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.

I Got 71 Problems and the House is One

By Brian Contreras

On Thursday night, the 11th of December, the House of Representatives passed a Congressional spending bill that, if made law, will dictate government spending and appropriations for much of the bureaucracy until late next year. They also crucially extended the deadline for the Senate to vote on this vital legislation by two days, staving off yet another government shutdown by a matter of hours.

This bill, in addition to funding many major federal agencies, supplies money to deal with the ongoing issues of Ebola and ISIS, as well as (in a move that has angered leading Democrats like Nancy Pelosi) reducing regulation on Wall Street bankers and increasing the donation cap for individuals to the RNC and DNC.

However, amid all the tension, one seemingly minor inclusion in the bill is drawing much attention from the nation's capitol - not necessarily by those within Congress, but rather the people who call the city home.

The bill, at least as interpreted by the Republicans who are pushing for it's passage, would stop the District of Columbia from legalizing marijuana; a decision that passed with the vast majority of support in DC's November elections as the widely popular Initiative 71. This has led to a planned march by supporters of legalization in DC and a sit-in in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office, as well as claims by legalization advocates that the bill's language could be interpreted in such a way as to still allow the change (since it had already been passed by voters). Whether such a loophole is available or not remains to be seen, but judging by the climate in Congress at the moment, things don't look good for supporters of DC's right to self-determination.

http://dcmj.org/ballot-initiative/

A campaign poster from the movement which, if the Congressional spending bill passes the Senate in it's current form, will likely be invalidated.

Globalization and Central America

Economics Editorial

Towards the middle of my three-week study trip in Costa Rica, my group and I took an excursion to the Museo Nacional in the nation's capital, San Jose. Based out of a large stone fortress many decades old, the museum had a massive collection of Pre-Columbian  artifacts and relics. These objects, ranging from tools to jewelry to monuments, were a unique product of the indigenous population of the area. True, they weren't entirely unaffected by the surrounding socio-ethnic cultures; but at the same time, the objects were unmistakably Costa Rican, both in terms of origin and styling. They were a product of a single, specific culture, and distinct from those of neighboring ones.

But outside of the museum, Costa Rica is a product of the modern era; an era of globalized trade, cultural diffusion, and foreign influence. It's culture is one of adaptation and change; of taking in parts of other cultures and altering them to fit the local lifestyle and customs. The nation maintains a unique identity and sense of self, of course, but at the same time the marks of international contact are hard to miss. For every restaurant that sells gallo pinto or casado another one can be found serving up hamburgers or sushi.

Perhaps the clearest mark of a globalized culture and economy is the ever-present soft drink titans. As Harvard Professor of Business Administration Richard Tedlow argues, "Coca-Cola is said to be the second most well-known phrase in the world" (according to Bloomberg Businessweek). My time in Costa Rica did nothing if not enforce this. For instance, the 2014 Brazil World Cup was going on at the time of my visit, and Coke was one of their major sponsors; advertisements for the beverage were nigh-unavoidable. Pepsi had less of a presence, just like in the United States, but it was still all over the place.

It's important to clarify that these two companies are not outliers when it comes to the Costa Rican economy; rather, they are exemplary of a larger system that is able to incorporate foreign trade and industry into small-scale localized economies. Nike and Adidas, Universal Studios and Disney, Forever 21 and Apple; these and many other companies have massive footholds in the national industries, on a scale that wouldn't be out of place even in the US. 

This is the clearest expression of a process that has been occurring around the world for many years now. After all, the disruption of the indigenous culture by the Europeans so many centuries ago is a product of the very same process that can cause the establishment of a Chinatown in the middle of  a Central American city.

It is a process that shaped my experience in Costa Rica, just as it shapes all of our lives in the United States or anywhere else on the planet. It is a process that has informed the earth for many centuries gone by, and which will certainly continue to do so for many more to come. It is the process of globalization, and it is the way of the world we live in now.