The Power of Laughing

In Which Measure Does Humour Influence Politics?

Lorenzo Tosi

Introduction

The aim of this essay is to analyse the interaction between humour and politics. Humour has been

an important part of rhetoric since Socrates and Aristotle, but in the last years this link has been

strengthened by the development of mass media. It is possible to see how satire affects the

perception of politicians and how politicians can use humour at their advantage. On one hand, TV

satirical shows help to acknowledge in a better way political issues and viewers are more objective

when talking about politics. On the other hand, humour has a conservative function and could lead

to a sense of uselessness of politics, where no improvement is possible. Politics use humour as an

important tool to arouse interest, attack opponents without showing disrespect or impoliteness and

lighten up difficult topics. It can also be affirmed that media, especially internet, made political

humour more pervasive in our everyday life, reinforcing its importance.

Humour Affects How Politician Are Perceived

A research made by the University of Delaware (2012)1 showed how satire television programmes

can affect the perception of politicians. A panel of more than 300 Delaware residents was

interviewed about the perception it had of Republican candidates and the possibilities they had to

defeat Barack Obama. They were divided in four groups. The first group was asked to watch every

1 Available at:<http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2012/jan/campaign-news-study-011712.html>. Accessed date: 04/05/2016

1

day ABC World News, the second one Hannity (a conservative-oriented political show), the third

one The Daily Show (a news satire show), the fourth had no special instructions. The study was

conducted during the Republican Party presidential primaries of 2012. Result showed significant

variations between the answers given by who was watching The Daily Show and who was watching

the other two programs. In every question The Daily Show’s viewers had a worse opinion of

candidates than the other viewers, and watching The Daily Show not influenced the perception of

the candidates’ chances of winning the general election as the other two shows did, in comparison

with the group that had no instructions.

The data gathered by the University of Delaware could suggest two main interpretations: firstly,

satire criticize political facts and statements, and help to acknowledge the subject touched by the

humourist. Secondly, humour is mainly conservative and can create disillusion amongst viewers.

Criticizing and Acknowledging

Kayam, Sover, and Galily (2014), in their study on humour and politics, define this characteristic

of humour: “Humour by its nature is critical. Every expression of humour, whatever its content, has

an element of criticism that says that the humourist or the one laughing in response to the humour is

expressing a position about the object of the humour”. They are also pointing where it differs from

other expressions of criticism, as “Humour in its essence is not aggressive, and even when it is, the

aggressiveness is concealed or softened by the humoristic structure that envelopes the contents of

the text”.

It is possible to demonstrate how the understanding of current and past facts is involved in humour

comprehension, with a survey commissioned by Pew Research Center (2007)2, aimed at finding

how the internet and satellite revolution changed public knowledge of current affairs. The data

gathered showed that viewers of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, two satirical shows, were

2 Available at:<http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions>. Accessed May 4th 2016.

2

the best knowledgeable in the whole survey. The 54% of regular viewers of those shows was able to

correctly answer most of the question of the survey they have been given, while other popular

media scores in a range that goes from the 51% to the 37%. Talking about satirical writers, Charles

E. Schutz (1977) wrote that “their humour demands from their audience considerable political

knowledge and subtle imagination”.

The greatest humourists have been able to take critical aspects of humour while making it

comprehensible and influent in the public opinion, becoming important pundits in the political

world. According to Josef Joffe (2003), Mark Twain, well-known for his cutting satirical prose, was

“an early and relentless pundit ante festum”. Walter J. Podrazik (2012) remarks the influence of

David Frye, comedian specialized in imitating politician like Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard

Nixon: “Frye’s dead-on impression of Nixon […], just as Tina Fey helped to define Sarah Palin,

had a lasting impact on Nixon’s legacy.”

Humour Conservativeness

Humour requires knowledge of the topics that are is dealing with and “conveys criticism against the

political status quo” but it also “recycles and reinforces dominant values. […] Being a very popular

communicative resource, humour sometimes manage to enhance commonsensical views on political

affairs rather than to promote radical thinking”. (Tsakona & Popa, 2011). Peter Sagal (2012),

playwright, actor and radio host, defined himself doubtful on the claim that “satire can actually

change things”. “No politician has ever said to me, ‘What you said made me rethink my actions.’

But lots of people have said, ‘That funny joke you made helped me cope with the fact that a person

like that is in power’”. New York Times’ columnist David Brooks (2012) points out another

important negative consequence of the conservative function of humour, the disillusion that it can

create towards politics. People who do satire nowadays is mainly liberal but develop a very

conservative use of humour, picking up the silliest things did or told by politician and making fun of

3

them. As politics become a “long parade of stupidity”, it seems that things are not changing, more

and more people start to think it is pointless even trying to do so.

Humour as a Powerful Rhetorical Gun

“The proximity of serious politics and laughter is perceived today as an integral part of the political

arena.” (Kayam & al., 2014).

The diffusion of Internet and cable television changed the way politician present themselves.

