• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Laughing All the Way to Autocracy

Status
Not open for further replies.
nup_177125_0020.jpg
In a recent interview with PBS, Mel Brooks, one of America’s oldest and greatest comedians and creator of the all-time classic movie The Producers, offered this opinion:
“The great thing about dictators is, you have to know, if you get on a soapbox with them, you’re gonna lose, because they have a way of spellbinding with their oratory. But if you can reduce them to ridicule, then you’re way ahead.”
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.

It’s an intriguing thought.

The only problem is that it isn’t true.

To see why Brooks’s argument doesn’t hold up, we can turn to Nazi Germany. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence suggesting that political humor flourished under Adolf Hitler’s 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 Hitler’s 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 war’s 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.

Hermann Göring had his medals remodeled in rubber so he won’t have to take them off in the bathtub.
While these quips make fun of Göring’s 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.

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 don’t you greet me the same way as everyone else?” he hisses. The man answers: “My Führer, I’m 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 Hitler’s 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 teller’s 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:

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.
Similarly:
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; they’re naked, and they’re eating fruit.” The Englishman says, “Clearly, they’re 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.”
Unfortunately, Brooks’s 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 Niyazov’s renaming of the months after himself and his family to Rafael Trujillo’s insistence that Dominican churches list “God in heaven, Trujillo on earth.”

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.
 

Silexx

Member
A slight counterpoint:

Comedy Won’t Defeat Trump, But That’s Not the Point

Trump’s manifest thin skin has led some of his opponents to argue that comedy is the perfect weapon to defeat the president. “He’s affected by comedy!” documentary filmmaker Michael Moore told a rally on the eve of Trump’s inauguration. “If you make fun of him, if you ridicule him, or if you just show that he’s not popular … I’m telling you, my friends, this is how he’ll implode. This is his Achilles’ heel … Participate in the ridicule and the satire for the emperor who has no clothes. Let’s form an army of comedy and we will bring him down.” Moore’s optimism that humor can topple Trump is at odds with Nussbaum’s pessimistic conclusion—reflected in the title of her essay, “How Jokes Won the Election”—that it was comedy that propelled Trump to the White House in the first place.

This contrast reflects a broader debate about the role of political comedy today, which, since the election, has centered around one question: “Do jokes help or hurt Trump?” But this question requires less an answer than a re-framing. To expect comedy to have a decisive political impact is to miss the point of humor. Jokes, even political jokes, aren’t about persuasion, but rather psychological comfort in the face of difficult or painful situations.

Some have argued that liberal political comedians played a major role in the shaming of these voters—indeed, that the likes of Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, and John Oliver were even to blame for Trump’s rise. Jesse Bernstein, at Tablet, wrote that Stewart and Colbert “helped to create the very specific type of internet-era liberal smugness (and, consequently, ignorance) that, though far from the sole cause by any means, has been a significant factor in both the rise of Trump and our current political fracturing. In Columbia Journalism Review, Lee Siegel argued that “it was Stewart and Colbert who helped create the atmosphere of “fake news” (formerly known as gossip, rumor, dis-, or misinformation) that helped elect Trump, and that currently has the media up in arms.” Some have taken the opposite position: that Hillary Clinton would be president if Stewart hadn’t stepped down from The Daily Show in 2015.

These takes misunderstand the power and virtues of comedy. “Fans of political satire tend to think that if only someone dares speak out, something will change, the powerful will flip out, and, faced with a hilarious and unanswerable exposure of their misdeeds, the pols will reverse policy,” Ben Schwartz wrote in The Baffler a few years ago. “In the right moment, in the right place, satire can still alter perception and change the conversation. The difference today is that politicians and policy apparatchiks now understand this as well as the comedians. Whether satire is ‘devastating’ or not, whether the powerful can survive it or not, perhaps isn’t the point. There’s no joke or movie that can topple a president.”

Aside from keeping Trump opponents psychologically balanced, jokes have the pleasant side effect of keeping Trump himself unbalanced. As Yahoo TV critic Ken Tucker noted, Saturday Night Live skits increasingly seemed pitched at the narrowest possible niche audience of one: Trump himself. Tucker sees this as a negative:

[T]he McCarthy sketch was a vivid example of the way SNL (along with the cable news channels) are now directing their satire directly at our TV-obsessed president. We, the viewers, have become almost incidental bystanders. That’s one reason the Alec-Baldwin-as-Trump sketches have been falling flat: They’re so stuffed with quotations from Trump emanating from Baldwin’s orange puff-pastry face that writing jokes for the audience to laugh at seems to be a minor concern or abandoned entirely. Just as Baldwin trolls Trump on Twitter, baiting him for attention, so do the SNL sketches yearningly seek Trump’s tweet-censure.

