Chuck Todd’s Toto Moment

.. I worry we’re going to trivialize our institutions, make people more cynical, raise an entire generation that’s even more cynical than they are now…

–Chuck Todd

Remember when Dorothy’s indomitable Cairn terrier pulls back the curtain to reveal the less-than-magical, middle-aged white guy operating the imposing talking head of the Wizard of Oz? I call it a Toto moment, an instance when the true nature of someone in power revealed.

Toto moments don’t always require a dog, metaphorical or otherwise. Often enough, it’s the man behind the curtain whot pulls it back himself.

I’m sure Chuck Todd, Chief White House correspondent and political director for NBC news, doesn’t see himself as someone with power, and to be fair, he’s less like the Wizard of Oz than a member of the Lollipop League welcoming America to Munchkin Land. It’s likely, however, that he sees himself as an informative, unbiased conduit for what happens in Washington, DC, part of the disinterested media that transmits, rather than shapes, the news. If pushed, Todd would probably admit that the “mainstream media” (his words) plays a gatekeeper role. This week, however, Todd unknowingly pulled back the curtain and the results are as comical as they are reflective of our fourth branch of government.

This week, Todd participated on a Winthrop University panel where he revealed that he’s uncomfortable with Stephen Colbert’s campaign for President of the United States of South Carolina.

Colbert’s farcical campaign follows from his establishment of a personal “super PAC.” All of this is an elaborate satire of the Supreme Court’s 2-year-old Citizens United ruling that declared corporations are entities akin to people and, therefore, have the same rights to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech. The results of this decision have been abundantly evident in the 2012 campaign. Super PACs working in support of, but independent from, several candidates have spent mountains of money on attack ads trying, often successfully, to do damage to opposing campaigns.

Colbert’s latest gimmick was to turn his super PAC over to his comedy confederate, Jon Stewart, and pretend the super PAC will now operate independently from Colbert’s “I am Herman Cain” campaign.

For those of us who don’t live in the Emerald City, it’s not hard to appreciate Colbert’s satire. In the provinces, we don’t have have to take ourselves seriously. We don’t have to worry that Jon Stewart gets better ratings than we do or that his audience is as well-informed, if not better, than ours. Chuck Todd does, and Colbert’s humor hits a little too close to home. Besides Chuck Todd is a very serious person.

The Emerald City relies on everyone taking the Wizard and the city infrastructure seriously, even if the city workers are just munchkins. A little laughter is okay, but satire is a horse of different color. Too much–or humor with an agenda–could threaten the neighborhoods where the road is paved with gold. Todd likes a little laughter. He realizes Colbert has a “schtick,” but the media and officeholders don’t treat him right. And it offends Chuck Todd.

“He is making a mockery of the system. And maybe the system deserves some mocking. Again, I don’t dispute that notion. But what he’s doing now, with the campaign–is that fair to the process? Yes, the process is a mess. But he’s doing it in a way that it feels as if he’s trying to influence it with his own agenda that may be anti-Republican. And is that fair to the Republican Party?

Some mocking is okay, you see. Just not too much. After all, Chuck Todd takes the process seriously, b-b-b-ut…

[Colbert] also seems to be doing his best to marginalize the Republican candidates in a way–and we’re participating in that marginalization. I think that we in the–quote–mainstream media need to be careful and wonder what is he up to–what is his real agenda here? Is it to educate the public about the dangers of money and politics, and what’s going on? Or, is it simply to marginalize the Republican Party? And so I think if I were a Republican candidate I would be concerned about that.

Lions and tigers and bears! Oh, my! Marginalize the Republican Party?! Does Chuck Todd mean that Colbert could somehow “place the Republicans in a position of marginal importance, influence, or power”? Someone tell the Koch brothers before it’s too late.

“it’s sort of like–both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have this ability to want to mock us in the media all the time–proclaiming we don’t do our jobs. And then when you call them out on it, they say, ‘We’re just comedians.’ Actually, no, you’re not anymore. You were mocking what we’re doing, and you want a place in this, and you are also going to be held accountable for how you cover and how you do your job a little bit. So, I say that in the amount of fun that I enjoy watching the shows, too. I enjoy the parody. I enjoy the satire. But it’s sort of like I have to admit I’m uncomfortable when it’s like actually merging into the real world…”

The real world of journalism, that is. Where all that matters is what each side says, regardless of the facts. Poke fun all you like. It’s all fun and games until someone loses an eye. And if none of the candidates is worthy of a Presidential nomination, if the front-runner changes positions like I change my socks, if his closest challenger collected $1.6 million in fees from Freddie for being a historian, if the choice of the religious right would outlaw birth control, if an also-ran claims the HPV vaccine causes cancer, or if a dark horse made money peddling racist newsletters, well, at least they’re trying. We don’t want to marginalize them. It might trivialize our political system.

“…we complain now that we feel like the most qualified people decide not to run, because they don’t want to be the butt of jokes–well, I think this is going to exacerbate the process.”

Poor Chuck Todd. He’s going to hold Colbert and Stewart “accountable.” He’s like a substitute teacher whose insistence to be being taken seriously makes him a bigger joke.

It will be interesting to see if Colbert and Stewart respond. They may feel too sorry for Todd to really give him the treatment. As the work of both comedians illustrates, satire always has a target. It’s humor for mortal stakes. Otherwise, it’s Bob Hope. Chuck Todd has a sense of humor. He can enjoy a joke as well as the next guy. It’s the target he objects to. He’s worked too hard to get where he is to find himself and the system he “idolizes” to be laughed at. And if that system is killing the rest of us, well, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.