An Alternative Sense of Humor: The Problems with Crossing Comedy

and Politics in Public Discourse

Don Waisanen

Baruch Coilege School of Public Affairs, City University of New York

T J - am a huge fan of comedy, and if the explosion of comic discourses on

the Internet and television across the last several decades are any indication,

there are a great many people who feel similarly inclined. From presidential

speeches filled with punch lines, to the buzz of many late-night talk shows dis­

secting each day's news, we are living in a historical moment inundated with

humor across such realms as politics, business, and technology.

While there has always been comedy in politics, the state of current Ameri­

can public discourse in this area is quite different than in the past. Prior to

the 1990s, when figures like then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton went on

the Arsenio Hall Show to showcase his talent playing the saxophone, politics

and entertainment were seen as relatively separate domains.1 By and large, the

public thought politicians were supposed to be serious, and the idea of humor

and public affairs crossing seldom registered in the pubhc consciousness—

with some exceptions like Richard Nixon's appearance on the variety show

Laugh-In in 1968.2

From the 1990s through the present, comedy and politics have become

inseparable, with candidates like Arnold Schwarzenegger announcing their

gubernatorial ambitions on The Tonight Show, and figures like Sarah Palin par­

adoxically both being mocked by and interjecting themselves into programs

like Saturday Night Live, This evolving trend of what some have termed info­

tainment3 continues unabated through popular programs like The Daily Show.

299

300 Venomous Speech

Given the sheer volume of comic public discourse unique to our times, more

critical attention to humorous communication is deserved.

In my work as a communication scholar, I have found a lot worth praising

in these forms of public discourse—particularly how programs like The Daily

Show and Colbert Report teach us to be better critics of public communica­

tion, 4 stand-up comedians employ innovative, exacting observations that can

enlarge our perspectives on a variety of topics,5 and online news parodies such

as Tlie Onion News Network use unique techniques that not only satirize politi­

cal foolishness, but also invite us to consider numerous ethical insights about

public affairs.6

I am not alone in these observations. Noting the pervasiveness of comedy

across societies, much has been written about the need for laughter as a posi­

tive way of approaching human existence,7 as a means of reducing physiologi­

cal stress and creating constructive perspectives,8 and as an essential tool for

building movements and communities.9 Additionally, Day argues that "the

political discourse taking place in the satiric register currently appears far

more vibrant than any of the traditional outlets for serious political dialogue,"

through their

desire to challenge the standard formulas and narratives within the

mainstream press. . . . They offer a method of influencing the political

discussion, even just in minor ways, by poking holes in the preframed

narratives, talking points, and public relations screens; and by providing

to legions of fans relief, satisfaction, a sense of purpose, and connection

with others.10

Similarly, many other scholars have found comedy to be a promising demo­

cratic practice."

It might thus come as a surprise that this chapter is about some problems

with crossing comedy and politics. Worse yet, its reader might quickly conclude

that anything written against humor must be coming f rom a sour disposition, a

desire to kil l all joy in the world, or f rom what is a common invective designed

to whip one back into better shape—simply lacking a sense of humor. Nothing

could be further from the spirit of this chapter. The world would be a far better

place if more people approached one another with tolerant comic perspectives;

however, this chapter also proceeds with the understanding that every type of

communication is limited to some extent. In fact, I would argue that to be­

come more broadly appreciative of and discerning about the many constructive

forms comedy has taken in contemporary public discourse, humor s potentially

negative features or effects in some situations must also be understood.

We know that comedy can both liberate and limit communicators,12 and

divide as much as it can unite audiences.13 Scholars have also found that not all

An Alternative Sense of Humor

humor is created equal; when considered in context, humor can perform radi­

cal or conservative functions. 1 4 But as Quirk reminds us, "these boundaries are

not rigid, but under constant negotiation" between audiences and perform­

ers.15 Hence, in the same ironic spirit that I believe some of our best political

comics would themselves recommend, I will partly truth-tell, partly specu­

late, and even partly play devils advocate in the following analysis for the sake

of spotlighting and negotiating these considerations—to open space for what

may be some needed qualifications, reservations, and other counteract ants to­

ward a climate in which comedy is mostly only celebrated. Ultimately, while

I am one of the first scholars you would find supporting comedy it is recom­

mended that we take more seriously the idea that humor should be treated as

only one, albeit important, mode of communicating among many others that

might be chosen in pubhc discourse.

In the following analysis, I identify several overlapping themes demonstrat­

ing the potential limitations of comedy in politics: regulation, simplism, insta­

bility, negativity, and distortion. These are not the only ways in which humor

can be limiting, of course, but they survey at least a few important ways we

might take more of a critical pause as we are confronted with (or engaged in)

comedic discourses. These themes wil l be explained with reference to numer­

ous contemporary examples at the intersections of politics and comedy.

R E G U L A T I O N

As much as humor can promote critical reasoning, it can sometimes under­

mine our capacities to rationally reflect upon people, events, and the world at

large—instead working to regulate or discipline our thoughts and behaviors.

Scholars such as Morreale f ind that "humour can be beneficial . . . by pro­

moting critical thinking," especially as regards "a discrepancy between what

people should be and what they are."16 Comedy writer Marshall Brickman also

asserts that "humor is a way of getting to essential truth. I f you can get an audi­

ence to laugh together, it does a whole lot of great things. It solidifies them; it

gives them a mystical experience of being in a crowd. It socializes people."17 But

there are times and places when humor can be equally oppressive in regulat­

ing actions; when laughter erupts in groups, for instance, members are often

strongly urged to physiologically conform to such social behavior. In everyday

conversations, I would speculate that there is likely no other type of communi­

cation in which we are pressed to follow along with others, or risk being alien­

ated, more than when humor is invoked. Indeed, the literatures within social

psychology are replete with such examples of "groupthink" and "social proof."18

Going a step further, humor can lead to insular practices that bypass our

critical communication capacities. It is not only the physiological pressure of

the laugh that invites analysis, but also the way that humor may shortcut our

302 Venomous Speech

abilities to also critique or say no to these demands. Quite simply, it can be a

way of arguing that not only makes a powerful point, but also regulates and

forestalls necessary rebuttals. For those trying to promote free speech, open

climates for discussion, or inclusive spaces for rational debate, this may be

a concern. Meyer referred to Ronald Reagan's famous use of humor as such

a "velvet weapon,"*9 or way of critiquing people and institutions less harshly

than more direct forms of speech. The very vividness of jokes may prevent

voices from entering public discussion, be used to trivialize rather than de­

bate an issue, or absolve communicators from the need to present evidence

for their claims. Recently, presidential candidate Rick Perry was asked by a

reporter to defend his claim that Social Security was unconstitutional. The

candidate diverted attention from the question by putting food in his mouth

and humorously remarking, "I've got a big mouthful" before walking away.20

Given how contemporary media are obsessed with covering political gaffes

and condensing discourse to sound bites and images, political communication

can be unjustly reduced to who can tell the best one-liner that will make an

evening news broadcast or Internet viral video. Argument scholars Perelman

and Olbrechts-Tyteca too find that: "Humor is a very important factor in win­

ning over the audience o r . . . in reducing value, in particular making fun of the

opponent, and making convenient diversions."21

Billig argues that many people have bought into common sense notions that

humor is necessarily healing, instead arguing that it mosdy serves as a means of

social control and discipline. In other words, society has been too uncritically

accepting of humor s positive functions, because laughter primarily functions

to ridicule. 2 2 Billig states: " I f meaning has to be socially policed, then mockery

and. laughter are the friendly neighbourhood officers, who cheerily maintain

order. And sometimes they wield their truncheons with punishing effect."23

Grammatically speaking, since humor is mostly carried out under the

imaginative subjunctive rather than the objective indicative mood—and while

there is nothing "intrinsically morally objectionable about i t " 2 4 — I would add

that sometimes a too easy alternation between imaginative discourse that is

just joking and more serious descriptive discourse can be used to discipline

audiences in subtle ways. Presidential candidate Michele Bachnian made a

tongue-in-cheek joke about a very real, destructive hurricane being sent from

God to send a message to politicians in Washington B.C. to cut federal spend­

ing and amend the national budget. She responded to criticism of the joke as

insensitive (many people were killed in the natural disaster), with "of course

I was being humorous when I said that. It would be absurd to think it was

anything else."25

Yet between Bachmanhs actual political position as a staunch antigov-

ernment advocate and the supposed exaggeration of the joke, the joke still

functioned to send a wink to her core audiences that the government needs

An Alternative Sense of Humor 303

discipline, while also chastising Washington D.C. In other words, even i f she

really was just joking, those serious, disciplining messages were still retained

in public discourse regardless of whether or not this was an attempt at humor.

Of course, f rom the most hghthearted forms of entertainment to the most

perceptive critiques of power, comedy can positively reorient our thoughts

and behaviors—so I am not advocating that humors capacity to discipline

be abandoned—to do so would be a complete relinquishing of comedy itself.

Rather, this analysis simply suggests that comic conformity and regulation are

more complicated than has been imagined and, hence, more awareness might

be deserved in some contexts about how humor is used to regulate and disci­

pline in less than constructive ways.

SIMPLISM

Related to the problem of humor and discipline, the issue of simplism—de­

fined here as communication that has a difficult time dealing with complex

topics—is also potentially problematic when comedy and politics are crossed.

Politics is by its very nature a deeply layered subject involving complex in­

teracting economic, social, psychological, communicative, and other factors.

One need to only look at the intricacies and complications of an example like

the American health care system to realize that policy making and public ad­

ministration consist of an enormously complex network of people, events, texts,

and practices.

Yet a look at many staples of mainstream comedy, such as Vie Tonight Show

with Jay Leno, evidences much simplification deserving our attention. In par­

ticular, in an effort to fit each days news through the structure of a stand-up

comedy monologue, a more nuanced and detailed understanding of politics is

often bypassed. For years, Leno and other similar comedians have told jokes

that simply reinforce stock stereotypes about, for instance, President Clinton

as a womanizer and President Bush as unintelligent. There are likely truths in

such comments, but the point is that there are often only a limited range of

topics that are fodder for such (repetitious) comedy, at least in some main­

stream discourses.

Moreover, the very structure of jokes also demands that a setup be suc­

cinct rather than full of exposition. This is why we more often hear jokes about

subjects that are on the front pages of newspapers rather than an eighth-page

story For audiences to get the jokes, they must either be given new knowledge

by a comedian in the setup or be able to anchor into some existing knowledge

that they already have. As such, a bias worth noting is built into a jokes form—it

is far easier to tell jokes about topics that the audience already knows about,

rather than have to explain a lot of new information. Thus, the setup-punch

line joke structure can make it difficult for a communicator to impart complex

304 Venomous Speech

information, which might kil l a joke. The very compactness and pace of jokes

can also make for an impatience with slower, more methodological, or mea­

sured ways of approaching the world—which are critical to more complex ways

of acquiring and disseminating information.

To be clear, I am not advocating that such short types of communication are

always bad or devoid of meaning. As Jarnieson clearly points out, a saying like

" I love you" is a sound bite that is incredibly meaningful. 2 6 Similarly, jokes can

be powerful. My point is that only using jokes to communicate political infor­

mation can forgo a lot of needed critical complexity. I am also not advocating

that such compact examples of humor do not necessarily make contributions

to public discourse. In my estimation, the more commentary we have in public

communication from a diverse range of voices, the better—and comedians are

constantly innovating with differing forms of humor, moving beyond simple

setup-punch line structures to engage, for example, more advanced, improvi-

sational interactive work with audiences.

This issue is merely raised to focus on how comedy can be a particular type

of discourse that permits communicators to approach aspects of the world in

some ways, while preventing them from seeing or approaching it from oth­

ers.27 By way of analogy, just as a medium like PowerPoint is quite suitable for

imparting some types of information, it could prove an utter disaster in oth­

ers—think of what Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address would have looked

like had it been delivered in PowerPoint format. 2 8 In the same way, humor

has important limitations with bearing upon the content and quality of public

discourse.

INSTABILITY

One ongoing issue with humor involves its potential for unstable meaning.

Different than more straightforward forms of communication in which a per­

son may say directly what they mean and mean what they say, comic forms

of rhetoric can be quite indirect. Instability thus refers to the difficulty dif­

ferent audiences may have with interpreting the meaning(s) of a humorous

message. Some scholars such as Booth believe that tracking the stability of

meaning-making in comic forms of communication like irony is critical to our

very evaluations of such discourse.29

Quite recently, for example, a study of viewer reactions to Stephen Colbert

provided some evidence that many liberals think Stephen Colbert is liberal,

while many conservatives viewed the parodic figure as a conservative.30 This

line of research has actually been around for a while. One study found that

Archie Bunker, a bigoted character on the famous American sitcom All in the

Family, was interpreted differently by various audiences.31 Some audiences

An Alternative Sense of Humor 305

supported the characters racism, while others interpreted the show as making

fun of this characters ignorance (as producer Norman Lear had intended). In

this case, the comedy was quite unstable, creating variable meanings for dif­

ferent audiences, regardless of what the show's creators might have intended.

Howitt and Owusu-Bempah note that "bigots appreciate the ranting of the

bigoted characters as the truth, whereas non-bigots see them as bigotry."3 2

Given such examples, Billig says that we should ail confront a sobering fact:

racists have senses of humor too. 3 3

Studying comic characters like A l i G, Pickering, and Lockyer explain that

unique spaces can be opened up through comic discourses, as the "open am­

biguity of the person/persona distinction aUow[s] a continual oscillation be­

tween actual insult and mock insult, and serious and comic registers."34 But they

also highlight how unclear these comic performances can sometimes be, partic­

ularly when "anti-racist critique [is] being misinterpreted as racist celebration "

begging critical questions about some comic impersonations: "Along what line

can we distinguish subtle and pliable audience decodings from crassly literal

acceptances o f . . . comic impersonation? Where does studied multicultural

undecidability and unstudied racial prejudice begin?"35

Scholars share near-unanimous agreement that humor is a highly local and

contextual phenomenon. In other words: "Nothing is inherently funny or un­

funny. This is decided according to the social conventions operative in any

social setting or circumstance."36 This point helps us understand the disingen-

uousness of common remarks like "that is funny" or "that is not funny." Rather,

scholarship in this area highlights that when the meanings in humor are very

unstable, people can read almost whatever they want into a comic message. In

these instances, comedy can serve to reinforce, rather than challenge, people's

beliefs, values, and attitudes, even against a comedians very intent.

