Two notable events in last night’s Colbert Report regarding capitalism/the free market and walking the walk vs. talking the talk:

1. At the end of his interview with Michael Moore about his new film Capitalism:  A Love Story, which focused on how capitalism is an evil, which causes the rich to do all they can to take money from the poor, Stephen Colbert asked Moore, “What happens if the market decides it doesn’t need a  ‘Michael Moore’ anymore?”

Moore’s smiling response? “Well, as long as people keep going to see my movies, I get to keep making them. That’s how it works.” (Colbert: “That’s how this show works too.”)

Early in the interview, I flashed on the irony of how capitalism (such as it is today) has made Michael Moore into a global megastar millionaire, and that every eye that has ever viewed any moment of his TV/filmography had that moment brought to it by (what we currently call) capitalism. Moore could not have played into that irony better with the way he closed that interview if I had scripted it myself–saying that his justification in the market is the fact that he keeps putting (paying) people in the seats.

(A Michael Moore fan might be defensively thinking, “Well what was he supposed to say?” He could have said any number of things, like: “I think that important messages like this should be out in the market, even if there isn’t financial support for it. So if the free market decided it didn’t need a ‘Michael Moore’ anymore, I would hope the federal government would have enough insight to provide funding for me to be able to get these ideas out anyway.” Isn’t that an approximation of what he supposedly actually believes in? Because it’s the total opposite of what he said.)

Just why does Michael Moore use the free market to get his ideas out there? Am I wrong to think there’s a conflict there?


2. A funny thing came up at the end of the main guest interview with author A.J. Jacobs. (Michael Moore was not the official guest on the show–he came in for a mid-show “issue” interview, which Colbert occasionally squeezes into the show.) Jacobs wrote a book about how he has tried all sorts of experiments on himself, one of which was to try “radical honesty” for 6 months. Colbert prodded Jacobs to give a “radical honesty” thing about him (Stephen Colbert), to which Jacobs replied, “Well I was a little sad that I got the small green room, while Michael Moore got this huge suite…” To which Colbert replied, “Thank you for coming!” (his standard guest sign-off line).

(Jacobs fades off…he may be saying “huge suite” or “huge, sweet…” It adds up to the same.)

Watch the interview here:

Jacobs’s behind-the-scenes leak illustrates that Michael Moore isn’t the only anti-capitalist who embraces free market values. In the structure of The Colbert Report, the mid-show interview/segments are subordinate to the main interview or segment at the end of the show. In most cases, the mid-show interviews are shorter than the one at the end of the show–they are more like the length of one of his other mid-show segments.  The way Stephen introduces the people also show that the real guest of the show is the person at the end. The mid-show guest is introduced most often like so: “With me tonight to discuss…” While the end-of-show guest is always introduced with: “My guest(s) tonight…”

A.J. Jacobs–clearly less recognized, valued, and exalted by the free market than Michael Moore–was  in fact Stephen’s “guest”, while Moore was merely “with [Stephen] tonight to discuss…”. Yet valuable Moore and his movie actually got more time than lesser-known Jacobs and his book. And as we now know, Jacobs also got the short straw when the green rooms were handed out.

It’s easy to see why Colbert and the show’s other producers would decide to invert their show’s guest hierarchy to accommodate Michael Moore–he is a giant global celebrity with a likely-to-be-blockbuster film coming out. But frankly, if not for the free market’s “valuation” of Moore, there would be no justification for him treating Jacobs that way. At least none that I can think of.

In case it’s not obvious, Colbert is bowing to the free market twice in this case. Once, by heeding the market’s insistence that Moore is more important than Jacobs, and at the same time, catering to the market’s signaling that more Moore will bring him (Colbert) more viewers. It’s a win-win-win all around, really, except for the fact that both Colbert and Moore conspired to short-change the small-voiced little guy (A.J. Jacobs) in favor of giving succor to the anti-god they both claim to despise. (Moore openly, Colbert in his subverted fake-conservative way.)


I guess I’m finding the concept of millionaire anti-capitalists a little hard to get my head around.