I am a fan of Steven Colbert (and his twin brother, Jon Stewart). That includes Colbert’s satirical congressional testimony last week about migrant workers. I am not a fan of the Tea Party movement. But there is unexpected linkage between the two.
“It turns out – and I did not know this – most soil is at ground level!” Colbert says Friday, ridiculing those whose only exposure to migrant laborers consists of driving by their fields at 60 mph.
Colbert’s fan base does not include many of the panel.
“I’m asking you to leave the committee room,” says Rep. John Conyers (D) at the outset, treating Colbert like a hippie at a debutante party. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) later calls Colbert’s satire “inappropriate.”
“Maybe we should be spending less time watching Comedy Central and more time considering all the real jobs that are out there,” says Rep. Steve King (R), ignoring the increase in outsourcing of farming to Mexico and Brazil due to U.S. farm-labor shortages.
I wonder what bothered them most: the prickly truth in the satire or the discomfort of a pretend blowhard mirroring these real blowhards?
“I’m not a fan of the government doing anything,” says Colbert, “but I’ve got to ask, why isn’t the government doing anything?” This to a dais full of stony faces.
Which brings us to the Tea Party.
It’s easy to lampoon some of their positions, which Colbert and Stewart do with regularity: Christine O’Donnell on mice with human brains, Sharon Angle on using guns to overthrow Washington, Rand Paul’s ambivalence about the Civil Rights Act.
The original Tea Party was ticked at the British parliament. The British were in a long and costly war with France and thought the colonies should help pay. The colonies – particularly Massachusetts – thought it wasn’t their war, or their decision, so they demanded something for the money: a voice in the decisions. Thus a single unifying idea: “no taxation without representation.”
Parliament, much like the pompous congressional panel, looked down their noses at the colonists (you have to wonder if wags in those days had as much fun with that Tea Party as Colbert and Stewart do with today’s).
Today we have a government that is bought and paid for by special-interest money, be it California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s personal $100 million (just to win the primary) or mega-billon-dollar interest groups who, thanks to the Supreme Court, can now buy elections without the public even knowing who they are.
As a result, our elected representatives and senators, et al. no longer represent the people who elected them; they represent the people who got them elected. That, folks, is corruption. On a federal scale.
“We want our country back,” say today’s Tea Partiers, who feel powerless at the size, scope and cost of government in their version of “no taxation without representation.” The power of that emotion is winning elections for intellectual jokes like O’Donnell.
“I like talking about people that don’t have any power” says Colbert at the end of the hearing, dropping his stuffed-shirt persona for a rare glimpse into the heart behind his satire.
Both fight to defend the powerless, Colbert with satire and wit, the Tea Party with appeals to emotions and candidates who seem the antithesis of Conyers and company.
Obama and the Democrats got elected on emotion as well as intellect. “Change you can believe in” worked because it triggered hope. Since then, no-drama Obama has governed with cold, emotionless logic. Now much of the country no longer believes.
People vote their hearts more than their minds today. The Tea Party may be a satirist’s dream, but laughs don’t always equal votes; people get elected by forging emotional connections with voters. Democrats would be wise to remember that this fall.
“It turns out – and I did not know this – most soil is at ground level!” Colbert says Friday, ridiculing those whose only exposure to migrant laborers consists of driving by their fields at 60 mph.
Colbert’s fan base does not include many of the panel.
“I’m asking you to leave the committee room,” says Rep. John Conyers (D) at the outset, treating Colbert like a hippie at a debutante party. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D) later calls Colbert’s satire “inappropriate.”
“Maybe we should be spending less time watching Comedy Central and more time considering all the real jobs that are out there,” says Rep. Steve King (R), ignoring the increase in outsourcing of farming to Mexico and Brazil due to U.S. farm-labor shortages.
I wonder what bothered them most: the prickly truth in the satire or the discomfort of a pretend blowhard mirroring these real blowhards?
“I’m not a fan of the government doing anything,” says Colbert, “but I’ve got to ask, why isn’t the government doing anything?” This to a dais full of stony faces.
Which brings us to the Tea Party.
It’s easy to lampoon some of their positions, which Colbert and Stewart do with regularity: Christine O’Donnell on mice with human brains, Sharon Angle on using guns to overthrow Washington, Rand Paul’s ambivalence about the Civil Rights Act.
The original Tea Party was ticked at the British parliament. The British were in a long and costly war with France and thought the colonies should help pay. The colonies – particularly Massachusetts – thought it wasn’t their war, or their decision, so they demanded something for the money: a voice in the decisions. Thus a single unifying idea: “no taxation without representation.”
Parliament, much like the pompous congressional panel, looked down their noses at the colonists (you have to wonder if wags in those days had as much fun with that Tea Party as Colbert and Stewart do with today’s).
Today we have a government that is bought and paid for by special-interest money, be it California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s personal $100 million (just to win the primary) or mega-billon-dollar interest groups who, thanks to the Supreme Court, can now buy elections without the public even knowing who they are.
As a result, our elected representatives and senators, et al. no longer represent the people who elected them; they represent the people who got them elected. That, folks, is corruption. On a federal scale.
“We want our country back,” say today’s Tea Partiers, who feel powerless at the size, scope and cost of government in their version of “no taxation without representation.” The power of that emotion is winning elections for intellectual jokes like O’Donnell.
“I like talking about people that don’t have any power” says Colbert at the end of the hearing, dropping his stuffed-shirt persona for a rare glimpse into the heart behind his satire.
Both fight to defend the powerless, Colbert with satire and wit, the Tea Party with appeals to emotions and candidates who seem the antithesis of Conyers and company.
Obama and the Democrats got elected on emotion as well as intellect. “Change you can believe in” worked because it triggered hope. Since then, no-drama Obama has governed with cold, emotionless logic. Now much of the country no longer believes.
People vote their hearts more than their minds today. The Tea Party may be a satirist’s dream, but laughs don’t always equal votes; people get elected by forging emotional connections with voters. Democrats would be wise to remember that this fall.
