THE EVOLUTION OF POLITICAL SATIRE

 

When a president is elected with whom you vehemently disagree, a four-year term can seem like a lifetime of pain and anguish. Thankfully, there is a bright spot when one’s political views are on the wrong side of an election outcome.

There is the constant stream of political satire against the party in power that has always been an important check and balance. The biting criticisms and humor against the elected officials you do not support can be uplifting. They provide a daily smile, and even thoughts of “I told you so.” Political satire provides entertainment while making a point.

Since the last national election, social media and newspaper op-ed pages have ceased satirizing a “demented” Joe Biden or a “crazy” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, both of whom I hold in high regard. Today, the latest occupant of the White House and his minions have given those who specialize in political satire plenty of ammunition with which to ply their trade.

This commentary will explore two topics that seem to have little in common, but which are now forever joined at the hip. First, what does it mean to be political, and how did this side of human nature come to be the focus of unrelenting attack and ridicule? Second, what is the history of political satire and how did it develop into a full-time pursuit for so many journalists, comedians and cartoonists?

From a civics class perspective, the political world is something to admire, not ridicule. “Political” describes anything related to government and how it operates. It broadly refers to how decisions, laws, and policies are made within societies, from democratic nations to authoritarian ones.

In describing the concept of “political”, a distinction is usually made between a “political system” and “political rights.” The former refers to how a country is officially managed and the latter refers to the level of freedoms citizens have to participate in their government.

For those that are interested in understanding the evolution of political institutions, the two books to read are The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay, by one of the leading public intellectuals of our time, Frances Fukuyama. By the conclusion of the second book, the reader comes away with an understanding of the chronological development of political order and of our choices now and for the future.

When I attend a family or social gathering and receive instructions to “not discuss anything political” it seems like an odd request. In my mind everything is political. All aspects of daily life are influenced by resource allocation, regulations and societal power dynamics that determine how we live.

Conversations about the weather are cloaked in the politics of climate change. Discussions on cultural matters including art, books, films and television all come with political opinions. Recently, even sports topics have crossed the line and now entail political debate.

The political realm does not receive the decorum and respect afforded to other broad human endeavors such as religion and science. Politics has been hijacked from being an important process of collective human problem solving into a zero-sum battleground.

In modern America politics, there is a tribal, all-out-fight for cultural dominance through the use of social media engagement. The goal is partisan political supremacy. Unlike religion and science, nothing is sacred or above reproach.  It has become more difficult for citizens to separate respect for the institutional authority of government from the actions of individual politicians.

This brings me to the subject of political satire which has a long and fascinating history. The book that helped me understand it all is State of Ridicule: A History of Satire in English Literature, by Dan Sperrin. The author traces the history of political satire through the timeline of English literature. This includes the work of Chaucer, Samuel Johnson, John Dryden, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, and Charles Dickens.

For centuries English satire has dedicated itself to the recurring subjects of the legitimacy of rule, the succession of dynasties, the ambition of prime ministers, and the administration of government. The further back in time that a piece of satire was published, the more likely that the writing “goes about exposing the world’s political imbecility in indirect ways.” After all, the goal of each author was to get a point across while staying out of prison, or worse.

I enjoyed the approach in Sperrin’s book of describing each political period in full before turning to the satirists who entered the fray. What surprised me is that some early satirists pulled no punches. Thomas Nashe, from the Elizabethan period called himself the “evil angel” and hated Puritans.  Nashe articulated his take on satire: “Who feeds revenge hath found an endless Muse.”

The discussion on Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift is excellent. Swift’s imagination generated a satire on the entire human species. He had an unmatched command of irony and could create fictional personas that reflected his moral outrage against insincerity. He did this without lecturing the reader directly.

In the end, the connection between “the political” and “satire” becomes clearer. Satire hates corruption, ambition, arrogance, stupidity, depravity, futility and above all, hypocrisy. Unfortunately, politicians continuously supply examples of all of the above.

We need satire to continue to point out the ways in which political vices degrade the rest of human life. We can then work to bring respect back to the ‘political.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE PARADOX OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

 

The “American Dream” is a timely topic to consider in this year of national celebration and reflection. On the surface the dream promises upward mobility and contentment for America’s citizens. However, as our history has unfolded, it is fair to ask whether the dream is a national creed worth celebrating or a disappointing mirage for millions of Americans.