Comics themselves are almost always searching for "the discursive dis­

play of opposing interpretive possibilities" in a situation.3 7 For instance, when

President Obama gave his annual comedy monologue during the 2009 White

House Correspondents Dinner speech, he referred to the first lady Michelle

Obama as "bridging] the differences that have divided us for so long, because

no matter which party you belong to we can al! agree that Michelle has the

right to bare arms."38 The bare arms joke refers to two interpretive possibili­

ties: Michelle Obamas bare arms as a fashion icon and (tongue in cheek) her

right to bear arms, presumably referring to the "right to bear arms" advocated

by the National Rifle Association and many conservatives. Comic discourses

thus have a built-in bias for exploiting multiple meanings. But at times, this

way of approaching public discourse may leave too much room for audiences

to negotiate and stabilize these meanings in terms that not even the producers

of the content would have wished f rom their performances.

306 Venomous Speech

NEGATIVITY

Comic communication tends to filter public discourse through negative per­

ceptions, in both writing and performance, practitioners themselves assert

that a strong negative attitude or opinion provides fuel for comic material

and insights.39 This understanding about how comedy works is not new. Ar­

istotle felt the very essence of comedy "rested in some . . . defect."40 Drawing

on Freud, Billig similarly explains that "we laugh more at tendentious jokes

than we do at non-tendentious ones, but we [instead] convince ourselves that

we are laughing at the cleverness of the joke-work."41 This is tricky rhetorical

ground to unravel, for there are many ways that comic discourses can call for a

constructive politics, 4 2 and at the same time, the word negative almost always

implies that a communicator has some better, positive vision of the way things

should be. As Booth explains, in one sense, "affirming and denying are rhetori­

cally interchangeable. Every protest implies an affirmative ground for protest;

every affirmation implies many negations."43

The very title of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's 2010 Washington D.C.

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear illustrates this paradox—-in providing a neg­

ative critique of the way media and political institutions have been undermin­

ing public discourse through rhetorics of fear, their comedy simultaneously

called for a restoration of sanity. Despite these nuances, there is still a sense in

which comedy is primarily fueled by negative attitudes and opinions. When

David Letterman or Stephen Colbert take to the airwaves each night, they are

looking to place a tendentious attitude upon what is defected, problematic,

or flawed with the world that day, slamming quick negative judgments and

stark reactions upon public happenings. Research in psychology has found

that human beings have an innate predisposition toward information that is

negative,44 which I think partly explains why comic discourses are so good at

gaining our attention and have such high entertainment value.

A comics negative consciousness can thus provide a superb, attention-

getting source of critical commentary upon public events and processes, But

this way of being, knowing, and acting in the world may also come with several

costs, especially in creating some forms of social change. In other words, what

may make for highly entertaining discourse in some situations can fall short

in achieving the goals of other circumstances. In my opinion, two of the most

telling recent examples of this phenomenon involve Jon Stewart, fn the first,

Jon Stewarts now famous appearance on the CNN show Crossfire involved the

comedian alternating between a comic and relatively serious disposition about

problems with the show and much media communication writ large.45

What was not acknowledged among many positive reactions to this event

was that Stewart had some trouble maintaining a purely comic attitude to

An Alternative Sense of Humor 307

make his points. His demeanor turned from that of an excoriating comedian

to a concerned citizen at several points during the discussion. More recently,

Stewart devoted a show to a bill committing federal funds toward health care

for 9/11 responders. Some argued that the bill became law because of the come­

dians efforts. 4 6 During his interviews with some 9/11 responders on this show,

what most struck me about Stewarts advocacy was the somber tone the come­

dian maintained throughout the segment, demonstrating that humor could

not adequately address the problem being targeted.47

These examples highlight a potential problem with chronic comedy in pub­

lic discourse, when communicators fail to consider that a comic identity is

only one among many options. This is a subtle point that really applies to all

matters of human identity, but one in which the current glut and normalcy of

humor in public discourse should make us take heed. Without getting into a

thicket of theory related to this matter, much communication research finds

that the most promising political identity for citizens is one that involves an

ability to piay multiple styles and selves, while adapting to a variety of audi­

ences.48 These concepts may sound strange in a culture that often assumes

people have single personalities and identities. But as Postman argues, role

fixation, or playing a single role in all circumstances, is highly problematic for

communicators. Malting the point clearly, he writes:

We all know people who cannot transit f rom one semantic environment

to another. Professors, for instance, are apt to remain Professors even

in situations where none are required. And there are Political People

who see Significance in someone's ordering scrambled eggs. And there

are Comics who are always "on." And Moralists for whom there is no joy

anywhere, only responsibility. And Cynics who will never let themselves

be awed, or let anything be revered. Such people may be said to be self- or

role-fixated, and, what is worse, they are apt to assert their fixation as a

virtue. These people think of themselves as having strong character, but

really it's impoverished, single-dimensional, lacking the courage to try

out new selves and thus grow, (emphases added) 4 9

In order to meet the demands of an increasingly multicultural, pluralistic,

globalizing age in which tolerance and the ability to work with a variety of

peoples, cultures, and perspectives are beckoned, Lull too finds that individ­

uals must become increasingly comfortable with expanding their commu­

nicative options, playing multiple roles, and continually trying new selves.50

I , too, have argued in a different context that—while some stability in these

matters is reasonable and likely necessary—human identity is constantly ar­

gued into existence and should always be subject to further communication,

308 Venomous Speech

countering views of identity as about some unchanging seif or single perspec­

tive. 5 1 A chronic negativity and potentially related issues of chronic cynicism,

resignation, or nihilism thus do not bode well for democratic citizenship.

