ultratruman
Banned
In a recent interview with PBS, Mel Brooks, one of Americas oldest and greatest comedians and creator of the all-time classic movie The Producers, offered this opinion:
Brooks believes that political humor turns the table on dictators, placing them in a demeaning position by subjecting them to ridicule. This has a subversive effect that undermines their authority, and, therefore, strips them of their power. And that gives comedians a silver bullet against authoritarians: jokes and laughter.The great thing about dictators is, you have to know, if you get on a soapbox with them, youre gonna lose, because they have a way of spellbinding with their oratory. But if you can reduce them to ridicule, then youre way ahead.
Its an intriguing thought.
The only problem is that it isnt true.
To see why Brookss argument doesnt hold up, we can turn to Nazi Germany. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that political humor flourished under Adolf Hitlers rule; in fact, quips about the dictator and his henchmen were so widespread that they inspired collections of whispered jokes published after the war. The editors of these books were convinced that people who had poked fun at the Nazis were part of a tacit resistance. But in researching my own book Dead Funny: Telling Jokes in Hitlers Germany, I discovered that, in fact, the opposite was true.
Berliners particularly loved jokes about their self-proclaimed Führer. Absolutely everyone was telling them, Carl Schulz, a wartime inhabitant of the German capital, told me in an interview. Yet the streets of Berlin were also the site of some of the wars most vicious fighting. In some parts of the city, the Red Army had to literally fight house by house. If political humor helped undermine the morale of the Berliners, the effect was minuscule. Compared with the fear wielded by the SS and Gestapo, comedy dwindled into nothingness.
In fact, much of the humor even the ostensibly satirical may have contributed to keeping the regime in power.
While these quips make fun of Görings vanity and love of decorations, they are only superficially critical of the man. Like many Göring jokes, the tone here is familial and affectionate rather than harsh. Ultimately, the imperial marshal comes across as a sort of pompous but likable Falstaff. His human weaknesses endeared him to the masses, making him one of the most popular leaders of his time. The jokes centered on his weight and vanity, not his callousness, brutality, or complicity in mass murder.Hermann Göring had his medals remodeled in rubber so he wont have to take them off in the bathtub.
Hitler visits a lunatic asylum, where the patients all dutifully perform the Nazi salute. Suddenly, Hitler sees one man whose arm is not raised. Why dont you greet me the same way as everyone else? he hisses. The man answers: My Führer, Im an orderly, not a madman!
Cutting quips like this one occasionally appear in 1930s court documents. Historian Meike Wöhlert analyzed the judgments handed down by courts with jurisdiction for malicious acts and treason. In 61 percent of cases, the joke-tellers were let off with a warning, and in most other cases small fines were handed down.
So why were the Nazis so uncharacteristically lenient when it came to punishing jokesters?
The rather unsettling answer may be that the Nazis realized that this type of humor helped consolidate their rule. In the claustrophobic confines of Hitlers dictatorship, people needed to let off steam. If the masses vented their frustration by joking instead of taking to the streets, then that was in the political interest of the leadership.
Those who did in fact rebel against Hitler the Stauffenbergs, Scholls, and Rote Kapelle activists, for example were not the joking kind. They risked, and often lost, their lives in trying to defeat Nazism. It is hard to imagine Claus von Stauffenberg, the one-eyed war veteran, ever cracking trivial jokes.
Meanwhile, even some of the darkest and outwardly most critical jokes told toward the end of the war were defeatist but in a way that suggested the tellers own helplessness:
Q: Hitler, Göring, and Goebbels are on a boat and get caught in a storm. The boat sinks. Who is saved?
A: Germany.
The jokes under other dictatorships of that era were strikingly similar the Soviet Union, too, had its own brand of resigned humor. Told over and over again, quips like the following normalized the corruption and complaisance of the Soviet system, transforming the incompetence and crass brutality of its authorities into a basic fact of life:
Similarly:Q: How do you relate to the Soviet government?
A: Like a wife: part habit, part fear and wish to God I had a different one.
Unfortunately, Brookss idea that humor might act as a sharp weapon against dictators is based on just that sort of wishful thinking. Authoritarians are not toppled by seeming ridiculous; rather, they force others into compliance with their own deranged view of the world, from Turkmen dictator Saparmurat Niyazovs renaming of the months after himself and his family to Rafael Trujillos insistence that Dominican churches list God in heaven, Trujillo on earth.A Frenchman, a Brit, and a Russian are admiring a painting of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. The Frenchman says, They must be French; theyre naked, and theyre eating fruit. The Englishman says, Clearly, theyre English observe how politely the man is offering the woman the fruit. The Russian notes, They are Russian, of course. They have nothing to wear, nothing to eat, and they think they are in paradise.
In the West, shows like Saturday Night Live may have an important role to play. Satire and comedy can help stop the slippage toward totalitarianism but only as long as they ruthlessly target policies, not just the vanity or quirks of the mighty. One might argue that such programs are preaching to the converted, but even if that were the case, they also help mobilize the opposition and rally it against authoritarian tendencies. A joke shared through the media has so much more value than a whispered one. It not only exposes the authoritarian leader to public ridicule, but it can also establish a sense of community, as well as strong oppositional figures who might challenge his or her rule. Ultimately, this strengthens civil society and can translate either into votes or calls for action.
But comedy in a democracy also risks being mistaken for real resistance. An atmosphere where mockery becomes normal, and where all sides are caricatured and satirized, is reassuring in some ways. It lets us know that things are still OK, that our protections are still in place. But it can also be a distraction if we end up substituting Twitter jokes and sharing sketches for real action. We can laugh at the ridiculousness of the powerful as long as we can still remember when to get serious.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/08/laughing-all-the-way-to-autocracy-jokes-trump-dictatorship/
This is an interesting subject and one that is often discussed on this board. It reminded me of journalist Julia Ioffe's tweet about Trump fucking his daughter that got her sacked from Politico, and actually on the last episode [at 16min in] of Foreign Policy's podcast, she gets told off for cracking a joke about how great a coup against Trump would be. It's not just undisciplined, it's normalising in its own way.