When you focus on a political theme, do you find that it’s harder to keep it fresh or funny and not just be obvious? How do you avoid the trap of merely pointing your finger and, in effect, saying of your subject, “You’re stupid because I disagree with you”? That’s the art of satire. Sometimes it’s subtle, surprising, and illuminating; sometimes it’s heavy-handed and tiresome. Obviously the former is the ideal, but that’s true on any subject, not just politics.
I’ve grown up with every president since JFK. I remember how froth-at-the-mouth furious Nixon made people; and there was Reagan, who had people pulling out their hair. But compared to George W. Bush, Nixon and Reagan seem like wise men, even sages. But how do you see it? From your perspective, who is the scariest? And how do you keep yourself from getting so sputtering mad that you can’t be funny? Is that tough? Well, you can’t leave Carter and Clinton off the list of presidents who made people apoplectic. But to me, Bush is the scariest because he is easily the most radical. Nixon still caused the most harm — 30,000 Americans and many more Vietnamese died needlessly on his watch — but don’t count Bush out. There are still plenty of countries to take down.
As for not becoming overwhelmed by outrage, that’s exactly the purpose humor serves — an outlet. It keeps me from going sputtering mad.
Someone I can't remember once said something like "We have art that we might not die from the truth."
If they gave me a half hour of national television, four nights a week, or even a handful of panels in the newspapers and on computer screens every day? And if I had to talk about President Bush at least part of the time?
I'd have snapped years ago, and all you'd be hearing is outraged, sputtering rants.
One of the reasons I think Jon Stewart is such a national treasure, as is Trudeau, is because they keep it funny.
No comments:
Post a Comment