The main point is that, while comedy is a type of communication that is

generally adept at and, in many circumstances, better than just about any other

form of speech at broadening our attention to a range of rhetorical styles and

choices52—and how symbolically created rather than natural each of these

chosen or inherited human perspectives are—even a comic perspective can

demonstrate a way of knowing, being, and acting that can bring a chronic

negativity to public discourse, when situations may call for other communica­

tive approaches.

DISTORTION

Comedy writer Mel Helitzer explains that all humor is grounded in a relation­

ship between realism and exaggeration. In effect, comedy must always start

in truths or reality and then be distorted or bent in "a transition from sense

to nonsense."53 Billy Crystal's joke: "In grade school, I was such a hit with my

exaggerated mimicking and clowning that the teacher was charging a four-

dollar cover and a two-drink minimum" illustrates the theory.5 4 Crystal starts

from a reality about his being the class clown in grade school and exaggerates

this truth for comic effect by asserting the classroom became like a comedy

nightclub. This is one of the critical roles humor can serve over other kinds of

public discourse—communicators can use comedy to push the boundaries of

speech, getting their audiences to imagine unique examples or creative flights

of fancy that may often be suppressed in more censorial communication forms

or environments. In The Public and Its Problems, Dewey writes, "the function

of art has always been to break through the crust of conventionalized and

routine consciousness."55 In the same way, comic communication can break

through human beings' normal patterns of thinking and reaction to express

novel, playful insights about public life.

But as much as methods of exaggeration and distortion have for making

positive contributions to public discourse, we can also imagine their potential

for abuse. In particular, 1 would argue that in some contexts the comic method

of exaggeration ends up committing what has traditionally been known as a

straw person fallacy—where another person's image or argument is fundamen­

tally distorted in order to easily knock it down. Nunbergs critique of how many

conservatives have "turned liberalism into a tax-raising, latte-drinking, sushi-

eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-Reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-

loving, left-wing freak show" makes exactly this point. 5 6 Rush Limbaugbs

attempt to entertain audiences through the denigrating term feminazis can

also be faulted for seriously distorting the complexities of feminist movements

An Alternative Sense of Humor 309

and motives.57 This is not unique to the political right, as Rep. Steve Cohen

(D-TN) also leveraged the term Nazis against Republicans in a recent Con­

gressional debate.58

Beyond distorting incivility, there may be some cases where the very se-

lectiveness of these comedic exaggerations is a problem for public discourse.

The fact that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report conduct interviews of

leading politicians and public figures in order to edit them down to the fun­

niest few minutes performs a vital function: throwing officials and others off-

balance through humorous techniques that keep such figures accountable. At

the same time, we should not lose sight of how the need to create laughter on

these shows may sometimes take precedence over an ethical responsibility to

accurately represent interviewees. As Baym finds, interview segments on The

Colbert Report, "are 5-minute constructions assembled from actual interviews

that last as long as 90 minutes. In the editing process, Colbert's staff pays little

regard to accuracy or facticity."59

I am not arguing that every person undergoing a comedic interview should

necessarily be represented in ways they themselves would hope for: to do so

would halt the very legitimate entertainment and potentially critical role that

these shows play in public discourse. Rather, this point merely suggests that,

for the sake of the comedic negative, these interviews can be incredibly selec­

tive in creating an image of political and other figures that bypasses some of

the very good public commentary or work that these figures may have also

carried out. I f a lot of comedy rightfully results f rom an attitude about what is

fair and what is not in the world (and I think most of it does), this issue should

be a concern for comedians as well. Black has written about how people on

television often find themselves the victims of narrative requirements that they

had failed to imagine:

Expecting their own experience of themselves to be immortalized on

film, they found instead what they regarded as a distorting selection of

their behaviors chosen in obedience to requirements of plot and form, a

selection that was alien to the ways that they had lived their moments—

the dramatization of their lives was an interpretation. 6 0

The content and structure of comedic discourses can serve dramatic, en­

tertaining imperatives that may similarly distort their targets beyond rea­

sonable ends. In all forms of comedy, however, these boundaries have to

be negotiated in public discourse. As with each of the other themes raised

in this chapter, there are no universal rules about comedic distortion that

should be applied across all circumstances. But we can at least remain more

attentive to times when comic distortion may undermine political or ethical

responsibilities. Ultimately, our best hope for understanding such practices

Venomous Speech

is to continue committing them to ongoing broadly informed public discus­

sions.

