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

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...

Anglicanism, Paedocommunion, & Being Reformed

I consider myself Reformed.  I was baptized as a baby in a PCA church.  I grew up in a Reformed microdenomination that allowed its member churches to subscribe to any of the Reformed confessions (we subscribed to the Three Forms of Unity).  In many ways, whether I like it or not, I still think and act like a Reformed Presbyterian.   Some, however, would seek to deny me that label.  I suspect there are many reasons for this, but paramount among them is that I hold to Paedocommunion (hereafter PC), which, for some reason, is absolutely the worst thing ever to these people.  Some would go so far as to say that PC makes me a heretic, but they all agree that I am certainly not Reformed .   My recent engagement with these opponents of PC has caused me to reflect on what it means to be Reformed and what it means to be a Christian.  This online jousting has dovetailed well with some of my recent study, particularly  An Apology of the Church...

Some Thoughts on the 2024 Election

So, we had an election earlier this week.  Perhaps you heard about it. I have done my best to remain mostly silent on political issues this time around because I have found that fixating on such matters does little for my mental or spiritual health.  Also, no one cares what I think.  Nevertheless, here are a few thoughts on our recent election. 1) I didn't vote for Donald Trump, but I'd be lying if I said I'm not glad he won.  To be clear, that says more about Kamala Harris than about Donald Trump. 2) This election seemed much cleaner--much less suspicious--than the sordid affair we had in 2020.  This election didn't feature any poll workers tallying (discovering? conjuring?) votes behind closed doors in the wee hours of the night, messy mail-in voting, or voter turnout beyond plausible expectations.  The 2020 election had me convinced that we would never see another peaceful, uncontested election, but, as contentious as things were this year, it seems like...