Hufford 1

Allison Hufford

Deanne Harper

Writing 5

20 November 2017

Political Satire and Happiness

“SAN DIEGO—Following the events of last week, in which a crazed western lowland gorilla ruthlessly murdered 21 people in a local shopping plaza after escaping from the San Diego Zoo, sources across the country confirmed Thursday that national gorilla sales have since skyrocketed” (The Onion).

To those unfamiliar with The Onion—and thus unaware of its satirical nature—such a headline might be extremely confusing, even disturbing. To those more aware, it might elicit a chuckle or so much as a laugh. But to those politically informed, it might go so far as to make them reconsider their viewpoints completely.

Satire is humor with a purpose—not just to entertain but to enlighten, which is why it so often deals with issues of a political nature. In considering this, readers can see that The Onion article about the “gorilla attack” is not-so-subtly referring to the increase in mass shootings that have occurred over the years in the United States. The “skyrocketing gorilla sales” therefore represent the viewpoint of many conservatives that the only way to limit these tragedies is to make sure there are enough “good guys” with guns to defend against the “bad guys” with guns, thus keeping gun restrictions to a minimum. Though The Onion isn’t necessarily taking a political stance, it is mocking one of the key arguments conservatives use in their defense of the

Second Amendment, pointing out its fallacies in hope of encouraging more logical, constructive Hufford 2 argument over the issue in the future. And yet, to those unaware of the political climate, it is simply a comically fantastical story about the dangers of gorillas.

Why, then, did The Onion even bother to write such a story? If it had an opinion to share, why not state it plainly, instead of burying it under the guise of ridiculousness? If The Onion was looking for an analogy, surely there were more appropriate ones—why choose something so humorous for such a solemn topic? The Onion is far from the only source of media making such choices: Saturday Night Live, , and even South Park all simultaneously address seriously controversial political issues while invoking laughter from their largely American audiences. The fact that this form of media is so popular seems to suggest that it is also advantageous, for both those producing the shows and those watching them. This is because humor as expressed in satirical media not only helps people deal with and comprehend stressful political times—retaining their individual happiness despite national chaos—but keeps citizens aware of the hypocrisies in their own government, assuring they never become complicit in an unjust and unequal society.

Satirical media may be at a high point in America right now, but our mental health is at a low. This all began more than a year ago, when a national poll of 1,000 adults before the 2016 election found that 43% felt emotional distress over Trump and his campaign, along with 28% over Hillary. Of those distressed, 90% claimed this election was worse than any other before it

(Sheehy). Elections are—by nature—stressful national times, as individuals are forced to consider the future of their nation and choose between two extremely differing versions of it, often causing tension between family and friends who choose differently. However, rather than our nation returning to its normal state following this election’s completion, things only seemed to get worse. After Trump’s election, 76% of Democrats and 26% of Republics reported stress Hufford 3 over the outcome, with two thirds—more minorities than whites—reporting stress when they thought about the future of the United States (Fox). This can be said to be the result of a number of issues—the widening gap between the two major parties, the rise in economic and racial tensions, the influx of “fake news” over —but has been largely attributed to the unconventionality of the candidates, especially Trump. Both were already swamped in scandal—

Hillary over her deleted emails and the tragedy in Benghazi, Trump over his unreleased tax- returns and accusations of sexual assault—and when Trump won after almost every national poll indicated an easy win for Hillary, the shock was enough to drive many into terror. After all, there’s nothing more terrifying than the unexpected. Even a year later, the shift from President

Obama’s professional charm to President Trump’s “un-presidential” way of expression remains difficult for many to adjust to. Without a doubt the United States has fallen onto troubling times, and this has had an effect on our national morale. It’s not the first situation of its kind either.

In its short 240 years of existence, the United States has faced countless national crises— from the Vietnam War to the Great Depression to the attack on the World Trade Center—and each time the stress has taken its toll on the public. Following the events of September 11th,

2001, pregnant women in the NYC community were more likely to give birth to underweight or even pre-term babies, who have a greater susceptibility to chronic medical conditions and learning problems as adults (Fox). This is significant, as it demonstrates that a current national situation can have effects on future generations not just culturally but biologically, and pregnant women—many of whom may now be at risk of losing their insurance, and thus their prenatal care, due to a Republican Congress that has spent the past year attempting to repeal

Obamacare—have a greater reason to fear than ever. Even just “a general feeling of anxiety and fear for the future” (Shapiro) can lead to a deregulation of stress hormones like cortisol, which Hufford 4 can have extremely negative consequences on health and wellness by weakening the immune system. For instance, there was a spike in infant mortality in poor areas of twenty states following Reagan’s Medicaid cuts in 1981, as well as an increase in blood pressure of those who lost Medicaid in California, both of which many researchers have tied largely to stress (Fox).