That these jokes aren’t terribly funny—at least not to the same degree as Trump’s own Twitter feed—is almost beside the point. They’re designed not to make the audience laugh, but to make Trump feel like he’s being laughed at. As such, this humor is closer to Trump’s own form of insult comedy than anything else, and perhaps that’s why it so obviously stings him. Trump’s opponents should feel a sort of communal comfort in the knowledge that these jokes are hitting their intended target. Will this comedy help to take down Trump in 2020? Not likely. But will it help us get through the next four years? Most certainly.
 

Oppo

Member
Yeah I can't make up my mind on whether or not the jokes are hurting or helping.

Trump himself is such a wildcard, even though the idea that it helps dictators and the like is well-founded, I'm not sure it applies for him – just has such a massive ego, he doesn't react normally.

I don't think watching him throw tantrums on Twitter is normalizing, I think it's quite embarrassing for his followers, something they feel they need to tolerate to get... whatever they think they're gonna get that's good, out of Trump.
 
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was so great because it was primarily focused on the actual events that occurred, policies proposed or passed with it's humor. Of course, the quirks of the targets were brought up but only while discussing specific events and policies.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative

This story makes a few blanket and flat statements that while meaningful, are not actually true - even if you take subjectivity into account.

For one thing, there is nothing unusual or lazy about having comedians repeat a leader's actual words - it's a common trope where they can be recontextualized for an audience and the laughs come from realizing how ridiculous the original comments were. But further, using the Spicer example itself, most of the comedy was actually in a deeply clever performance and equally clever paraphrasing, not repetition.

The belly laughs I heard on initial and subsequent rewatches were real and based on innate comedy, not discomfort or panic.
 

commedieu

Banned
Laughing isn't the sole defense avaliable to the American public. See Utah for example or any state, likely. There us severe push back. Our courts are shutting him down, people are taking a stand, and applying some pressure.


We've got a live feed of trump, showing his dismay. The man is notoriously vain and thin skinned. His ego is deflated constantly by the media world, which mind you, he participated in fully. He enjoyed being in those circles of the rich and famous. It defines him as a being. People like rump need people to like him or respect him. That's why laughter is a pretty good psyop. In trumps specific case.
 

Amalthea

Banned
Trump seems just so easily and profoundly hurt by jokes and ridicule. Authoritarians might all be somewhat similiar and most of them are thin skinned narcissts but with Trump it's pretty extreme so it still might help to make a fool out of him.

And people simply have to cope somehow.
 

Loona

Member
Time for John Oliver to return...

Hi show is great at covering nuances of policy mess-up that screw with people's lives without generally getting much media attention, but his show does slip often into making fun of physical features of the people it criticises, which weakens the argument... maybe a sacrifice to reach a wider audicnete, but it'd be more effective if there were more people and shows covering the kind of topics his show does.
 

Calabi

Member
Yeah my thoughts exactly. Humour is almost a way of protecting yourself. If you cant fight or dont want to do anything, then you make jokes and laugh and convince yourself its doing good somehow.

Even if the ridicule hurts Trump what does that accomplish?
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
Yeah my thoughts exactly. Humour is almost a way of protecting yourself. If you cant fight or dont want to do anything, then you make jokes and laugh and convince yourself its doing good somehow.

Even if the ridicule hurts Trump what does that accomplish?

If all you do is talk, I'll take humor over angry, but ultimately empty, rhetoric any day of the week.

Dictators don't give a fuck how angry you are either.
 
Humor can only disarm. Without using this advantage to counterattack, all you've done is distract. Laughing at the brick wall you're speeding towards isn't going to make it get out of your way.
 

Loona

Member
Sometimes I wonder if the nazis elevated Hitler to leadership because they knew he'd stand out with his moustache and other features that would open him up to jokes, so he'd serve as a lightning rod for criticism and jokes, letting others handle policy and other brutal matters comparatively undisturbed.

Guys like Bannon supporting a proven showbiz guy like Trump who'se often been a target of things like jokes about his hair would serve a similar purpose...
 

BorkBork

The Legend of BorkBork: BorkBorkity Borking
The thing that's sorta unique about Trump is that he's not a typical dictatorial figure. Ridicule affects his ego tremendously. He's not smart or self-aware enough to brush it aside and not take things personally. I think constant and unrelenting parody and mockery, (not satire, as that is too clever and surgical), will be great weapons to go at his presidency.
 

