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.”