Comedy and politics have become inseparable domains in contemporary pub­

lic discourse. While I would normally largely argue that comedy can make

outstanding contributions to our rhetorical environments, this chapter—rec­

ognizing that no type of communication is without some potential pitfalls in

some situations—raises five themes that might give us more pause when we

are confronted with humor. These themes provide us with an important take­

away: comedy is not everything, it is only one, albeit important, form of com­

munication among many that might be chosen in diiferent circumstances.

I would make the additional point that comedy is an incredibly elusive, hard

to pin down, evolving type of communication. To maintain the potential for

the most boundary-spanning, expansive, creative comedy that can reinforce

democratic norms or rightly challenge structures of power, I would argue that

our default position should be to leave as much space as possible open for

humorous free speech and liberating laughter in the public arena. Discussing

the lines between offensiveness and humor, particularly edginess in comedic

choices, Pickering and Lockyer urge that the public needs to consider ethical

judgment as much as aesthetic innovation and risk in comedy, particularly it

there is a possibility that people are harmed by i t . 6 1

They find that this problem is equally pressing because of the seemingly

impermeable boundary that surrounds humor: simply by questioning com­

edy, one can be accused of lacking a sense for it or for being overly moral­

istic. Yet there can be multiple layers of meaning between a communicator

and audience in any comic act, so much that prescriptive rules and moralistic

pronouncements about comedy should remain tentative at best. Monty Py­

thon comedian Eric Idle spoke eloquently on the matter: "At least one way of

measuring the freedom of any society is the amount of comedy that is per­

mitted, and clearly a healthy society permits more satirical comment than a

repressive [onel. , , f t 2 While maintaining an alternative sense of humor presented

in this chapter—that humor is not always a cause for celebration—J think it is

far more important that society allow room for the multidimensional perfor­

mances, audiences, intentions, interpretations, evaluations, effects, and ulti­

mate artistry of comedy in public discourse.

As a final related point, not all comedy is created equal. Others have made

this argument, but it is worth reiterating in this context. In an extensive analy­

sis, Peterson finds that genuine satire is "so rare that we might be tempted

to conclude it is extinct."63 He says that late-night talk show hosts like Leno,

Letterman, and O'Brien are "evangelists of apathy," and "late-nights antipoliti-

cal jokes are implicitly antidemocratic. They don't criticize policies for their

..ft

An Alternative Sense of Humor

substance, or leaders for their official actions . . . they declare the entire sys­

tem—from voting to legislating to governing—an irredeemable sham."64 On

the contrary, the author praises Comedy Central shows like The Colbert Report

for presenting rare, genuine forms of innovative comic critique and valuable,

democracy-affirming insights in public affairs.

I concur with these judgments and find it noteworthy how such television

shows have also raised a great deal of money for nonprofit causes (Colbert, of

course, revels in an ironic, self-congratulatory "Colbert Bump" that he claims

his show has given to such causes)65 and has found increasingly inventive ways

to mix comedy and politics toward such ends—recently even opening up a

SuperPAC to both highlight and critique very mock-worthy campaign finance

laws.66 As such, while some cause for concern may be found in the overlaps

between comedy and politics, there is continuing parallel evidence that vast

opportunities exist for these intersections to advance the public interest and

even improve our communicative environments.

NOTES

1. Elizabeth Kolbert, "Stooping to Conquer: Why Candidates Need to Make Fun of Themselves," New Yorker, April 12, 2004, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/ 2004/04/19/040419fa_factl (accessed October 5, 201 ]) .

2. Alan S. Murray, "Politics in America: Political Humor Is Serious Business," Wall Street Journal, March 8, 2004, A4.

3. Patricia Moy, Michael A. Xenos, and Verena K. Hess, "Communication and Citizenship: Mapping the Poiitical Effects of Infotainment," Mass Communication & Society 8 (2005): 111-131.

4. Don J, Waisanen, "A Citizen's Guides to Democracy Inaction: Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Comic Rhetorical Criticism," Southern Communication Journal 74 (2009): 119-140.

5. Don J. Waisanen, "Satirical Visions with Pubhc Consequence?: Dennis Miller's Ranting Rhetorical Persona," American Communication Journal 13 (2011): 24-44.

6. Don J, Waisanen, "Crafting Hyperreal Spaces for Comic Insights: The Onion News Networks Ironic Iconicity," Communication Quarterly 59 (2011): 508-528.

7. Peter Berger, Redeeming Laughter: The Comic Dimension of Human Experience (New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, 1997).

8. John Morreall, "Humour and the Conduct of Politics," in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York, NY: Pal-grave Macmillan, 2009): 65-80.

9. Amber Day, Satire and Dissent: Interventions into Contemporary Political De­bate (Eloomington: Indiana University Press, 2011).

