marching in designated "free-speech zones".

Nice false dichotomy there at the end, but I'll bite anyway: surfing the internet is at least a self-directed activity. Television-watching never is. And television shows are not subversive. They don't help people organize or raise collective consciousness. On balance, they function as anesthesia.

To me, Stephen Colbert is the one marching in a designated 'free-speech' zone. It's called 'cable TV'. You can almost anything you want there without worry that anyone will hear you or that anything useful will come out of it. I don't see that he has 'accomplished' anything, in terms of political goals. He's not fully marginalized, I agree, but what has his still-relatively-tiny amount of celebrity exposure gotten those who are critics of US foreign policy? The price for inhabiting the small slice of TV-land he can call his, is giving up truly radical critique, a price he pretty willingly pays, it seems to me.

I grant the point (made elsewhere) about the complexity of the court jester's historical position, and that humor is not easily tamed. Yet by going to Iraq and entertaining the troops, Colbert helped, in a small but symbolically important way, make an absolutely intolerable situation seem a bit more tolerable, for both the viewing audience and the troops on the ground (though in different senses of 'tolerable' of course).

the TROOPS are not your enemy. They are only resposible for following their own rules in a particular theatre. They're not responsible for deciding what the rules are and/or how those rules are enforced nor are they the deciders of which theatre they've been scheduled to play in.

This is a complex matter. I would argue that the troops are also responsible for their own conduct, which often violates the written rules of conduct used to help sell war in the public mind. Yes, this too is a product of military culture, and while that culture is the primary agent in determining behavior, it's not the last word.

Concerning the morale of troops fighting in a nakedly criminal, ruinous war, it's not an easy question. I understand they are kids. My nephew was a Marine before getting kicked out of the service. But it is very difficult to disjoin the improving of morale with aiding the war effort.

The question is: why get involved at ALL with this business? I gave you the answer earlier: it's because those are American troops, and Colbert is playing to an American audience. In other words, because he IDENTIFIES in some form with THIS conflict, not some other one with other troops he could be entertaining.

These decisions are those of the american citizenry, ultimately, always. And they share responsibilities in that sense only equal to that of any other citizen with the ability to interact with the will of the state. The United States supposedly takes great pride in this state of affairs but rarely does its citizenry treat this responsibility responsibly.

This is an important matter. Short of armed resistance or renunciation of citizenship, what would you accept as 'treating this responsibility responsibly.'? Partisan politics obviously cannot change it. Voting cannot change it. The best approach, radical organizing, routinely gets infiltrated and the threat of long prison sentences and other unpleasantness makes it dangerous for those willing to do it. It still has to be done, but we've evolved into a post-democratic state here in the US where only the ceremonial aspects of democracy are left.

In prosecuting these invasions, US leaders are not enacting the will of the people. It's just that there is insufficient political will to storm the palace, admittedly in part because the middle class DOES benefit greatly from US imperialism. Economically, I mean. In terms of spirit, imperialism is absolutely ruinous and will bring the end of this country.


[edited to remove some unintended snark]

[RocketMan]

The question is: why get involved at ALL with this business? I gave you the answer earlier: it's because those are American troops, and Colbert is playing to an American audience. In other words, because he IDENTIFIES in some form with THIS conflict, not some other one with other troops he could be entertaining.

Well said.

I have been thinking that if Colbert had to go to Iraq, he could have done approximately the same to Barack Obama as what he did to Bush (and why should Obama be spared unsanitized satire?) by appearing in front of an Iraqi audience and playing his jingoistic American to the hilt, and perhaps praising Obama for the stunning advance of the cause of civilization in Iraq.

[Nordic]

I have been thinking that if Colbert had to go to Iraq, he could have done approximately the same to Barack Obama as what he did to Bush (and why should Obama be spared unsanitized satire?) by appearing in front of an Iraqi audience and playing his jingoistic American to the hilt, and perhaps praising Obama for the stunning advance of the cause of civilization in Iraq.

Again, you're projecting what you want him to be. He's not you.

How many times do we see this in forums. "Here's what Obama should have said" type posts.

[chiggerbit]

Mac said:

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:
chiggerbit wrote:

.....
...I'm not going to use my neighbors kids who were over there as political punching bags.

Sometimes a seed can drop in the most inhospitable enviroment, but still manage to grow with a minimum of nutrients.
.....


[Hugh said]
Well said.



[Mac said]

The thread is not about chiggerbit, her neighbours or her neighbours' kids, and it's surely perfectly obvious that nobody is asking her to use those kids as punching bags, either literally or metaphorically.

~sigh~ Mac, you totally missed Hugh's subtle poke in the ribs.

[Penguin]

I grant the point (made elsewhere) about the complexity of the court jester's historical position, and that humor is not easily tamed. Yet by going to Iraq and entertaining the troops, Colbert helped, in a small but symbolically important way, make an absolutely intolerable situation seem a bit more tolerable, for both the viewing audience and the troops on the ground (though in different senses of 'tolerable' of course).

