Stewart and Colbert Rule Out Presidency

With the Robin Williams-led, albeit lame-looking high concept comedy Man of the Year hitting theatres this week, it might be a good time to discuss whether a comedian or entertainer is actually qualified for the White House. Arnold Schwazrenegger is Governor of California, and Ronald Reagan has already made the slow transition from entertainer to White House (building up stops as chief executives and Governor). But the question remains: can an entertainer go straight from entertaining to the White House?

A generation of disaffected center and left-wing individuals had the same collective thought over the last year: Stewart and Colbert. The Jew and the Gentile. Though their odds of defeating the Republican smear-and-money machine would be slim, it would be a hell of a lot of fun. And why NOT Stewart and Colbert? They're both well versed in American and Global politics. Both have a greater raw intelligence and poise than George W. Bush. Neither has shown himself to be strictly devoted to one party's agenda; their desire for satire has led them to directly criticize the woes of both parties.

Unfortunately, Stewart dispelled such rumors yesterday, saying he, like Oprah, has no intention to run for President. For shame.

Rdiicule them all you want, but the truth is that Oprah or Stewart would be a better fit for the Presidency than 99% of the politicians out there. How so, the skeptic sayeth? Let me count the ways:

1. The State of the Union would be watchable. Instead of the same-old hackneyed baloney about how "the state of our Union is strong" and "we need bi-partisan solutions," I have this feeling in me that an entertainer would be more truthful, or at least more so than a career politician. Plus, they would be more entertaining in their own right.

2. They have proven success in legitimate business.

3. Very rarely are they born into elite households; in other words, they understand the middle class and lower class more than our present aristocracy.

4. Stress. The madness of trying to write and put together quality television on a day-to-day basis, or shoot a movie in a limited time, is an excellent equivalent to the stressful routines occaisionally faced by the President.

5. They're not the status quo. Face it, most men and women in business dress in Washington D.C. are dishonest and already in somebody's back pocket. Not to say they wouldn't fall into the same trap, but at least the M-I complex and the other big businesses that run this place would get thrown a curveball.

Look, most career politicians started as lawyers, businessmen, or military men (yes, men). Why do we elect those professions? Lawyers gain success by exploiting the law - and then we put them in charge of writing and executing it? Many businessmen get ahead by screwing others over and exploiting our economic system - and so we reward them by putting them in charge of the commons. The job description of a military man involves keeping secrets from his subjects and following orders to the hilt. Why, again, are these people most qualified for our highest offices? Is it our warped view of leadership?

An entertainer's career involves making others laugh, think, or otherwise enjoy their life. Getting people to do that is usually a more challenging task than exploiting corporate law to bring Wal-Mart another subsidy. The ability to make satire shows a social and political awareness well beyond that of the politicians being satired. And so I ask: Why not? Why retain the status quo?

Political scientist Stephen Skowronek writes of Presidential cycles and groundbreaking presidents. Of the major Presidents who spawned a new political era, only one (Franklin Roosevelt) could be considered a wealthy career politician, and people complained at the time that he wasn't experienced enough. The others? A ragtag, mediocre army general who loathed politics and just wanted a peaceful life, an all-around intellectual, two self-taught, self-made lawyers from the backwoods, and an actor-turned-SGA President. Yeah, there's three lawyers on the list, but if you think for a second that there's a lawyer like Jefferson, Jackson, or Lincoln practicing anywhere in the United States, you've got your head on the wrong end of your body.

An entertainer like Stewart, Colbert, or even Oprah might bring faith back into the political system. Unfortunately, we're going to be stuck with another butt-kisser with a superficially-impressive resume. Be it Bush and Kerry, Bush and Gore, Clinton and Dole, Dukakis and Bush, or whoever else, we're going to get two more smarmy liars in suits. Heck, even though I'm left of center, I'd rather see Condaleeza Rice in the White House than the status quo (which, yes, includes Hilary Clinton). But with Stewart saying no way, our chances of getting a real outsider drop.

Our loss, America.