Naturally, this has introduced a variety of concerns of its own.

The fact that political situations can directly impact a person’s health and even threaten their life is very concerning when considering the data of the 2016 election. On the night of

Trump’s election, crisis hotlines such as the Trevor Project’s Suicide Hotline for gay youth received a significant uptick in calls—likely due to fear of Vice President Mike Pence’s notoriously anti-LGBT agenda—with the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline receiving 2.5 times its average (Schapiro). President Trump’s attack on Obamacare may even limit people’s access to mental healthcare by dropping it as an insurance requirement, meaning that as more people need emotional help less people will be able to afford it. Even our national behavior is being affected, with studies demonstrating a spike in schoolyard bullying in recent months, as well as a noticeable rise in hate crimes (Fox). Likely, this has to do with Trump’s insulting and oftentimes aggressive rhetoric, which has made what many people consider racist and sexist speech more culturally acceptable. As a natural byproduct of this, fears among women, minorities, immigrants, and LGBT individuals are running higher than ever. It’s clear, then, that political atmosphere has a significant and unignorable effect on the emotionally wellbeing of its citizens, which in turn may very well weaken the nation as a whole.

As a person’s life becomes increasingly more stressful, finding a way to ease this stress becomes increasingly more important, and just because the idiom “laughter is the best medicine” is a cliché doesn’t make it any less true. In fact, a number of studies have pointed towards Hufford 5 laughter’s positive effects on the human body, both physiological and emotional. For instance, following a period of laughter the muscles relax for up to 45 minutes, with a corresponding decrease in heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure, all of which correlate with a lowering of anxiety (Bennett 38). This is why, when comforting a friend during a stressful time in their life, humor is often so much more effective than pity in cheering them up and relieving their worry. While promising, however, these physical effects are only temporary, and the link between humor and health is still not fully understood. More encouraging is laughter’s link to a person’s emotional state, as demonstrated by one study where individuals being shown disturbing images—such as car accidents and corpses—were asked to reinterpret the photos by improvising jokes. Those who did reported both increases in positive emotions and decreases in negative emotions (Mcclure), showcasing humor’s ability to act as a sort of shield against unpleasant outer stimuli. This explains why humor works when comforting the friend, as through it their tough situation becomes something to laugh about rather than cry over, bringing a shift in perspective that allows for better handling of their stress in the future. In this way, it can stand to reason that those who are better capable of seeing the humor of situations will be better able to cope with negative events, and research support this. Using the Coping Humor Scale, one study found that higher sense of humor scores in an individual correlated with lower scores of depression, stress, and loneliness, as well as higher scores on quality of life and self-esteem

(Bennett 188). In this way, humor serves as a coping mechanism for those experiencing hard times, and if it allows individuals to manage stress from their personal lives why would national stress be any different? Between a friend crying over a break-up and one crying over the threat of

North Korea, a well-timed joke makes them laugh all the same, and a good sense of humor keeps Hufford 6 them laughing all the while. Clearly, a sense of humor is a beneficial trait to have, and any attempt to foster such a trait in the general population is a worthwhile pursuit.

It’s no wonder, then, that shows like Saturday Night Live have been attempting to take the most stressful part of everybody’s lives—politics—and ease the blunt of the discomfort through satire. In fact, it can be said that nowadays politics and humor go hand-in-hand, and the former can seldom exist without the latter. It was more than 40 years ago, for instance, when

SNL first began to inject humor into the presidency through its bumbling impression of Gerald

Ford, and after a soar in ratings it has mocked every president since (Johnson). The day that Alec

Baldwin first came onto the SNL stage with his orange-painted face and a Trump-inspired toupee, it was the talk of the nation, and Trump’s tweet calling it, “Unwatchable! Totally biased,

[and] not funny” (Trump) likely only assisted in bringing it to national attention. The more he fought against it, the funnier and more accurate the portrayal seemed to become. Satirical media has become such a prominent part of politics that many presidents—excluding Trump—have guest-starred on shows like SNL in an attempt to be in on the joke instead of just the target, prompting the coinage of the phrase “Entertainer in Chief” (Cramer 926) and henceforth linking humor with the presidency in the eyes of every American. Likely, this was why Hillary Clinton was so unpopular with young people during her campaign, as her stiffness and general lack of charm made every joke she told fall flat. This connection between humor and the presidency is demonstrated by the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where—traditionally—presidents get mocked by the media and mock others in return, all in good fun. In 2016, President Obama used his to poke fun at the presidential candidates, with lines like “You look like 37,000 donations of

$27 dollars each” aimed at Bernie Sanders and “Is this dinner too tacky for The Donald?” aimed at Trump himself (C-SPAN). In doing so, Obama not only entertained his audience but also Hufford 7 subtly insisted his own political support for Hillary Clinton, using humor as a double-edged sword. And because of social media, it’s not just the president and the media who have the power to express their views by mocking those in under national attention: anybody does. With memes, hashtags, and photo-shopped images, thousands of people every day get to poke fun at the administrations they fear and disprove of. When Kellyanne Conway of the Trump administration referred to a lie as an “Alternative Fact,” the phrase trended on , with liberals and conservatives alike mocking the sentiment and highlighting the administration’s blatant disregard for truth. Humor has clearly become very much a part of our American political culture, for not only does it make stressful national times easier to handle, but it holds those in charge accountable for everything they say and do.

