Stephen Colbert and Philosophy - Aaron Allen Schiller [63]
Finally, the “loyal opposition” has largely failed to appreciate that the battle of ideas is covertly influenced by the politics of language, and therefore have come late on the scene to counter the language of political orthodoxy with alternative formulations. They have relied on the naive view that “good” ideas eventually replace “bad” ideas in the free marketplace of ideas. Not true. Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) used the phrase “one-dimensional” thought to describe the assimilation of organized opposition, even formerly “critical” ideas, in ways that support the reproduction of status quo politics.
The result is the familiar Orwellian language (“peace is war” and “war is peace,” etc.), which is by no means that of terroristic totalitarianism only … Relatively new is the general acceptance of these lies by private and public opinion, the suppression of their monstrous content. The spread and effectiveness of this language testify to the triumph of society over the contradictions which it contains; they are reproduced without exploding the social system. And it is the outspoken, blatant, contradiction which is made into a device of speech and publicity. The syntax of abridgement proclaims the reconciliation of opposites by welding them together in a firm and familiar structure… . the “clean bomb” and the “harmless fall-out” are only the extreme creations of a normal style.124
Even as early as the 1950s, it was apparent to Marcuse that the rise of mass media in the context of the growing collusion between politics and corporate ownership would lead to decreasing substantive criticism of political orthodoxy. The very idea of “one dimensional thought” for Marcuse is that political dialogue lacks the “fearless speech” characteristic of parrhesia. Between the material conditions of late capitalism—media consolidation and expansion—substantive criticism and opposition to political orthodoxy have been made largely ineffective.
Given that particular words like “flip-flopper” and “evil-doer,” as well even such seemingly innocuous words like “freedom” and “marriage,” increasingly influence the interpretation of political events and figures, linguist George Lakoff recommends a principled approach when engaging in political debate with the opposition: “Do not use their language.”125 However, it’s precisely Colbert’s capacity for appropriating the dominant rhetoric of political orthodoxy that makes his style of political satire a contribution to democratic political dialogue. Colbert uses the language of media practitioners and politicians to subvert many of their core beliefs. He engages in framing, spinning, and slanting all the time. But viewers are in on the joke, which exposes such practices for what they are, and brings to light the ways that they undermine democratic values of free, open, and critical speech.
Much of the power of Colbert’s humor lies in the fact that contemporary media and politics, especially on the cable news networks, are failing to address substantive issues in favor of preserving preposterous language-games. These language-games of weak and duplicitous reasoning provide a target-rich environment for Colbert’s political satire.
“The WØRD”: Reading Between the Lines
In the recurring segment “The WØRD,” Colbert satirizes contemporary news analysis through a familiar visual presentation employed by cable news shows. These shows place the face of the “talking head” next to a panel of text, which outlines, emphasizes, and even highlights the content of the analysis being presented. Mimicking not only the visual style of this cable news staple, Colbert takes up their way of talking as well. He speaks in the language of political orthodoxy, and repeats its main points in the terms that they have chosen to frame them. Colbert happily throws around terms like “flip-flopper” and never misses an opportunity to discuss the most recent “number one threat facing America.” Meanwhile, the bullet points beside him visually lay out the critical viewpoint,