10. Ibid., 1,23. 11. Geoffrey Baym, "The Daily Show: Discursive Integration and the Reinven­

tion of Political Journalism," Political Communication 22 (2005): 259-276; Geoffrey Baym, "Crafting New Communicative Models in the Televisual Sphere: Political Inter­views on The Daily Show," Communication Review 10 (2007): 93-115; Geoffrey Baym,

312 Venomous Speech

"Representation and the Politics of Play: Stephen Colberts Better Know a District," Poiitical Communication 24 (2007): 359-376; Adrienne E. Christiansen and Jeremy J. Hanson, "Comedy as Cure for Tragedy: ACT UP and the Rhetoric of AIDS," Quar­terly Journal of Speech 82 (1996): 157-170; Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey P. Tones, and Ethan Thompson, "The State of Satire, the Satire of State," in Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era, eds. Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson (New York University Press, 2009): 3-36; Robert Hariman, "Political Parody and Pub­lic Culture," Quarterly journal of Speech 94 (2008): 247-272; Jeffrey P. Jones, Enter-taming Politics: New Political Television and Civic Culture (New York, NY: liowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005); Christian Smith and Ben Voth, "The Role of Humor in Political Argument: How 'Strategery' and 'Lockboxes' Changed a Political Campaign," Argumentation and Advocacy 39 (2002): 110-129.

12. Eyiem Atakav, " 'Lets Do It! Let's Do It!' Gender Politics and Victoria Wood," Feminist Media Studies 10 (2010): 359-363; Dusty Lavoie, '"No, Not That Twilight': The Comic Critique of Gendered/Raced Identity, Politics, Pedagogy, and Performance," Feminist Media Studies 10 (2010): 364-367; Rosie White, "Funny Women," Feminist Media Studies 10 (2010): 355-358.

13. John C. Meyer, "ITumor in Member Narratives: Uniting and Dividing Func­tions at Work," Western Journal of Communication 61 (1997): 188-208; John C.Meyer, "Humor as a Double-Edged Sword: Four Functions of Elumor in Communication," CoTiimunication Theory 10 (2000): 310-331.

14. Michael Biilig, Laughter and Ridicule: Towards a Social Critique of Humour (Thousand Oaks, CA; Sage Publications, 2005); Christiansen and Hanson, "Comedy as Cure"; Doyle Greene, Politics and the American Television Comedy (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 2007); Ethan Thompson, "Good Demo, Bad Taste: South Park as Carnivalesque Satire," in Satire TV: Politics and Comedy in the Post-Network Era, eds. Jonathan Gray, Jeffrey P. Jones, and Ethan Thompson (New York University Press, 2009): 213-232.

15. Sophie Quirk, "Who's in Charge? Negotiation, Manipulation and Comic Li­cense in the Work of Mark Thomas," Comedy Studies 1 (2010): 120-121.

16. Morreall, "Humour and the Conduct," 74. 17. Cited in Mike Sacks, And Here's the Kicker: Conversations with 21 Top Elumor

Writers on Their Craft (Cincinnati, OH: Writers Digest Books, 2009), 155. 18. Irving Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes,

2nd ed. (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 1982); Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: Science and Practice, 5th ed. (New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon, 2008).

19. John C. Meyer, "Ronald Reagan and Humor: A Politicians Velvet Weapon," Communication Studies 41 (1990): 76-88.

20. Ian Millhiser, "Rick Perry Can't Defend His Claim That Social Security Is Un­constitutional Because He's 'Got a Big Mouthful,' " Think Progress, August 18, 2011, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201I/08/18/298902/rick-perry-social-security-un­constitutional/ (accessed October 5, 2011).

21. Chaim Perelman and Lucille Olbrechts-Tyteca, The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame, IN: Univer­sity of Notre Dame Press, 1969), 188.

An Alternative Sense of Humor 313

22. Billig, Laughter and Ridicule, 190. 23. Ibid., 238. 24. Morreale, "Humour and Conduct," 79. 25. Pascal Fletcher, "Candidate Bachmann Brushes off Hurricane joke," Reuters,

August 30, 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/29/us-usa-campaign--bach mann-irene-idUSTRE77S2RI20110829 (accessed October 5, 2011).

26. Kathleen H. jamieson, Everything You Think You Know about Politics . , . and Why You're Wrong (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000).

27. See Kenneth Burke, Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature, and Method (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1966),

28. Peter Norvig, "The Gettysburg PowerPoint Presentation," November 19, 1893, http://www.norvig.com/Gettysburg/index.htm (accessed October 5, 2011).

29. Wayne Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1975).

30. Heather L. Lamarre, Kristen D. Landreville, and Michael A. Beam, "Tire Irony of Satire: Poiitical Ideology and the Motivation to See What You Want to See in The Colbert Report," International Journal of Press/Politics 14 (2009): 212-231.

31. Sec Neil Vidmar and Milton Rokeach, "Archie Bunker's Bigotry: A Study in Selective Perception and Exposure," Journal of Communication 24 (1974): 36-47.

32. Dennis Howitt and Kwame Owusu-Bempah, "Race and Ethnicity in Popular Humour," in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009): 63.

33. Michael Billig, "Violent Racist Jokes," in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009): 27-46.

34. Michael Pickering and Sharon Lockyer, "The Ambiguities of Comic Imperson­ation," in Beyond a Joke: The Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pick­ering (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009): 194.

