Most of this is certainly accurate, and perhaps in many cases the last point. Consider Defoe's famous "Short Way to Deal with Dissenters" (title from memory, perhaps not quite accurate). He proposed draconian measures to suppress dissenters (under a pseudonym) - he being one himself. His idea was that such an excessive proposal would show people how stupid repression was. Dissenters were outraged; Tory Churchmen were delighted: they agreed with every word. I've never watched Colbert so I have no idea how effective he is as a parodist/ironist - but the more effective he is the more apt he is to fool those he is attacking into taking him literally, thus taking him as one of them.
Moreover, they can _still_ do so even if they know it's an incorrect construal of his intentions. (This is one aspect of the way Marx read B [my problem with proper names rings in - author of Pere Goriot etc], and for that matter it's an aspect of how I read Pound, Austen, Pope, & Milton.
Another way of putting it (and this is relevant to that magnificent post on country music Gar wrote), "art" (even kitsch art) _never_ (I think) works as agitation but only as propaganda: that is, its effect is only on those who allready agree with its fundamental thrust, and never works to "convert" people to its point of view. Put another way, the _reader or audience_ not the author or producer determines the political punch of art (including kitsch). There are left rednecks and truckdrivers and they would, as they listened to the song gar analyzes, 'translate' it to run against the intentions of the song. In fact, they would see it as parody and enjoy it as such. Probably the better the art is the easier it is for the reader/audience/viewer/listener to 'pervert' it against the creator's 'intentions.'
Carrol