In considering its power to force political culpability, humor becomes more than just a tool for managing national stress; it becomes a tool for fighting against the source of it. For instance, using both online and mail-based surveys, researchers have determined that viewing political satire “ignite[s] meaningful discussion about politics and prompt[s] more animated engagement in the public discourse” (Lee and Jang 148), meaning it encourages people to discuss significant political issues amongst themselves, rather than to avoid or ignore them.

Every time The Daily Show makes a hilarious riff off of something the Trump administration has done or said, viewers are tempted to share the laughter with friends, family, or social media, and in the process prompt a meaningful discussion about the politics behind the humor. This might explain why several studies have demonstrated the role political entertainment plays in encouraging the internal political efficacy—or, the belief that one can understand and influence the political affairs of one’s government—of its audience, which is heavily associated with one’s likelihood to vote or participate in other forms of political engagement (Lee and Kwak 310). For Hufford 8 instance, in attending the Women’s March on Washington after Trump’s inauguration and encouraging others to do the same, satirist Samantha Bee likely assisted in making the event one of the largest single-day protests in U.S. history. However, satire’s relation to political efficacy may largely be because efficacy is positively correlated with political knowledge, and a 2007

Pew Research Center poll found that 54% of regular viewers of satirical shows such as The Daily

Show and rank at a high knowledge level about current events, as compared to 51%, 41%, and 35% for NPR, CNN, and Fox News respectively, making viewers of satirical shows “among the most highly knowledgeable news consumers in the country” (Mankoff). In making jokes about a political event, satirists must first make sure that viewers know what these events are, and thus satirical shows are often much more informative than many suspect. This is particularly important when media tackles international issues that the audience may otherwise not have heard of, like The Daily Show’s episode on Saudi Arabia’s political purge or

Myanmar’s Muslim genocide. By educating viewers and prompting political discussion, satire encourages political involvement, which naturally leads to a more fair and democratic society as citizens strive to make their voices heard. As journalist puts it, political jokes have “a way of building solidarity, focusing the general public on the abuses of the administration, applying pressure where the White House is most vulnerable. Not to mention that other intangible benefit of humor in dark times: keeping each other sane” (Johnson). What

Johnson is trying to say here is that satire has the power to unite the public against a broken political system, simultaneously prompting action while using the social and emotional benefits of humor to keep citizens from losing hope. It’s hard to dispute this what with how deeply shows like SNL have pervaded our culture, prompting weekly discussions between peers and colleagues along the lines of, “Did you see the episode last night?” and “Can you believe they did that?” Hufford 9

The more outrageous the humor, the more fun it is to talk about, and the better satire accomplishes its goal.

Most satirical media manage to use satire in this way regardless of their audience type or political leanings. For liberals, The Daily Show would be the perfect example of a successful satire, provoking both anger and fear as it picks apart Trump, his allies, and his policies, but never going so far as to incite cynicism and the apathy it leads to. The Daily Show’s host, Trevor

Noah, relies on humor to do this, impersonating Trump as a way to highlight his outlandishness, thus turning him into a figure to laugh at rather than fear. By contrast, South Park—while by no means a conservative show—has never held back in its mocking of President Obama, and has time and time again ridiculed the politically correct culture often endorsed by the far-left. This message is especially strong in the show’s nineteenth season, which focuses on the inclusion of a character named “P. C. Principal” and includes a story arc of a child being forced to filter through every negative comment on social media to protect people from being shamed over the internet (Poniewozik), mocking the growing sensitivity of the American youth. By taking P. C. culture to a ridiculous extreme, South Park manages to vocalize the fears of those who see fault in America’s newest major cultural shift, encouraging them to speak out against these changes.