35. Ibid., 198. 36. Michael Pickering and Sharon Lockyer, "Introduction: The Ethics and Aesthet­

ics of Humour and Comedy," in Beyond a Joke: Hie Limits of Humour, eds. Sharon Lockyer and Michael Pickering (New York, NY Palgrave Macmillan, 2009): 19.

37. Michael Mulkay, On Humour: lis Nature and its Place in Modern Society (Cam­bridge, UK: Polity Press, 1988), 26.

38. Cited in Daniel Kurtzman, "Obama at the White House Correspondents' Din­ner," About.com, 2009, http;//politicalhumor.aboutxom/od/barackobama/a/obama-white-house-correspondents-transcript.htm (accessed October 5,2011).

39. For example, see Judy Carter, The Comedy Bible (New York, NY: Fireside, 2001).

40. Cited in Hans Speier, "Wit and Politics: An Essay on Laughter and Power," American Journal of Sociology 103 (1998): 1352-1401.

41. Billig, "Violent Racist Jokes," 34. 42. See Waisanen, "A Citizens Guide" and "Crafting Hyperreal Spaces." 43. Wayne Booth, Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent (Chicago, IL: Univer­

sity of Chicago Press, 1974), 1.95.

314 Venomous Speech

44. Paul Rozin and Edward B. Royzman, "Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion," Personality and Social Psychology Review 5 (2001): 296-320.

45. "Jon Stewart Crossfire Transcript," About.com> October 15, 2004, http://politic alhumor.about.com/library/bljonstewartcrossEre.htm (accessed October 5, 2011).

46. Bill Carter and Brian Stelter, "In 'Daily Show' Role on 9/11 Bill, Echoes of Mur-row," New York Times, December 27, 2010, B5.

47. See Rory Albanese (Producer), The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (New York, NY: Comedy Central, December 16, 2010), http://www.thedailyshow.com/videos (accessed October 5, 2011).

48. See Roderick P. Hart and Don M. Burks, "Rhetorical Sensitivity and Social Interaction," Speech Monographs 39 (1972): 75-91; W. Barnett Pearce, Making Social Worlds: A. Communication Perspective (Maiden, MA: Blackwell, 2007); Neil Postman, Crazy Talk, Stupid Talk: How We Defeat Ourselves by the Way Wc Talk, and What to Do about It (New York, NY: Delacorte Press, 1976). See also Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change, 3rd ed. (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1984), on "trained incapacity" and "occupational psychoses."

49. Postman, Crazy Talk, 117-118. 50. James Lull, Culture-on-Demand: Communication in a Crisis World (Maiden,

MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2007). 51. Don Waisanen, "Political Conversion as Intrapersonal Argument: Self-Disso­

ciation in David Brock's Blinded by the Right," Argumentation and Advocacy 47 (2011): 228-245.

52. See Waisanen, "A Citizen's Guides." 53. Mel Helitzer, Comedy Writing Secrets (Cincinnati, OH: F + W Publications,

1987), 170. 54. Ibid. 55. John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (Athens, OH: Swallow Press,

1927/1985), 183. 56. Geoffrey Nunberg, Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into

a Tax-Raising, Latie-Drinking, Sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, Body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, Left-wing Freak Show (New York, NY: Public Affairs, 2006), front cover.

57. Rush Limbaugh, "Feminazi Is an Accurate Term," Tlic Rush Limbaugh Show, July 7, 2008, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070708/content/ 01125116.guest.html (accessed October 5,2011).

58. Jonathan Karl, "Say What? Democrat Compares Republicans to Nazis," ABC News, January 19, 2011, http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/01/abc-news-jon athan-karf-reports-the-newfound-civility-didnt-last-long-political-rhetoric-in-con-gress-doesnt-get-much.html (accessed October 5, 2011).

59. Baym, "Representation and the Politics," 368. 60. Edwin Black, Rhetorical Questions: Studies of Public Discourse (Hie University

of Chicago Press, 1992), 167. 61. Pickering and Lockyer, "Introduction," 4-6.

62. "Eric Idle quotes," ViinkExist.com, http://thinkexist.com/quotation/at-least-

one-way-of-measuring-the-freedom~of-any/347890.html (accessed October 5,2011)-

An Alternative Sense of Humor 315

63. Russell L. Peterson, Strange Bedfellows: How Late-Night Comedy Turns Democ­racy into a Joke (Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2008).

64. Ibid., 10, 14. 65. Christopher Borelli, "Who Benefits the Most from the Colbert Bump?" Chicago

Tribune, July 20, 2011, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/20Il-07-20/entertainment/ ct-ent-0720-colbert-as-pofitical-forc20110720_l_colbert-nation~colbert •-report -dutch-bank-dsb (accessed October 5, 2011).

66. Dana Milbank, "Stephen Colbert, Karl Rove and the Mockery of Campaign Finance," Washington Post, Tune 30, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ stephen-colbeft-cant-compete-with-karl-rove/2011/06/30/AGnrldcsH_story.html (ac­cessed October 5, 2011).