Somnid

Member
People who strongly support Trump don't watch programs that make fun of him, people who hate Trump enjoy it. We laugh, his base goes on the defensive. Nothing is solved at this level.

But I think the new form of news comedy has it's use in the reach it can get, people can be entertained while facts are laid down because these people aren't necessarily reading newspapers and the programs are insulated from bias claims because they can say aren't truely news programs.
 
Sometimes I wonder if the nazis elevated Hitler to leadership because they knew he'd stand out with his moustache and other features that would open him up to jokes, so he'd serve as a lightning rod for criticism and jokes, letting others handle policy and other brutal matters comparatively undisturbed.

Guys like Bannon supporting a proven showbiz guy like Trump who'se often been a target of things like jokes about his hair would serve a similar purpose...
If you look at all leaders of fascist right wing parties these last years, all of them have ridiculous looks and/or traits.
Trump, Boris and Geert Wilders share ridiculous blonde hairstyles.
Farage is a known alcoholic.
Le Pen is blatantly related to Nazis and the Vichy republic.
Kaczyński is ugly AF
And so on.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
The presented excerpts of the article don't really support the theory being advanced. The structure is such that the article presents the Brooks theory (laughing at dictators deflates them) and a competing theory (laughing at dictators lulls people into thinking they're not that bad), and then does a bunch of close reads of jokes allegedly representative of jokes people made about german leaders to find the conclusion that actually the jokes were pretty weak and collegial. Is that it? There seems to be no evidence presented about how the jokes actually affected public opinion or other forms of resistance at all; and further the jokes chosen seem to be jokes made well after Hitler had dismantled democratic government in Germany, so the title that Germans were "Laughing All the Way to Autocracy" seems incorrect as opposed to "In Autocracy, Laughing At It". Ditto the Soviet Union. The concluding paragraph's teachable lesson seems entirely unsupported.

Suppose an alternate theory:
- Making jokes can sap someone of their power and authority
- It also doesn't necessarily sap someone of their power and authority, and so jokes aren't substitutes for other stuff.
- Resisting through keeping vibrant civil cultural institutions alive is part of resistance
- Resisting in more explicitly legal and political ways is also part of resistance
- Even in autocracy, it is important to have joy in your life.
- How exactly are Alec Baldwin, Melissa McCarthy, and other comic actors and writers supposed to change Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan's minds about Trump?
 

Moofers

Member
I think stuff like what SNL is doing is important work. Things like Trump skits and awesome twitter accounts (@Bro_pair, @BAKOON, etc) are a soothing balm for people like me who felt like they were punched in the gut by Trump's election. Without them, my spirit wouldn't get any reprieve from all the bad news that comes out of his administration each day. I also get a lift each time I see 45 tweeting about how much he dislikes that stuff because it is clearly a crack in his armor.

So yeah, its important work and somebody has to do it.
 

Slayven

Member
I think the problem is jokes and shit are fine. But you shouldn't be looking to SNL, John Stewart, John Oliver, etc to save you. You should be saving yourself.
 

Silexx

Member
This story makes a few blanket and flat statements that while meaningful, are not actually true - even if you take subjectivity into account.

For one thing, there is nothing unusual or lazy about having comedians repeat a leader's actual words - it's a common trope where they can be recontextualized for an audience and the laughs come from realizing how ridiculous the original comments were. But further, using the Spicer example itself, most of the comedy was actually in a deeply clever performance and equally clever paraphrasing, not repetition.

The belly laughs I heard on initial and subsequent rewatches were real and based on innate comedy, not discomfort or panic.

I can agree, but like the article states, whether or not that form of comedy is funny is besides the point.
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Demagogues and the powerful use their resources, rhetoric, and followers to cast a trance over society. They make it seem that reality has shifted to legitimize themselves. Humor is a vital tool used to break the spell and remind people that leaders are only human, and transitory.

(A reason, maybe, that fascists and fanatical conservatives have trouble with humor. They see themselves as representing something all-powerful, everlasting, and immutable. To them there's nothing funny about denying their claim to absolute authority.)

No, humor alone cannot usually bring down a dictator and if people use it to wallow in detached smugness they're foolish and doing it wrong. Humor and satire also won't change the minds of a dictator's followers because they want to believe in the divinity of their savior with complete desperation. But it's not for them, it's for everyone who opposes them.