In this way we can see that satire—while usually left-leaning—is ready and willing to mock all parts of American society, whether political, cultural, liberal, or conservative. As Alison Dagnes puts it, good satire is “funny first and liberal second” because “Political comedians aim their guns at everyone—they think… that both sides suck” (Mankoff), and this commitment to putting humor above all else is actually extremely healthy for democracy. It encourages satirical media to pick at the government from all angles, never ignoring a wrongdoing for the sake of their own political agenda, which is something even reputable news sources have been accused of time and Hufford 10 again. Though satirical news is clearly no replacement for these sources, this may be why a 2004

Pew Research Center poll found that one in five young adults claim to learn current events from satirical news shows such as SNL and The Daily Show, nearly equivalent to those who claimed to regularly read newspapers or watch network news (Mankoff). This highlights the importance of political satire in encouraging individuals—especially young people—to stay aware and involved in politics, which they otherwise might have avoided due to disinterest or discomfort. Naturally,

Republicans have been a major focus of all satirical media for the past year, which might seem to unfairly promote the liberal agenda. However, this can be explained more by their control of both the House and the Senate, as well as the alarming nature of the Trump administration, than it can be by political affiliations. Were this not the case, Kate McKinnon’s parody of Hillary

Clinton would not have been just as popular as Alec Baldwin’s portrayal of Trump during the election season of SNL, exaggerating the clinical, pompous attitude that made her so unlikable to so many young voters. Satire’s willingness to take risks, as well as its dedication to putting humor and truth above party lines, is what makes it so effective.

In many ways, political satire as expressed in Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, and

South Park is more than just entertainment—it’s activism. In order for society to be improved people need both to be aware of the problems and to believe that they are capable of being solved, and these shows allow for exactly this. Just as humor is good for the individual, political satire is good for the nation, which is why it is necessary at a time like this—when the nuclear threat from North Korea is greater than it’s ever been before, sexual harassment allegations are rising everywhere, and the President himself is under serious FBI investigation—that satirists like Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, and Stephen Colbert keep on talking. After all, as political Hufford 11 tensions grow and the future of our nation is put increasingly under stress, what we all need more than anything is a good laugh. Hufford 12

Works Cited

Bennett, Mary Payne, and Cecile Lengacher. “Humor and Laughter May Influence Health: II.

Complementary Therapies and Humor in a Clinical Population.” Evidence-Based

Complementary and Alternative Medicine 3, no. 2 (June 2006): 187–90.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ecam/nel014.

“Humor and Laughter May Influence Health: III. Laughter and Health Outcomes.” Research article.

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2008.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ecam/nem041.

C-SPAN. President Obama COMPLETE REMARKS at 2016 White House Correspondents’ Dinner

(C-SPAN). Accessed November 13, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA5ezR0Kh80.

Fox, Maggie. “Is the Stress of a Trump Presidency Making Us Sick?” NBC News, June 7, 2017.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/could-stress-trump-presidency-make-americans-

sick-n769441.

“Gerald Ford, Saturday Night Live, and the Development of the Entertainer in Chief - ProQuest.”

Accessed November 9, 2017. https://search-proquest-com.dartmouth.idm.oclc.org

/docview/1845937884/fulltextPDF/5C5734EC0A06496EPQ/1?accountid=10422.

“Gorilla Sales Skyrocket After Latest Gorilla Attack.” The Onion. Accessed November 9, 2017.

https://www.theonion.com/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attack-1819574361.

Johnson, Steven. “Is It Wrong to Laugh at Donald Trump? | Steven Johnson.” ,

February 10, 2017, sec. Opinion. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/10/

donald-trump-president-comedy-snl-satire. Hufford 13

Lee, Hoon, and Nojin Kwak. “The Affect Effect of Political Satire: Sarcastic Humor, Negative

Emotions, and Political Participation.” Mass Communication & Society 17, no. 3 (June 5, 2014):

307–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2014.891133.

Lee, Hoon, and S. Mo Jang. “Talking About What Provokes Us: Political Satire, Emotions, and

Interpersonal Talk.” American Politics Research 45, no. 1 (January 1, 2017): 128–54.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X16657805.

Mankoff, Robert. “How Does Satire Influence Politics?” Moment Magazine - The Next 5,000 Years of

Conversation Begin Here (blog), November 1, 2012. http://www.momentmag.com/how-does-

satire-influence-politics/.

McClure, Max. “Stanford Psychologists Find That Jokes Help Us Cope with Horrifying Images.”

Stanford University, August 1, 2011. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/august/humor-coping-

horror-080111.html.

Poniewozik, James. “How ‘South Park’ Perfectly Captures Our Era of Outrage.” The New York

Times, December 8, 2015, sec. . https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/arts/television

/south-park-sketches-grander-satire-themes.html.

Schapiro, Rich. “Suicide Prevention Hotlines See Uptick in Calls after Trump’s Win.” NY Daily

News. Accessed November 13, 2017. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/suicide-

prevention-hotlines-uptick-calls-trump-win-article-1.2867786.

Trump, Donald (realDonaldTrump). "Just tried watching Saturday Night Live - unwatchable! Totally

biased, not funny and the Baldwin impersonation just can't get any worse. Sad". 04 Dec 2016,

05:13 UTC. Tweet.