The widespread use of the phrase is attributed to the historian and Pulitzer Prize winning author James Truslow Adams. In 1931, he published The Epic of America that solidified the phrase into our culture. He wrote, “There is an American dream of a better, richer, and happier life for all of our citizens of every rank. A dream of a social order in which each man and women shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

The notion of an American dream was a novel idea in the development of western political philosophy and economic theory.  The concept emphasizes individualism, self-reliance, and social/economic advancement. Conversely, the European social-democratic model focuses on providing a generous baseline of needed benefits, independent of market forces. European nations seek to improve the collective “quality of life.” While America prioritizes personal success, Europe emphasizes universal security.

Journalist Hua Hsu has an interesting perspective in his recent New Yorker essay, Reflections: “The Curious Case of the American Dream.” Hsu finds that following the Civil War and again after WWII “the promise of a prosperous, socially mobile way of life unavailable elsewhere seemed to make sense. Gains were shared across socioeconomic strata, as people moved from farms to cities to suburbs.”

On the other hand, Hsu also points out that African Americans have long argued that they have been denied participation in the American dream. He also references a 2024 Pew Research Center report that “forty-seven per cent of Americans no longer trusted the American dreams’ promise of success through hard work and determination.” This negative position has provided an open door for MAGA populism to gain a foothold in our nation’s middle class.

The remainder of this commentary will consider two very different criticisms of the American dream as first expressed by minorities and, more recently, by the “left behind” middle class.

The abolitionist and former slave Fredrick Douglass provides an excellent starting point. In his famous 1852 keynote Independence Day speech he remarked, "This Fourth of July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice; I must mourn." The message was that America's celebrations of liberty were a cruel mockery to enslaved people.

Following emancipation, the tone softened, but the opportunity to participate in the American dream remained elusive. In his historic 1965 Cambridge University debate against William F. Buckley Jr., James Baldwin argued that the American Dream “was built directly at the expense of Black Americans.” Baldwin asserted that the foundation of the nation's wealth and "dream" relied on the exploitation, enslavement, and continued degradation of Black people.

Martin Luther King Jr. viewed the American dream as a "dream as yet unfulfilled". He described it as a great, universal promise deeply rooted in the Declaration of Independence. King argued America had defaulted on this promise for its Black citizens.

More recently, the late Black Congressman John Lewis weighed in on the American dream. Lewis viewed it not as a guaranteed reality, but as a “potential promise that must be continuously fought for.” The election of Barrack Obama as President was a hopeful sign, not an endpoint.

Lastly, my Cincinnati editor recently discussed this topic with his African American friend. She responded with her heartfelt observations. “I have never experienced America’s love—only its tolerance and even that had to be fought for. The current state of America is requiring me to fight a fight I have already fought. My sense of unity, hope, and shared responsibility is diminished.”

For members of the middle class that feel victimized by their inability to gain economic traction, the issue is a return to, not an initial participation in the American dream. The MAGA slogan and its policies promise a recapturing of lost economic opportunities. MAGA claims that the roadblocks to success are immigrants who take jobs, liberals who ignore the middle class, and our secular culture that removes Christianity from the complex brew that could revive the dream for middle class America.

While I agree that there are entrenched problems blocking middle class advancement, I disagree with both the reasoning and the harsh and vindictive solutions proposed by MAGA.

Is there a path forward that can eradicate racism and sexism, while repairing the declining middle class to make the American dream available to all? Can it be done without one faction attacking the other?

Thankfully, once the excesses of MAGA populism and progressive socialism are disregarded, there are fundamental points of agreement in establishing the American dream. All factions can work together to challenge the entrenched power of corporations, billionaires, and special interests. They can agree on an economic model that guarantees economic security for all Americans when “best efforts” fall on hard times. They can demand the removal of policies that exploit and replace them with ones that reward effort and good deeds.

Finally, with some common sense and compromise, the American dream can become more than a slogan and unite all of us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PA MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD CONSIDER MERGING

 

Pennsylvania is divided into 67 counties and features a remarkably high number of local governments. Each parcel of land within the commonwealth falls into a specific city (57), borough (956), incorporated town (1), or township (1546).

The large number of municipalities resulted from early settlement patterns that were fragmented by challenging mountain terrain and rivers. For centuries, under Pennsylvania law, small groups of residents could petition to split off and form their own localized government.

