Stewart, Colbert, and Destructive Humor

For many years now I have considered shows like "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" to be destructive, and have voiced that opinion to many friends despite not being able to pinpoint my qualms, other than my obvious ideological disagreement. They are political shows with the facade of being comedy shows. "No one actually mistakes them for serious news", people always say. The hosts often hide behind their comedic status in order escape having to defend their ideas or actions. So what is it about them that I find so repulsive, even more repulsive than a character like Keith Olbermann?

An obvious issue to me is their popularity in contrast to how wrong I think they are. Olbermann does not have anywhere near as large of audience, and is not taken as seriously as most political commentators, so he is not much of a threat to the ideas that I hold. However, Stewart and Colbert have are very large fan base with devoted followers despite them having many of the same views as Olbermann. The obvious difference is the injection for humor into political commentary. Colbert is certainly a gifted comedian (not as much Stewart) who can make me laugh yet despise him at the same time. But what is it that is so appealing, especially to the 20-something crowd? Of course it is their humor that keeps people watching, but why political humor specifically?

First, I need to understand the role of humor -- not to determine what makes one laugh, but what the purpose of humor is, besides the obvious entertainment factor. What is it that Stewart and Colbert are able to do with their humor that allows news and ideas to be more digestible to those who are generally apathetic towards politics? Viewers certainly don't watch simply for the entertainment value, as there are plenty of comedies on TV. There's something else that they gain from watching.

According to the philosopher Ayn Rand, "Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you laugh at." And thinking about this (while admittedly not fully developed in my mind), it makes sense. Do you laugh at the school bully before he is about to beat you up for your lunch money, or do you laugh at him as he's being expelled from school? Humor is a way of treating people or ideas as absurd -- to blow them off and consider them unimportant to your life, either non-threatening or non-promoting -- simply neutral. We see humor used as a coping mechanism -- you don't laugh after you almost kill yourself and your girlfriend while on a snowmobile (me), but you do years later when you wish to forget it and no longer worry about your past decision making. So humor can be used to downplay and disregard the significance and importance of ideas, people, and events.

When it comes to politics and current affairs, humor can certainly be valid -- but only when it's based on the facts of reality. And many times Stewart nails it right on the head, for example, when pointing out the irony between a politician's comments and his actions. As for the Right, Rush Limbaugh certainly employs humor to make fun of politicians such as Barney Frank, and political cartoonist Michael Ramirez makes a living doing the same to figures such as Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. But more often than not people on the Right seem to take their humor with a grain of salt. You hear, "it would be funny if it weren't so scary", quite often. They can laugh at the people in power for being unintelligent, but they realize they still have power over their lives.

So what about Stewart and Colbert? Why do I take issue with their brand of humor? Their humor certainly is not used strictly to entertain, otherwise they would be able to find non-political material to work with. Instead, it is used to destroy that which they want their viewers to laugh at. That is the nature of humor, but it is often done in dishonest ways. They target people and ideas in order to neutralize them. Playing a short five second clip of a politician's statement and ending it with a witty quip, they don't want you to try and analyze and understand the fundamental point that the person is trying make. They want you to immediately treat it as absurd and unimportant, hoping you're too busy laughing to think. They create public rallies to mock the real rallies held by those who wish to petition their government of which they think is growing out of scope, not to get a few laughs, but to get their viewers to equate the motivation of their attendees with those of the previous rallies -- as absurd.

Many of the ideas we are presented with in the realm of politics, especially the fundamental ones, can be very complex and difficult to comprehend. We are often conditioned to believe a certain set of ideas as being true without having to have them validated. And the ideas we let into our minds can form into a useless morass if we aren't vigilant about validating them. So when confronted with ideas that are different from our own, we have the choice to either challenge our current beliefs or disregard that which we see in front of us. The easiest and most destructive way to do this is to laugh at them in the face -- to treat them as unworthy of attention. But the ideas that shape this country and our lives are no laughing matter. Making a mockery of a valid idea or opinion does not change it's validity. It is only yourself that you are hurting by avoiding having to think.