Exactly how I see it.

[RocketMan]

Again, you're projecting what you want him to be. He's not you.

It's not "projecting" to propose an alternate scenario to what amounts to propaganda and the soft sell of a continued American imperial presence in Iraq. It empties the concept of any meaning if it's used every time someone proposes an alternative course of action.

Am I creating for myself some kind of fantasy Obama tulpa when I say I wish he would withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan? That may very well be a pipe dream and a large dose of wishful thinking, but it's not projection. It is its own brand of hopelessness to declare that Obama (or Colbert) is the best we have, and since he's operating within the strictures of an ages old imperial machine, we have no right to "project" our own fanciful hopes on him. What a crock.

[Nordic]

Colbert going to Iraq and getting his head shaved (which put him in the news headlines) reminded everybody in America that we STILL HAVE troops in Iraq.

The news media has basically forgotten about them. Conveniently.

In that respect alone, it's a good thing.

It's a reminder, also, that Obama hasn't exactly come through on his promises (lies) to get the troops out of Iraq, too.

[RocketMan]

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree about the meaning and perception of Colbert's visit. I certainly Hope(tm) you're right and I'm wrong.

[OP ED]

The price for inhabiting the small slice of TV-land he can call his, is giving up truly radical critique, a price he pretty willingly pays, it seems to me.

indeed. freedom isn't free.

as i suggested above, it wouldn't be useful if he was radical. no center-right person would listen to him, at all because he wouldn't have a tv show, if he was an outright radical. Without someone to introduce a sanitized radicalism to the center right, they'd never be prepared when the real thing hits them. Colbert is better than 4 years of university in that regard. I've personally seen this, his effect on the centrists and floaters, have positive benefits. Of course, someone has to be willing to talk to them, as he does, to achieve anything.

i can tell you specific stories wherein his "comedy" has opened doors to turn centrists and soldiers in a different direction, if you like, from my personal experiences at the University of Michigan.

[ex: the first IVAW person i ever met was wearing a Colbert "I am America" t-shirt]

[point is that the "military culture" doesn't get indoctrinated into a person in a day, so why all the nonsense thinking that "radical activism" can somehow accomplish this? why not accept that people have to wade into a paradigm shift? the military understood this decades ago, and until you catch up with theory, your practice will be losing]

The question is: why get involved at ALL with this business? I gave you the answer earlier: it's because those are American troops, and Colbert is playing to an American audience. In other words, because he IDENTIFIES in some form with THIS conflict, not some other one with other troops he could be entertaining.

nonsense. one doesn't have to identify with a conflict to identify with the TROOPS. i know i don't. and i do identify with them. having spent the first half of my life on military bases, many of them are friends of mine. I have two good friends, in particular, in Iraq right now. They both joined for college funds, in summer '01. Hell one of them said to me he had no fear of war because "who'd be crazy enough to start a war with us now?". [answer: the CIA, but how's he supposed to know that at 17?] This fella, btw, maintains he's never fired a weapon in theatre. [although his unit has taken fire] He is an engineer. He went there to build schools and try to get the power back on.

if Colbert made his day better, fantastic. After all, he wouldn't be there if it had been his choice to go or not. It wasn't. It was OURS. i'll get to that below.

This is an important matter. Short of armed resistance or renunciation of citizenship, what would you accept as 'treating this responsibility responsibly.'? Partisan politics obviously cannot change it. Voting cannot change it. The best approach, radical organizing, routinely gets infiltrated and the threat of long prison sentences and other unpleasantness makes it dangerous for those willing to do it. It still has to be done, but we've evolved into a post-democratic state here in the US where only the ceremonial aspects of democracy are left.

more nonsense. Democracy IS NEVER anything but ceremonial. It cannot be, because NOTHING can ever truly represent ALL of our views. It never has been. Never will be. I disagree with your simplistic overview of the options available. Radical activism seems to be a good way to get yourself marginalised. I'd much prefer to talk to my enemies. Like those pacifists go on about all the time. If you want to represent the will of the people, being marginalised doesn't cut it. You need the people to agree with you or you're as unrepresentative as the "post-democratic state". Your problem is you're thinking of those who disagree with you as obstacles rather than potential allies. That is partisan nonsense. Do not fall for it.

In prosecuting these invasions, US leaders are not enacting the will of the people. It's just that there is insufficient political will to storm the palace, admittedly in part because the middle class DOES benefit greatly from US imperialism. Economically, I mean. In terms of spirit, imperialism is absolutely ruinous and will bring the end of this country.

i disagree. the polls suggested most americans were OK with the war when it started. That fault belongs to US and our passive acceptance of status quo. The soliders are our superiors in this sense, as they NEVER merely accept these things as inevitable. They go out of their way to indoctrinate and propogandize to alter the opinions of their opponents. We should be doing likewise.

