Emperor Palpatine has announced open elections for a new Emperor — and he’s nominated Darth Vader. You get to nominate one challenger.
This is the sort of election where the outcome feels predetermined. When the sitting Emperor endorses a towering figure in black armour who can strangle people with his mind, one suspects democracy may not be flourishing. Still, if I could nominate one challenger, I would choose Stephen Colbert.
Colbert would make a fascinating emperor, probably a chaotic one, but that may be precisely the point. He understands power as performance. For decades, he has dissected political authority, public image, patriotic language, and the strange theatre that surrounds leadership.
Against Palpatine and Vader, that matters. The Empire is built not only on fear, but on spectacle: uniforms, titles, ceremonies, looming architecture, dramatic entrances, and the constant suggestion that resistance is futile. Colbert would see through all of that. More importantly, he would know how to make it look ridiculous.
Tyranny depends on being taken terribly seriously. It wraps itself in grandeur and insists that its power is natural, permanent, and beyond question. Satire punctures that illusion. It reminds us that emperors are still people in costumes, standing on stages, hoping no one notices how absurd the whole arrangement has become.
There is also a moral seriousness beneath Colbert’s comedy. His humour is sharp, but not merely cynical. Again and again, it returns to decency, empathy, grief, civic responsibility, and resistance to cruelty. That is a very different imperial ethos from the Sith version of rule, where strength means domination.
Of course, there is a problem. Satirists thrive outside power, not inside it. Once Colbert becomes Emperor, he becomes the thing he once mocked. The throne changes everything. Could a satirist govern without becoming pompous? Could humour survive the machinery of empire? Could someone who understands the vanity of power resist being reshaped by it? History suggests this would be difficult. Imperial systems reward control and ruthlessness. Colbert might try to rule by monologue, and governance by punchline would probably collapse fairly quickly.
But perhaps the best rulers are the ones who know power is absurd and dangerous. Marcus Aurelius wrote philosophy about the vanity of office. Colbert would write jokes about it. The instinct is similar: do not believe your own publicity; do not confuse power with wisdom; do not let the robes and titles convince you that you are more than human.
Would Stephen Colbert make a successful Emperor? Probably not. But against Darth Vader, he would be a wonderfully disruptive candidate. He would challenge it by exposing its theatrical emptiness. And if the campaign failed, the concession speech would be magnificent.
The Afterword 
Leave a comment