A lot of people are lamenting the choice of Stephen Colbert to replace David Letterman when he leaves the Late Show in 2015. My fellows on the right and I don’t like the choice of Colbert because we know too well who he is. He’s made a name for himself and earned his living as someone who masks his hostility toward conservatives and Republicans in satire.
Satire is fine; Colbert has never offended me in his mockery. But I still can’t separate him from his Colbert Report persona, which he created to make the Right look bad by slandering them. He’s a misleader.
Letterman is also an outspoken Democrat. In later years he has begun relying on political jokes more than other late-night talk-show hosts. When Colbert takes over, he will have no reason not to be political since his predecessor was political. But of course Colbert would take it further.
There are others who oppose Colbert’s replacement of Letterman not for political reasons, however.
Colbert is part of that demographic that everybody increasingly loves to hate, even those who are members of it: white males.
Critics argue that CBS should have chosen a female or a black person or both–not because it’s smart business to make decisions based on such things (it’s not), but because it’d be more “historic.” New York Daily News’s Bob Kaplan wrote, “CBS had a chance to make history but chose to play it safe instead.”
What is this obsession among liberals with things that are historic? Why must their emotions always be stimulated? Why do they expect the world always to make them feel good? So what if something is historic? So was 9/11, but you don’t see people remembering it fondly, sighing warmly, “Ah, what a historic event, that September eleventh!” When liberals judge whether someone will make a good president, their first question is, “Will he or she be a historical choice? No? Then can we nominate someone else instead?”
Also, the executives at CBS are not going to hire Stephen Colbert if they think they can get someone who will make more money for them than Colbert will. That’s not how corporations work. Money is the motivator. If they believed an Eskimo midget would be more popular than Colbert, they would have let the cold li’l guy have the job. It’s not in a business’s self-interest to discriminate based on anything other than profit potential (I’m sure there is a more academic term for what I mean when I say “profit potential”). Colbert has more profit potential than, say, Wanda Sykes.
From Ed Sullivan to Bob Hope, from Johnny Carson to Rosie O’Donnell, talk shows have always been dominated by white men. Occasionally network execs throw a bone to a woman or a black person, but these hosts don’t pull in the same ratings that white males do. And that’s fine. We as Americans trust white males to make us laugh. Black comedians are all the same, with little exception; their jokes revolve around race, usually at the expense of whites. And female comedians seem to feel that the only way to compete with men is to tell obscene, dirty jokes. It’s only natural that white men should continue the tradition that white men started.
That being said, I still think Stephen Colbert was a poor choice.