The time has come for financially distressed municipalities to consider reversing this historical trend. The small size of many Pennsylvania local governments presents major structural and taxpayer challenges. According to the last census, half of our municipalities are home to fewer than 1,893 people, and about 22% have fewer than 800 residents. Neighboring communities duplicate administrative services and public works.

Because municipalities rely heavily on local property and earned income taxes, wealthier suburbs thrive while neighboring “rustbelt” boroughs and cities (Pittsburgh, Washington) experience declining tax bases.  In much of Pennsylvania, small borough and township governments operate with part-time elected officials or a one-person administrative staff to oversee complex audit, legal, environmental, and financial regulations.

As a result of declining tax bases and unforeseen financial setbacks, at least twenty-seven municipalities have sought relief under Act 47, The Municipal Financial Recoveries Act. While the Act has kept distressed municipalities from completely melting down, it has rarely placed them back on solid financial footing.

There is another alternative that is now being considered and adopted across the commonwealth.

On June 23, the Post Gazette announced that “Adams Township and Mars Borough (Butler County) are one step closer to becoming one municipality. Township supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance to adopt a joint merger agreement.” In the November election, voters will decide via referendum whether the proposal will merge the two municipalities.

In early 2026, the City of DuBois and Sandy Township (both in Clearfield County) officially combined to form a single, unified City of DuBois. This was the largest consolidation of its kind in the state.

What is the legal authority for these actions?  Municipal mergers and consolidations in Pennsylvania are governed by the Municipal Consolidation or Merger Act. The process requires municipal boundaries to be contiguous. It must be approved by a majority of voters in each affected municipality. Mergers are more common. Under this model one or more municipalities are absorbed into an existing entity. With consolidations, two or more communities dissolve and create a new municipality.

What are the challenges to merging?  The potential loss of local identity and local government jobs, often dissuades residents and public officials from backing these proposals. The debate reminds me of the similar mindset when a public school district seeks to close underused campuses.

The remainder of this commentary will consider the question of whether Pittsburgh and Allegheny County should merge into one entity. On a smaller scale, much of the discussion would also apply to the City of Washington and Washington County.

Over the years, the Pittsburgh Foundation and the Pennsylvania Economy League (and others) have supported efforts to combine the two entities. Allegheny County is a region with more local governments per capita than any other metropolitan area in America with one million or more people. Allegheny County’s poorer municipalities, including Pittsburgh, are confined to tax bases with limited prospects for growth. They struggle to pay for public safety, road maintenance, and other basic services with little hope of improving their financial standing.

What can be done? A report by the RAND Corporation found that with a city-county merger, “the region would gain unified leadership, more focused policy, and better coordination, which could have ‘a generally positive effect’ on economic development.”

One result of a city-county merger is that the city’s population would balloon overnight, catapulting it up national rankings. Pittsburgh would trade its 67th ranking for a spot among the 10 largest American cities without having to add a single person. Dennis Unkovic, an international corporate attorney was quoted on the topic, “Being four times bigger would be an enormous change in how we are perceived. And perception is the essence of what it is to be seen as a bigger, more powerful city.”

In reviewing all of the literature, my conclusion is that the largest obstacle to a city-county merger are the wealthy suburbs which are disinclined to allow their well-endowed tax bases to absorb all the legacy costs (city pensions, large non-profits who are not taxed) found in Pittsburgh (and Washington). These voters will not support a merger, notwithstanding all of the employment opportunities, cultural events, entertainment and sports venues, health care facilities, and social service organizations they rely on, located within underfunded city limits.

Suburban voters are happy to work and play within the city. They like to complain about the cost of parking, homeless people, and deplorable road conditions and then return to the country club. The Pennsylvania Economy League has noted it does not matter to suburban voters that, “municipal borders in the region often no longer reflect actual economic needs or the residents' ability to pay for services.” The League concluded that, “these boundaries restrict tax bases while concentrating poverty in a cage."

Urban mergers are a difficult sell and are complex to implement. This should not stop smaller, struggling communities from exploring the merger option to achieve cost savings and tax relief.

 

 

 

WHAT IS PATRIOTISM IN 2026?

 

What better way to capture the spirit of 2026 than to attempt to define and to discuss patriotism? In this 250^th year of our nation’s existence, what did the concept mean to our founding fathers? Today, with our antagonistic tribal politics, who can lay claim to being a patriot? How can we shape an inclusive, forward-looking patriotism for future generations?