[bks]

OP ED wrote:

Without someone to introduce a sanitized radicalism to the center right, they'd never be prepared when the real thing hits them. Colbert is better than 4 years of university in that regard. I've personally seen this, his effect on the centrists and floaters, have positive benefits. Of course, someone has to be willing to talk to them, as he does, to achieve anything.

Good point, one I don't think I gave enough consideration to.

bks wrote
The question is: why get involved at ALL with this business? I gave you the answer earlier: it's because those are American troops, and Colbert is playing to an American audience. In other words, because he IDENTIFIES in some form with THIS conflict, not some other one with other troops he could be entertaining.

OP ED responded:
nonsense. one doesn't have to identify with a conflict to identify with the TROOPS. i know i don't. and i do identify with them. having spent the first half of my life on military bases, many of them are friends of mine. I have two good friends, in particular, in Iraq right now. They both joined for college funds, in summer '01. Hell one of them said to me he had no fear of war because "who'd be crazy enough to start a war with us now?". [answer: the CIA, but how's he supposed to know that at 17?] This fella, btw, maintains he's never fired a weapon in theatre. [although his unit has taken fire] He is an engineer. He went there to build schools and try to get the power back on.

if Colbert made his day better, fantastic. After all, he wouldn't be there if it had been his choice to go or not. It wasn't.

Are you seriously saying that this engineer at age 17 literally had no agency wrt the decision to join the military? As if that's the only way for a person of his academic ability to get the money for college?

He might have gone to Iraq with the INTENTION of building schools and getting the power back on, but upon arriving he was expected to do as he's told, in service of empire. He might have thought otherwise going in, and may STILL DO otherwise, but that will be because of his own agency. So let's not deny he has any, ok? Soldiers desert. Others, horribly, demonstrate just how much agency they have and kill themselves.

In Vietnam, soldiers had another very effective way of demonstrating their own agency. It played a big part in ending the war.

Democracy IS NEVER anything but ceremonial. It cannot be, because NOTHING can ever truly represent ALL of our views. It never has been. Never will be. I disagree with your simplistic overview of the options available. Radical activism seems to be a good way to get yourself marginalised. I'd much prefer to talk to my enemies. Like those pacifists go on about all the time. If you want to represent the will of the people, being marginalised doesn't cut it. You need the people to agree with you or you're as unrepresentative as the "post-democratic state".

You're going back and forth here. You say nothing can represent all of our views (obviously), so democracy is always ceremonial (which is doesn't follow at all - it's always representative, but that's very different from ceremonial), but then you're concerned about having the right veneer to represent the will of the people?

If your point was limited to the fact that radicals look too shaggy to 'normal' people and that it's hard to get center-right types behind them, well, no shit. But you're wrong if you think it's the substance of 'radical politics' that gets radicals marginalized. People ALREADY agree. It's the image, or more precisely, the way progressives/radicals are presented to mass society that ensures they will be marginalized. Presented the right way, and without the corporate media's vilification, you could get people behind a very progressive/radical agenda pretty quickly.

But see, that's not going to happen within the current media system. Absolutely cannot and won't. Fix the media first, or else it goes nowhere.

Your problem is you're thinking of those who disagree with you as obstacles rather than potential allies. That is partisan nonsense. Do not fall for it.

Case by case, OP ED. I'm willing to talk to my political enemies, but only if there's an actual conversation to be had. And I'm not going to take part in a dysfunctional relationship. There is NO discussion to be had with the Hannitys, Limbaughs and other reactionary blathersphere bigots. Their language toward liberals and leftists isn't just hostile, it's violent. Attempting to have a conversation with them is pathological. For one thing, THEY certainly aren't interested in real discussion, because their minds are closed. For another, they forfeited the opportunity to discuss anything with me until basic respect is re-established.

As for those in the center-right who are still available for conversation, I take your point, and it's there where I think people like Colbert CAN help seed the ground. Have Colbert and Jon Stewart, through their form of creative dialogue with the center-right, achieved a softening of public political rhetoric? A greater openness to progressive viewpoints? What?

the polls suggested most americans were OK with the war when it started. That fault belongs to US and our passive acceptance of status quo. The soliders are our superiors in this sense, as they NEVER merely accept these things as inevitable. They go out of their way to indoctrinate and propogandize to alter the opinions of their opponents. We should be doing likewise.

Polls are often dogshit, and whatever support for the war there WAS, was aided GREATLY by a propaganda offensive here in the US. Much of which, of course, turned out to be abject bullshit lies, as many of us knew at the time.

You're also conflating soldiers with military brass here. Soldiers are TARGETS of indoctrination and propaganda, just as are their military enemies. Soldiers are deeply indoctrinated.
[/i]

[stickdog99]

Colbert's "The Word" is often the single best 4 minutes on television each week.

Yesterday's was not as subversive as most, but "Why Are You Here?" was a perfect and typical ending.