Satire

**The Impact of Satire: Two Opposing Views on Colbert**

So, is Stephen Colbert a brilliant comedian with a knack for exposing the flaws in the American political system? Or is he a troublemaker whose sole aims are to mock the system or promote a partisan political agenda? During a January 20, 2012, [|forum at Winthrop University], NBC News political director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd expressed his concerns that Colbert's actions have only served to increase cynicism about the American political process. He also claims they might promote an anti-Republican agenda: > "He is making a mockery of the system," Todd said. "....Is it fair to the process? Yes, the process is a mess, but he's doing it in a way that feels like he's trying to influence it with his own agenda and that may be anti-Republican." > "What is his real agenda here?" [Todd added]. "Is it to educate the public about the dangers of money and politics, and what's going on? Or is it simply to marginalize the Republican Party? I think if I were a Republican candidate I would be concerned about that." Meanwhile, others - such as // [|Philadelphia Inquirer] // columnist Dick Polman - argue that a good dose of ridicule is just what the American political system needs to bring its absurdities into focus. He writes: > No dose of humor could leave us feeling sunny about a slimy Republican campaign that's awash in unprecedented cash, thanks to a US Supreme Court ruling that has rendered the process farcical. But [Mark] Twain rightfully suggests it's mentally healthy to laugh at life's idiocies, that humor can tamp down irritations if we view them through the prism of farce.

> Which is why Stephen Colbert, a latter-day Twain and mock presidential candidate, is so valuable these days. Absurdism may be the only effective way to expose the absurdities of campaign finance laws. The laws have become so ludicrous that they require a satirist to unpack them in the pursuit of truth (or, as he calls it, "truthiness").

The subject is open for debate, and each viewer can make up his or her own mind: Are Stephen Colbert's adventures in politics an effective form of satire? Or is he just cynically mocking the system and promoting an anti-Republican agenda?

**For Discussion:** **1.** Do students have any questions about the reading? How might they be answered? **2.** What do you think of Stephen Colbert's Super PAC? Do you think it is funny? Is it educational? Is it designed to support a particular political agenda? **3.** Critics of Colbert suggest that humor can increase cynicism about our political system. Do you think that this is a danger? **4.** Can you think of other examples of political satire, from either the past or present?

**Homework assignment**

**Comparing Political Satirists: Swift and Colbert**

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">One of the most widely read and influential works of political satire is Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal." Published in 1729, this essay took on the issue of poverty in Ireland. Ask students to read Swift's essay and then view the clips of Colbert's programs that are embedded in the above readings. Compare and contrast the two works of satire.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Swift's essay is available in the public domain at the following link:

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> []