Rude and not funny

By Richard Cohen Published:

By Richard Cohen

First, let me state my credentials: I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why even back in elementary school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to say something funny -- as if the deed could be done on demand. This, anyway, is my standing for stating that Stephen Colbert was not funny at the White House Correspondents Association dinner. All the rest is commentary.

The commentary, though, is also what I do and it will make the point that Colbert was not just a failure as a comedian, but rude. Rude is not the same as brash. It is not the same as brassy. It is not the same as gutsy or thinking out of the box or something about envelopes -- a cliche that escapes me at the moment and which is not worth returning to. Rudeness means taking advantage of the other persons sense of decorum or tradition or civility not to strike back or, worse, rise with a huff and leave. The other night, that person was George W. Bush.

Colbert made jokes about Bushs approval rating, which hovers in the middle 30s. He made jokes about Bushs intelligence, mockingly comparing it to his own. Were not some brainiacs on nerd patrol, he said. Boy, thats funny.

Colbert took a swipe at Bushs Iraq policy, at domestic eavesdropping, and he took a shot at the press corps for purportedly being nothing more than a stenographic service, simply recording what the Bush White House said. He referred to the recent staff changes at the White House, chiding the press for supposedly repeating the cliche rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when he would have put it differently: This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg. A mixed metaphor and lame as can be.

Why are you wasting my time with Colbert? I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for political courage, not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders -- and they are all over the Blogosphere -- will tell you he spoke truth to power. This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke truth to power you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or -- if youre at work -- take away your office.

But in this country, anyone can insult the president of the United States. Colbert just did it and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Bush would have to sit there and pretend to laugh at Colberts lame and insulting jokes. Bush himself plays off his reputation as a dunce and for his penchant for mangling English. Self-mockery can be funny. Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be said on a dais with impunity. This is why Colbert was more than rude. He was a bully.

I am not a member of the White House Correspondents Association and I have not attended its dinner in years (I watched this years on C-SPAN). The gala is an essentially harmless event, which requires the presence of one man, the president. If presidents started not to show up, the organization would have to transform itself into a burial association. But presidents come and suffer through a ritual that most of them find mildly painful, not to mention boring. Whatever the case, they are guests. They dont have to be there -- and if I were Bush, next year I would not. Spring is a marvelous time to be at Camp David.

On television, Colbert is often funny. But on his own show, he appeals to a self-selected audience that reminds him often of his greatness. In Washington, he was playing to a different crowd and he failed dismally in the funny persons most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to elucidate -- to make people see things a little bit differently. He had a chance to tell the president and much of important (and self-important) Washington things it would have been good for them to hear. But he was, like much of the Blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others. In this sense, he was a man for our times.

He also wasnt funny.

2006, Washington Post Writers Group

Want to leave your comments?

Sign in or Register to comment.