The Best Medicine: Why Comedy Matters in Politics

An Editorial and Reflection by Brian Contreras

Politics at home and abroad so often make people emotional, whether because of the content itself or the strong opinions people have about it, that making jokes seems to rarely be an appropriate response. All too often people will argue that it isn't the time or the place for being comedic, and that doing so diminishes the importance of the event or issue being made light of in the first place. And frequently, this is true; current events are overflowing with stories that, if not deserving of empathy, are at the very least worthy of being taken seriously.

Yet all too often, people's knee-jerk reaction to a joke being made about a pertinent issue is to call out the speaker as insensitive or untimely. And to be fair, this is generally an accurate assessment of the situation. Most would-be "comedians" are just using tragedy or conflict to satisfy a need for attention, without fulfilling the most basic requirement for being a comic - which is to say, actually being funny. Yet the problem here is the tastelessness of the attempt at humor, not the fact that an attempt was made. Because comedy is not only a basic way that humans deal with pain, but also (if done right) an erudite yet accessible format of art. Just as Pablo Picasso's Guernica or Terry George's Hotel Rwanda dealt with tragedies or social issues in a respectful but still personal manner, modern comedians have the ability to use their own unique method of communication to draw attention to issues, illustrate flaws in society, and perhaps most importantly, make people happy when they have no other reason to be.

One particularly salient illustration of the key role humor plays in the modern world is that of Hannibal Buress and his use of stand-up comedy to publicize the accusations of rape against Bill Cosby (which had been largely ignored for many years up to that point). During one of his sets Buress called out not only the older comedian and alleged rapist, but also the society that allowed him to remain unconvicted for so many years following the first victim stepping forwards. Almost immediately following the routine, websites and publications across the nation were publishing articles detailing the many accounts of sexual assault up to that point, which in turn led more women to come forwards and say that they, too, had been victimized by Cosby. The fact that it took a male comedian to make this a public issue, rather than the victims themselves, is problematic to the extreme; however, at the same time, it exemplifies the power comedy has to influence social systems.

Another recent event exemplary of this potential power is the strange tale of Seth Rogen and James Franco's stoner comedy The Interview, which openly mocked Kim Jong-un and his North Korean dictatorship. Franco and Rogen, famous for works like Freaks and Geeks and This is the End, may not seem like the likeliest candidates to cause an international cyber-terrorism crisis; but then again, you're not the Supreme Leader of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. Following the announcement of the film's release by Sony Pictures, Jong-un's administration threatened retaliation; soon after, massive amounts of Sony documents and data were leaked online, and the film was eventually pulled from widespread release following the threat of further attacks, possibly physical in nature. Regardless of the actual quality of the comedy (which has received middling reviews since then), it's power to intimidate or humiliate world leaders to the point of large-scale hacking attacks against major world superpowers is astounding, and indicative of the political leverage comedy and satire can have if used under the right circumstances.

Also in the news cycle over the last few weeks has been the finale of perchance the most famous work of political satire of this century - Comedy Central's iconic The Colbert Report, a mocking news show that poked fun at conservative politics, foreign crises, and all manner of timely issues. Following his introduction through The Daily Show with John Stewart (a similar albeit less satirically-tilted program), the eponymous Stephen Colbert adopted an uber-Republican persona while discussing each day's news items. Yet the character and the man alike extended far beyond the confines of the show, with events like Colbert's biting speech at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner, his massive DC-based "Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear", or his sharp take on campaign finance reform through the Super PAC "Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow" demonstrating his commitment to character, comedy, and criticism. Such an expansion of the brand made him as important to the American political scene as nearly any other pundit or policy maker, and ironically enough, a man who lived behind a satirical facade became one of the most honest voices in the mass media. The loss of his irreplaceable insight and humor will be sorely missed from American televisions, all the more so because of the degree to which his comedy mattered not just as humor but as a force for social change.

But likely the most striking example of the power of humor in the world, and certainly the most fresh in our minds, is that of Charlie Hebdo - the satirical French publication that, after publishing a controversial portrayal of Muhammad, was attacked by two Islamist terrorists in what led to the direct death of twelve victims (as well as that of five more in subsequent acts of violence). Much has been said about the relative merits of the Hebdo cartoon and whether it was satirical or simply offensive in nature; this forum is not the place for such discussions. All that can be said is that the events were tragic, and the needless deaths deeply saddening. The idea that comedy (even of the offensive sort) would be cause for murder is unthinkable.

For better or worse, comedy is an immensely powerful tool, as the Charlie Hebdo staff proved through their publications that both led to and reflected on the attacks; whether one agrees with or rejects the specific stance of them or any other comedian is besides the point. To limit the freedom to make jokes (whether through law, intimidation, or violence) is to limit the human capacity for self-expression. This is not to say that there aren't limits in humor, but rather that the limits must be based on the preservation of safety and well being rather than the avoidance of offense. After all, truly powerful, world-changing art will always offend someone; that art being comedic in nature makes it no less important.

A Meditation on the Past 72 Hours in France

“I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

-Oscar Wilde

All that can be said has been said. As an independent publication, free speech to us is the most important, sacred aspect of our daily lives. We would not exist, we would not deliver, and, arguably, as truth-fighters, we would have less of a reason to exist if not for this inalienable right. Nothing like the freedom to express - even if that means inviting others to insult - binds this civilization so strongly. Nothing can atone for this multiethnic bloodbath that attempted to nip at our strongest principal. Nothing will erase the pain felt across many groups. France, we are with you.

(The pictures say: 'I am Charlie' (after the Charlie Hebdo attacks), 'I am Ahmed' (after the heinously killed Muslim police officer in the attack), and 'I am Jew' (after the subsequent attack on a predominantly Jewish supermarket in Vincennes).

I Scream, You Scream.... Because of ISIS (Affirmation - Nathan Ausubel)

In his opening remarks, my opponent (Max Segal) raises some interesting points about the long-term goals of the US airstrikes against ISIS. He claims that United States’ objective “isn’t to obliterate ISIS” but “to secure Iraq.” My opponent also argues that airstrikes are the best option that the United States has against a borderless entity such as the Islamic State, and that the Kurds’ ground forces are performing surprisingly well against the terrorists.

Unfortunately, events in Iraq have not played out nearly as well as my opponent claims. The United States has launched airstrikes against the Islamic State for nearly half a year, and still ISIS troops are on the verge of taking over Kobani and other Kurdish cities situated on the border of Turkey. According to The Guardian, ISIS now controls “a 400-mile strip from Aleppo in Syria to Falluja in Iraq,” despite the frequent airstrikes and the efforts of the US-led coalition. To this day, ISIS remains one of the best funded terrorist organizations in the world, allowing it “to use social media to broadcast the attractions of a revived caliphate.” The United States will need to do more – much more – to drive ISIS from its current position of influence.

A good start would be getting the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakar, to change his lightbulbs sometimes...            

 My opponent argues that the Kurds have scored significant victories against ISIS. However, I see little evidence that Kurdish forces are actually driving back ISIS. Instead, the two sides seem to be locked in a stalemate. In October, we heard stories of ISIS troops fighting the Kurds within two kilometers of the center of Kobani, and we had reason to be worried, since Kobani is located only a couple miles away from the Turkish border. However, we expected – perhaps in vain – the US airstrikes to inflict some damage on ISIS. Two months later, Kobani is unfortunately still a warzone, and the Kurds have not managed to take back their city. In other parts of Iraq and Syria, especially in the Anbar province of western Iraq, ISIS has actually managed to gain land, instead of losing it to the US-led coalition.

               In light of recent events in the Middle East, we should be asking ourselves exactly what we hope to accomplish with repeated airstrikes. Is my opponent correct in his assessment that the US objective is not to obliterate ISIS but simply to secure Iraq? We need to look no further than Barack Obama to answer this question. Let me repeat what Obama said to the American people on September 10^th in his primetime address: “Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL.” According to ABC News, the president has repeated this same exact message – verbatim – over a dozen times. Obama has made himself quite clear: the United States will secure Iraq but doing so will require the destruction of ISIS, despite what my opponent has claimed.

 Nice job plugging me, Ausubel. Not that my words weren't just blanket speeches, but hey...

My opponent has also asserted that airstrikes are the best option to use against the Islamic State. However, in an op-ed published in the New York Times, Secretary of State John Kerry admitted that “airstrikes alone won’t defeat this enemy.” Airstrikes might be an appealing option on paper, but they only work when used in conjunction with an effective offensive on the ground. Unfortunately, Kurdish forces are not strong enough to overpower the Islamic State, and neither is the “dysfunctional Iraqi army.” Meanwhile, US plans to train Syrian rebels are going nowhere. The United States needs to focus its attention on building an effective ground force, or else US airstrikes will be incapable of driving ISIS from its new territory.

 

The paragon of charity of the US with regards to Syria...

The US strategy against ISIS is not returning Iraq to more stable times, as my opponent claims. If that was true, then why would most of the Anbar Province, the largest territory of Iraq, be in the hands of the Islamic State? US airstrikes are even more of a disaster in Syria. Rather than strengthening rebel forces, the United States is instead propping up the unpopular regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Assad, who is guilty of killing more of his people than even the Islamic State, is clearly no friend of ours. However, as long as the United States is distracted fighting ISIS, Assad has a prime opportunity to win back land from rebel forces. Despite the US intervention, Syria is increasingly turning into a war zone between the Islamic State and the equally troubling figure of Assad.

Obviously, I am not eager for the United States to enter another prolonged war in the Middle East. However, until Obama realizes that he cannot win the war by airstrikes alone, the Islamic State will have a distinct advantage that cannot be overcome by Kurdish, Iraqi, and Syrian forces alone. The US strategy against ISIS is ineffective as it stands now, and it will need to focus increasingly on ground offensives if the United States hopes to defeat the Islamic State.

They're Baaaccckkk

Here at FFSOM, we thoroughly enjoyed our holidays. We  hope you did too. We're kidding. We don't really care. We do, but we also don't. We do, actually.

Just kidding, we don't. 

POINT IS, we're back on the air next week. Keep your eyes out for 51st State punditry. 

Stay Curious, 
FFSOM