Skip to main content

Comedians and Politics

Of late there has been an influx of comedians who fancy themselves political analysts.  The most controversial of these has been Stephen Colbert, but there seems to be no end of his peers ripping the current PotUS.  TV show hosts like Trevor Noah and Jimmy Kimmel appear grateful for the seemingly endless fodder he provides for today's comedy writers.  Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all quirky enough to be featured occasionally on the late-night talk shows, but the Trump administration seems to be setting a new precedent in this department.  While I find it annoying, I don't find it difficult to understand.  After all, we're talking about the guy from The Apprentice!  We all knew that a Trump victory would mean a media circus.

What I do find frustrating is the validity the modern political comedian is being given.  When, I ask, did comedians become accepted as political experts?  Now, don't get me wrong.  Comedians have a long, respected history of being political.  Comedians talk about life and culture, so they must almost inevitably discuss politics, but their contribution was once viewed as nothing more than a patronizing satirization of whichever administration happened to be in power at any given moment.  Now they are being given a legitimate voice.  People genuinely receive their news, and the opinions behind it, from shows on Comedy Central, which inevitably leads to imbibing misrepresentations, oversimplifications, and flat-out propaganda.  We once trusted comedians to ridicule the corruption and inane policies of our civil servants, but now, for some inexplicable reason, we ascribe to them an unfounded authority in the political realm.  

How did we get this far?  Well, for one, politicians are eliciting a growing mistrust, which means we turn to anyone who sounds like they make sense.  Politicians, or, rather, politics in general, are getting so ridiculous that we prefer the ideas of those who have no qualifications beyond a microphone and a stint as an SNL writer.  Politicians are comedians, so why can't comedians be politicians?  A second factor we can thank is, ironically, government education, which has left us with consecutive generations of politically, economically, and ideologically illiterate adults.  We simply don't know enough to discern between valid political ideas and what we see on TV.  We are sheeple.  Finally, look no further than our entertainment-dominated culture.  We trust comedians, and celebrities as a whole, because they are the only voices we know.  We don't read.  We don't have genuine conversations with older, wiser people.  We don't discuss this kind of thing in church or even at the dinner table.  We watch TV/movies or we stare at our phones all day.  What this has produced is a sound-bite generation that can't, or won't, process complex ideas or arguments and cannot consider the ramifications of an idea being presented to them.  If you want someone to read something these days, you had better make it short and humorous.  Videos, or at least a generous serving of GIFs, will enhance the effectiveness of your communication exponentially.  We're mentally lazy.  If you don't believe me, take as evidence the Trump/Clinton election.

If you've ever read one of my political posts, you know that I am no Trump supporter.  The criticism he is receiving doesn't bother me as I feel that he has largely earned it.  What does perturb me, however, is the unfortunate state of the American political landscape and the future that is not difficult to see coming.  Ignorance abounds, and those who claim to dispel it do nothing but deepen it. That, my friends, is why we get our news from comedians.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary