STEPHEN COLBERT is running for president. In South Carolina. Maybe. Anything the ironic pundit says should of course be taken with a grain of salt, but according to a New York Times article yesterday, Colbert has talked to party leaders in the state and it seems -- at least for now -- he seriously intends to get his name on the ballot. If he manages that -- and there are some significant obstacles -- his candidacy, though it might slightly distort election results, could be one of the best things to happen to American political discourse in recent memory.
Let's say he overcomes those obstacles and winds up on the ballot. What effect will that have on the race? Colbert probably won't get enough votes to have a major impact on the race and he unfortunately has no chance at winning, especially since he's only running in one state. Even if he does win a delegate or two, that probably won't affect the outcome of the race in the long run. Still, he could have a Nader-like effect by "stealing" votes from one of the front-runners. With so few voters in primary elections and so many candidates, even a small change in the balance of power could matter. It's conceivable that his candidacy could actually change the results of the South Carolina primary. Because that primary is an early one, the winner gains vital momentum. It's not difficult to imagine a scenario in which some candidate can gain a real advantage from the Colbert candidacy.
Since Colbert is entering the primary race and not the general election, he won't "steal" votes from any party. In fact, it will be interesting to see which candidates could lose voters to Colbert. I would imagine that the kinds of voters willing to cast a vote for a long-shot like Colbert are those that are extremely disillusioned with the political establishment. If they didn't vote for Colbert, they might not vote at all -- or they might vote for those candidates who seem to present an alternative to that establishment. The most obvious of these candidates would be Ron Paul, whose supporters apparently don't mind using their vote for a mostly symbolic protest against the mainstream of the Republican Party. But more popular candidates like Barack Obama, whose strength lies in his status as a relative newcomer, might also be slightly hurt by the Colbert candidacy.
Of course these scenarios are all unlikely and probably inconsequential. The real effect that Colbert can hope to have on the race is to raise the level of discourse beyond the campaigns' platitudes and pandering. Colbert has an incredibly ability to speak truth to power. He not only has a knack for identifying and articulating the failures and hypocrisies of American politics -- whether it's Clinton's horrible attempt at a southern accent or Fox News's ridiculous comparison of Obama's missing flag pin and Bill Clinton's affair -- he has also demonstrated that he is not afraid to confront politicians face-to-face. At the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, Colbert -- without breaking character -- gave a keynote address that harshly condemned the media and the Bush administration, all while Bush sat just a few feet from him.
Which is why Colbert should not only be allowed to run, but should be allowed to debate. In his conservative pundit character, Colbert can throw the other candidates off-balance and get them to break their own carefully constructed characters. He can demolish the scripted, calculated nature of the race and, through caricature, can make the candidates answer for their own ridiculousness. I can see nothing but good resulting from a tangible Colbert presence in the race, even if it's not as a legitimate candidate.
But before this column ends, I feel I have to address one last issue. In his announcement on Wednesday, Colbert considered who he would want as a running mate. Specifically, he mentioned three possible tickets: Colbert-Huckabee, Colbert-Putin, and Colbert-Colbert -- the latter being pronounced phonetically. I can only assume he meant me. He's right to feel that would be a "strong ticket." My presence on the ticket would draw attention away from the fact that he pronounces his name like a cowardly, socialist, snail-eating Frenchman. But unfortunately, I must decline the invitation, since I'm too young to legally be vice-president. Unless, of course, he can get me a really good fake ID.
Daniel Colbert is a Cavalier Daily Opinion editor. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 4 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