Trump represents a rare case too. He is incredibly vulnerable to criticism and mockery, and seems legitimately unhinged. His instability may be really hurting the operation of his regime. And since he needs to be a showman and feel connected to the public, he can't stop talking about all the things that trigger him. That is a comedian's payday, for sure, but it may mean that humor is unusually effective in this specific case.
 

rjinaz

Member
I don't know, judging by the leaks we are getting about hos pissed Trump is about that Spicer skit, it seems to be having more of an effect on Trump than I ever would just holding a sign. That said, I'll still hold a sign.
 

SerTapTap

Member
Considering trump's violent reactions, the jokes might literally be killing him, and they help some of us stay sane. I don't think any of them are the "harmless endearing" ones like the rubber medals one.

Also trump's approval rating keeps dropping and his pro-impeachment rating keeps rising. I see no downsides to the current situation that would be fixed by less joking. Most "solutions" would be like "not have trump as a president" or "have a republican party with morals" which are clearly not options.

And it's not like we're not protesting. This must be an all-time record for protest volume, severity, frequency.
 
In truth it's a little sad to acknowledge this, I know some people who are informed by the SNL, Daily Show, Full Frontal, etc. jokes. But I suppose that's what's different than the examples from Nazi Germany. The jokes we're seeing about Trump are based on recent actions. Whereas the typical bad hair, orange, oafish, Drumph, etc etc are more akin to examples listed.
 

Enduin

No bald cap? Lies!
I've been struggling with this as well. Along with the diversions of all the various things Trump's office and surrogates have been doing and saying. Like the shit with Ivanka and her clothing line or the Bowling Green Massacre. Like it's interesting in so far as it makes them look dumb but ultimately pointless and harmful as it gets covered and talked about when there are far more important and really life and death things going on that his administration is doing.

The jokes and satire may also fall into that same category but the difference I think here, but it may very well be a false hope on mine and other's part, is that it seems like this stuff is really bothering Trump and his inner circle. A lot. These diversions are also diverting Trump and his people and it's making them look really really bad. The big question is does that actually hurt Trump at all. Or is it just another big diversion. One which they may be purposely feeding into because of that fact.
 

SerTapTap

Member
I've been struggling with this as well. Along with the diversions of all the various things Trump's office and surrogates have been doing and saying. Like the shit with Ivanka and her clothing line or the Bowling Green Massacre. Like it's interesting in so far as it makes them look dumb but ultimately pointless and harmful as it gets covered and talked about when there are far more important and really life and death things going on that his administration is doing.

The jokes and satire may also fall into that same category but the difference I think here, but it may very well be a false hope on mine and other's part, is that it seems like this stuff is really bothering Trump and his inner circle. A lot. These diversions are also diverting Trump and his people and it's making them look really really bad. The big question is does that actually hurt Trump at all. Or is it just another big diversion. One which they may be purposely feeding into because of that fact.

PPP Poll found majority of trump supporters bleieve the Bowling Green Massacre, that does not exist, justified muslim ban.

These are not diversions, they are the entire thing we're fighting. If we do not fight misinformation we play right into their hand and reality is meaningless. His followers are already lost, but we can't let the rest of America be lost.
 
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart was so great because it was primarily focused on the actual events that occurred, policies proposed or passed with it's humor. Of course, the quirks of the targets were brought up but only while discussing specific events and policies.

Daily Show did pretty much nothing though to prevent 8 years of Bush.
 

Blackthorn

"hello?" "this is vagina"
I do think, in some cases, comedy can soften the true sinister nature of people in power.

In the U.K., Boris Johnson plays up his buffoonish character yet is one of the most ruthless politicians in the country. Not only do jokes about his appearance and speech and antics not brother him, he relishes in it.

He gets to be Bojo, the loveable, dog-voiced eccentric clown who got to be mayor of one of the world's most powerful cities and was a wispy white hair away from being Prime Minister.

Nigel Farage, too, is constantly mocked, and a significant part of his rise in media coverage was him getting taken the piss out of. Then he achieved his life's political goals. I doubt he cares one second that people laugh at him.

The one difference I think there is with Trump is that it genuinely gets under his skin. I don't think he's got the political intelligence of Boris Johnson to be manipulating his image for his own gain, or the prideless DGAF attitude of Nigel Farage to masochistically take the hits to achieve a larger goal. It seems to genuinely hurt him, and that's fucking great.
 
In the end, humor is just a way to cope. You still need anger smartly directed at the right people, doing the right things. The internet can't be the best target for it, but you can organize.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom