Humorists make mockery of campaigns
By Ashley Horne, Chief Copy Editor
Has the election process become a joke? Do we have such doubts and skepticism in the political system that anyone, comic or prophet, will run for office out of dissatisfaction?
This whim, when meant as a joke, makes a mockery of the political process. Often times the elected candidates will make a sham of politics on their own through their political choices, but the election process itself is rooted in history and tradition.
On Oct. 16, Stephen Colbert of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report” announced his candidacy for president but only in South Carolina and on both the Republican and
Democratic primary ticket. In a local primary election, Chris Chiaromonte and his rainbow sock puppet, Charlie, ran for Asheville City Council.
Both candidacies are ridiculous but are also incredibly funny. Both individuals are no longer in their prospective races, but nothing is stopping another funny candidate from running later on.
Chiaromonte is known around Asheville as the man who calls himself a prophet. He preaches near Pritchard Park and speaks at every city council meeting with his puppet firmly on his hand. He loves and believes strongly in Asheville and goes to the meetings because he feels the current city council is focused on the rich, according to an interview by the Mountain Xpress.
His opinions are respectable, but it’s difficult to take a candidate seriously when he has a puppet on his hand and is running as a candidate under the “Cannabis and Yahweh Party.”
Stephen Colbert’s candidacy is even more of an obvious joke than Chiaromonte’s. His fame and popularity come from his ability to laugh at politics and create a comedic character that people love. He isn’t trying to pretend his campaign is serious. Colbert decided to run in South Carolina because it’s his home state and he wanted media attention. He said on his show that he wanted to run in each party’s primary so “he could lose twice.”
Thankfully, last Thursday, the South Carolina Democratic Party leaders denied Colbert a spot on their primary ballot because he is not acknowledged as a viable nationwide candidate. This is due to the fact that he was only running in one state and he wasn’t actively campaigning for the state’s primary. Colbert met only the Democrats’ deadline by paying $2,500 but chose not to pay $35,000 for a spot on the Republican primary ballot.
The Democratic Party leaders voted 13 to three against Colbert believing his candidacy detracted from the “real” candidates, their campaigns and their chances for media attention. With such fame and notoriety, Colbert would certainly distract media attention from the other candidates, but the real issue is that his candidacy, as a joke, detracts from the tradition and the purpose of states’ primary elections.
Primaries date back to the late 19th century and are supposed to help parties determine which candidate the National Republican and Democratic parties should choose as their presidential nominee. The people’s vote helps parties decide which candidate will offer them the best of chance of winning against the opposing candidate.
Colbert’s notoriety would win him votes. Most people would know that his candidacy was a joke but would still vote for him because he offers a comedic alternative to candidates who are “probably just like the rest of them.”
With him on both primary tickets, the primary results for South Carolina would basically be null and void. How could you tell who really won when so many people would vote for Colbert and not another candidate?
Politics have become almost dishonest in the minds of many, if not most Americans, because of frequent political scandals and a lack of real economic or social change. With a lack of trust toward standard or traditional politicians, it’s understandable for underdogs and the unexpected to want to run for office. But it’s only beneficial when they want to help create a better future, not when they just want to laugh at what we currently have.
That isn’t productive.
Candidates like Chiaromonte are less threatening to other candidates and the political process than a celebrity like Stephen Colbert, because they lack the notoriety to distract voters. However, Chiaromonte lacks an element of seriousness to truly be beneficial.
Even if he was elected because voters found him humorous, they would probably also find him harmless. Without a level of seriousness, he will have trouble gaining support for his initiatives toward helping the homeless and leveling out economic disparity.
In situations like these, you must rely on the voters to understand the importance of elections and try to elect people they feel really will advocate change. With Chiaromonte it is easier to rely on voters especially as he lost the primary election receiving only 171 votes.
But when the candidate is Stephen Colbert, it is difficult to estimate just how many South Carolina voters would throw away their vote on a fake, but funny, candidate rather than vote for someone who might really benefit them and their families.