According to Schaffner and Sellers (2010) reality nowadays is watched and discussed “through the

media”, and the growth that those communications medium had has changed the way in which we

transmit messages. This is part of the new “entertaining politics”. “For decades, television broadcast

networks maintained an artificial separation between politics and popular culture. […] The first

sustained blurring between these two lines was seen in 1992 presidential campaign when candidates

began appearing frequently on entertainment talk shows”. (Jeffrey P. Jones, 2010). Furthermore, the

internet radically spread political discussion’s occasions and satire to a great amount of people.

Social media developed a new “remix culture” where serious political positions are shared using

memes and quick tweets.

For those reason is impossible to think of a political campaign that does not take advantage of the

characteristics of modern media. A good example can be represented by Barack Obama, that built

his consensus with the use of humour in his rhetoric, targeted at the right audience. Nowadays, the

use of different media to relate with the electorate is a consolidated fact, and so it is no surprise in

the extensive use of Twitter and Facebook accounts by politicians.

Humour in Obama’s Speeches

We can demonstrate how humour can help in dealing with three aspects: growing interest around

your persona, attack political opponents in a polite way, approaching difficult issues.

4

The first aspect can be seen as a constant factor when humour is used. Holmes and Marra (2006)

and Schnurr (2008) depicted it as an “important characteristic of good leadership”, and looking at

democracies and nations with a high level of instruction amongst citizens, “leaders are often chosen

by their oratory skills” (Wolman, 1995).

In the first example Obama (2016) is attacking republican senators at his last White House

Correspondents’ Association Dinner:

[Referencing to the Supreme Court vacancy] “I think we got Republican senators Tim Scott and Cory Gardner. They are in the house, which reminds me: security,

bar the doors. Judge Merrick Garland, come on out! We are going to do this right here and right now. It is like the Red Wedding”.

Republicans claimed that in his last year of presidency, Obama does not have the authority to

nominate a Supreme Court judge, Merrick Garland. The reference to the popular TV series Game of

Thrones made this joke popular and made the whole audience laugh. He does not make a strong

critic that would have been out of context in this occasion, but insinuate his disappointment towards

republicans’ waiting game.

Looking at the way of dealing with complicate issues, Remnick (2010) give us another perfect

example:

“When Obama paid a visit to the Senate elder Robert Byrd, of West Virginia, who as a young man had been a member of the Ku-Klux Klan, he listened

sympathetically as the old man described the sins of his youth as ‘the cross around my neck’. It was the Rorschach effect all over again: Byrd saw in Obama

a welcoming, forgiving face. And Obama, who was a gifted reader of other people, replied soothingly to Byrd, ‘If we were supposed to be perfect, we would

all be in trouble, so we rely on God’s mercy and grace to get us through’”.

Conclusion

Humour has an important part in conditioning politics and the perception of politicians, especially

when compared with other way of expressing positions and criticisms. The two apparently

5

antithetical function of political humour make us more critical and informed about the subject we

are dealing with, even if it can boost disillusion in a possibility of changing things. It is possible to

conclude that it is fundamental now to handle humour and use it in the right context for anyone that

wants to be able to address in an interesting way to an electorate, in order to arouse interest in his

personality and, above all, political values.

References

University of Delaware. 2012. “Campaign News Impact”. UDaily. January 17th. Available at:<http://www.udel.edu/udaily/2012/jan/campaign-news-study-011712.html>. Accessed May 4th

2016.

Kayam, Orly, Sover, Arie and Galily, Yair. 2014. Humor, Media and The Public Discourse: A Case Study of Humor and Politics. French Journal for Media Research, 1/2014, 3-7.

Pew Research Center. 2007. “Public Knowledge of Current Affairs Little Changed by News and Information Revolutions”. Pew Research Center. April 15th. Available at:<http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-little-changed-by-news-and-information-revolutions>. Accessed May 4th 2016.

“The Intersection of Politics and Satire”. 2011. Moment Magazine. November 1st. Available at:<http://www.momentmag.com/how-does-satire-influence-politics>. Accessed May 4th 2016.

Schutz, Charles. 1977. Political Humour: From Aristophanes to Sam Ervin. Cranbury: Associated University Presses.

Joffe, Josef. 2013. “The Decline of the Public Intellectual and the Rise of the Pundit” in: Arthur M. Melzer and Richard M. Zinmann. The Public Intellectual, Between Philosophy and Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Tsakona, Villy and Popa, Diana Elena. 2011. Studies in Political Humour: In Between Political Critique and Public Entertainment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Schaffner, Brian and Sellers, Piers. 2010. Winning With Words. UK: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.

Jones, Jeffrey. 2010. Entertaining Politics: Satiric Television and Political Engagement. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

“The satirical verses”. 2013. The Economist. August 31st. Available at:<http://www.economist.com/news/international/21584335-making-fun-leaders-pleasure-enjoyed-ever-more-people-satirical-verses>. Accessed May 4th 2016.

“Here’s the Full Transcript of President Obama’s Speech at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner”. 2016. Time. May 1st. Available at:<http://time.com/4313618/white-house-correspondents-dinner-2016-president-obama-jokes-transcript-full>. Accessed May 4th 2016.

6