According to Wikipedia, “Patriotism is the love, support, and defense of one’s country. It represents an emotional attachment and loyalty to a nation, encompassing dedication to its principles, its people, and the betterment of society…It fosters a sense of unity and shared responsibility among fellow citizens.”

Before the Revolution, American patriots were in the minority. Estimates by historians of those colonists who favored independence hover around 40 per cent. About twenty per cent remained loyal to the crown, and the rest were undecided. The founders consistently tried to drum the idea of liberty into the heads of the uncommitted. Ironically, promises that slavery would remain and that indigenous lands would be opened for settlement helped the cause.

Over time, traditions, and institutions began to coalesce into an American patriotism. My personal view is that modern patriotism should ignore the pronouncements of pompous leaders and highlight examples of pluralism, tolerance, and cooperation.

America has a complicated history, including racism, sexism, and the ill-treatment of native Americans. The Trump administration is wrong to stress that patriotism embodies the concept, “Imperfection is for losers, and America is a winner.”  The Constitution was never perfect. American history is full of both spectacular advances and moral backsliding.

In my view, the better approach was advanced by the journalist Arthur Krystal in his excellent New Yorker article, How Problematic is Patriotism? Krystal asserts that “just as obsessive love in a relationship can warp intimacy, so excessive national pride can debase the nation that one is trying to protect… Patriotism cannot trade in ignorance.”

As a baby boomer who grew up in the Vietnam era, I also agree with Krystal on his view of patriotism and war. His opinion is that “The impulse to come to the aid of one’s country ought to match the justice and urgency of the call. While patriotism is essential to the national defense, it should never blind us to the human toll of warfare.”

A recent op-ed article in this newspaper had me scratching my head on the subject of what modern American patriotism looks like. Rich Lowry wrote about “The Democrats’ Patriotism Gap.” He complained that the percentage of Americans who “are extremely or very proud of America” has dropped dramatically, “driven largely by Democrats.”

Equating “proud of America” with “patriotism” is a mistake in itself. Accusing Democrats of not being patriotic is a cheap shot that misrepresents what patriotism means in today’s charged political climate. When Trump and MAGA are considered, Lowry has reversed the script on patriotism.

As I considered Lowry’s assertions, I remembered the famous line in the Russian novel, The Brothers Karamazov, “The more I love humanity in general, the less I like man in particular.” Democrats who love their country in general, despise the individuals who are now in charge. Democrats know that their great nation, with its incompetent, meanspirited leadership, is collapsing into idiocy, or worse.

Democrats admire and honor the abstract concepts found in our original patriotic document, the Declaration of Independence. They are not proud of authoritarian officials who attack the founding concepts of equality and liberty. Democrats who challenge the “out of control” executive branch are the true patriots.

To illustrate my point, consider the memoir of the Russian dissident, Alexi Navalny. Published after his death, likely at the hands of Vladamir Putin, the recent book, Patriot: A Memoir, describes patriotism very well, indeed.

Navalny, Putin’s most outspoken antagonist died at age 47, in a Siberian prison, under mysterious circumstances. He refused to become an émigré and returned to Russia, knowing that Putin would permanently jail and probably kill him. Navalny was the head of a small but dedicated opposition. The group was loyal not to Putin but to the patria, Russia. (Patriotism is a derivative of the Greek, Patris, meaning “fatherland” or “native country.”)

Navalny informed his followers that to not return to his homeland would have been “unpatriotic and a concession to impotence.” Navalny detested Russian leadership and did not support its actions in Ukraine which he termed “criminal and immoral.”  Instead, he was determined to show his countrymen that it was possible to be a politician and a person of moral integrity. His memoir should inspire public-spirited Russians (and Americans) to honor his example of patriotism.

I will end with a thought on Trumpism and the future of patriotism. Trump has chosen to honor our 250 years as a constitutional republic, forged by a nation of patriotic immigrants, with a vision that sends the country back to the white nationalist impulses of the early twentieth century. If he succeeds, our next generation will inherit a vision of patriotism based on exclusion and hate, not on unity and shared responsibility.

Our President has failed to grasp that to be a patriot is not to become an enemy of the rest of humankind. Trump’s imperial, authoritarian state gives those who support it a sense of superiority. It demands surrender to its trappings. In such an environment, there is no dignity, and patriotism is diminished.