As no one can pick through the candidates for the serious ones and throw out those not so serious, the candidates themselves should think about what they are really doing first. Candidates should run with real issues and want to make change, versus running just as a joke and laughing at our political system.
Politicians are the cause for voter apathy
By Melissa Deckert, Lifestyles Editor
The majority of this country does not take the election process seriously. The individuals chosen are, in some way, responsible for running the country. Yet only 62 percent of voting age individuals voted in the 2004 presidential election.
Whether it is because individuals distrust politicians and the spectacle that occurs every four years or they just don’t care enough, and people have grown weary of the American political machine.
One of the biggest factors in this ever-present disillusionment with politics is the politicians themselves.
The past few years haven’t been so great. President George W. Bush is easily one of the most polarizing presidents the United States has ever seen.
Before him, we had Bill Clinton, who may very well have been a fabulous president, except that he cheated on his wife and then lied about it. Sure, the country wasn’t at war, the stock market was up and gas prices were low, but he had to go and engage in sexual misconduct with an intern.
Both of these men were groomed their entire lives for the presidency. We’ve all heard the name George Bush before, sometime around or before 1992, right? Despite that fact, these are two extremely important individuals whose legacies will each revolve around a single event, for Bush its Iraq and for Clinton its Monica Lewinsky.
Where exactly is it written that to run for political office one must be a politician? When outlining the presidential branch of government, the Constitution has two legally binding guidelines about who can run for office.
The individual must be at least 35-years-old and be a natural born U.S. citizen. That’s it. To apply for what is arguably the most important job in the country, if not the world, one just has to have been born here and be at least 35.
There are thousands of people working in superstores across the country right now who technically could run for president.
But they won’t. And let’s be honest, that’s probably a good thing. However, there are probably almost as many non-politicians in the country who would make incredible office holders.
Throughout history people have run for office, knowing they really don’t stand a chance, just to make a point. Comedian Pat Paulson, known primarily through his work with the Smothers Brothers, ran for president first in 1968 and then again in every election until he died in 1997.
Paulson’s campaign slogans included such gems as, “I’ve upped my standards. Now, up yours” and “If elected, I will win.”
More recently, less than a month after announcing he was running for president only in South Carolina, the state’s Democratic Party rejected Stephen Colbert’s bid because they didn’t consider him a legitimate candidate.
Colbert had originally planned to run on both the Democratic and Republican ballots; he ultimately chose to run on only the Democratic ticket because their filing fee was only $2,500, versus the Republican Party’s fee of $35,000. Yes, to have your name on the Republican ballot just in South Carolina costs $35,000.
As crazy as that is, how exactly does the South Carolina Democratic Party have the right to determine who is a legitimate candidate? While they can choose which candidate to officially nominate, it seems ludicrous that they can choose which candidates to include on the ballot.
This also happens on an even smaller scale. Here in Asheville the city council election is occurring, with three seats up for grabs. It doesn’t seem like too many people care, because only 13 percent even voted in the primary.
There was one man who cared very much, his name is Chris Chiaromonte. The 52-year-old street preacher, whose ministry can be heard on his URTV show False Profit, or from the sidewalk surrounding Pritchard Park, claims the Lord told him to run. Chiaromonte lists his party affiliation as “Cannabis and Yahweh Party.” Although he finished in last place in the primaries, he did garner 171 votes.
While many ridicule such an idea, people like Chiaromonte and Colbert are vital to a truly democratic political process. Many pundits openly wondered if Colbert’s appearance on the South Carolina ballot would draw media attention away from the second-tier contenders, thereby impacting their ability to win.
These individuals reflect society’s irritation with traditional politicians and just might force those who are really running to step up their game a bit.
While they are mocking our political system, let’s be honest, it is so completely and obviously beyond flawed that it pretty much just deserves it.
Change has always been brought about by those who think differently. Maybe we need some more of that.
Previous story