How can political satire be used to bridge the political divide in

modern American politics?

Landon Moranty
Senior Project Advisor: Jessica McCallum

Abstract

Political satire is the life sign of a healthy democracy, to be used as either a tool for us to build
new ideas on or the weapon to destroy all that we’ve made coming to this point in the American
Experiment. As it were, we are using political satire as the weapon, in a partisan gun to the head
of the opposition, dividing us. In this paper, I explore how political satire and comedy in general
affects us, how it has influenced us in the past and the present, and where it is taking us. This, all
in all to see if we can flip the table and put our comedy back into the hands of the people, and
not the party. The research conducted draws a damning lime light onto how political practices
have been done, in accordance to satire, and satire in accordance to political practices, as a
form of positive feedback loop. But they also speak to the role political comedy played in time
memorial, how once the skit comedy of SNL (Saturday Night Live) to the comic strips of the NYT
at one point healed a divided country, and how it could once again. This would imply simple
changes in the subjects and context of our political satire could greatly better us, and give us a
foundation to eventually weed out fringe-humor in comedy.

12th Grade Humanities

Animas High School
April 1st 2021
 Part I: Introduction
Political satire is the nuclear bomb of political thought. It is the culmination of us as

humans interpreting the political world around us, and thus history, and translating it into

emotions to better understand it. It is a tool we, as a still functioning democracy, have in our

corner. But as much as we use it as a tool to better our political discourse, it can and has been

used in recent years as a partisan pry bar into our parties, separating us from what is or isn’t

funny, and in worst cases it can blur the lines between what is reality and what is just abstract

pipe-dreams. Fammed media theorist Marshall McLuhan coined it best, “We shape our tools then

our tools shape us.” American politics has taken a turn. When, this depends on who you ask but

we can all see it in our media and our attitudes (not to mention how we talk about politics to both

the political “allies” and political “enemies”). But we know it wasn’t all like this. At a certain

point we could discuss what was going on, where things are headed, and not have to worry about

what they would think of us. As any political comedian will tell you, things are complicated, as

how people interpret and digest comedy with even a political tone has really been complicated. It

is almost as if, in certain cases, political comedy is or isn’t a thing to one side of the government

or the other! But how did a once beautiful example of human thought and expression get turned

into such an ugly stain onto our institution? Neither side is solely to blame, and it is not just us.

Historically these things happen all the time. The key here is to understand that this isn’t

partisan, and shouldn’t be, ever. The best way to do this is by having “us” be the subjects.

Political Satire is one of the most decisive tools we as Americans possess. As decisive as

it is, the best way to bridge the political divide is by utilizing political satire in non-political

methodes, in a non-partisan manner, and to normalize the satire inheirant in ourselves by making

the subjects of our satire both political “enemies” and “allies.

 Part II: Historical Context and Background Knowledge
The world of hostile politics in American history is not a modern affair, it is not as “clean

cut” as we would like it to be either. 35th POTUS John F. Kennedy put this best, “American

history is not something dead and over. It is always alive, always growing, always unfinished.”

There are numerous events that went into play into getting us here now and they can be taken

into the context of historical or psychological. Historically, one must look at when political

polarization wasn’t at odds like it is today, like during the time of the Clinton Administration or

George H.W. Bush Administration, in order to look at the role political satire played at that point.

Then, what the effects were to both the median voter as well as the fringe groups of the era. Then

we will need to see how the “change” in political satire’s role in politics came to be during the

George W. Bush Administration, the effects of 9/11 and its wake, the 2008 election, the ongoing

race issue, and the Obama Administration. This can finally lead to what it really looks like in our

media right now, with the 2016 and 2020 election, as well as the effects of the Trump

Administration. (Bertsch, Don C.)

With all that out of the way, it is time to cover what could happen in the future, whether it

is good or bad, and how can we change it for the better if the outcome doesn’t look good, in

context of history. But the only way to truly analyze the effects political satire has had on the

whole is to look at the individual in many different contexts and scenarios and also in void of

both as well, a sort of “natural habitat.” You should first understand how people think the way

they do about modern American politics by analyzing how they express their views, in a more

often than not satirical fashion. Then how in context of the individual does the group react and

how they have in the past and then collectively expressed their ideas.
Finally, we need to put these both into context, how has political satire gotten us here, where is it

taking us, and where could it go? Moreover, where do we want to go?

Part III: Research and Analysis;

Most comedy is based on a certain method: setup and punchline. Of course, like anything

you will find divergence in how it works with aspects like absurdity humor (just a punchline) and

nonsensical humor (a long set up followed by punchline after punchline),but how it works is the

same across the spectrum of humor vs. nonsense.

The human brain is a complex machine, wired for max processing power and it is fueled

on literal electricity. How humor fits into this was best described by M. Suslov of the Lebedev

Physical Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In his paper, Computer Model of a “Sense

of Humor” he talks about how, in order to better manage and safeguard resources like energy

spent hearing, your brain will actually stay a few steps ahead of what you’re hearing, using past

knowledge and context clues to be better prepared for what it hears next. In the model below,

line DC represents what you are hearing in the current moment, point B is what your brain finds

as the logical next step to the story, and each line after is a possible way this story can go to get

to the end, in this case, point A.

These lines represent neurons on

your brain, preparing to fire when

the correct path is outlined. A

standard “joke” with a setup

would draw line DC, but the

punchline is where it gets

interesting. When the actual

correct answer is nothing you were prepared for, like a punchline, your brain has to draw a new

“line” to point A, and all the spend electrical and chemical energy from preparing for the logical

step that didn’t happen ends up with the energy being rerouted, most notably to your voice and

diaphram’s muscles, resulting in what we call “laughter.” Political satire works in a very similar

way, look to SNL’s President Bill Clinton at McDonald’s. In the very opening scene we can see a

perfect example of setup and punchline humor in political satire.

“Alright boys, let’s stop in hear for a second I’m a little parched from the jog.”

This is the line delivered from the actor playing as Bill Clinton, his comedy in particular

is classified as nonsensical. Throughout the performance he exemplifies the common or

mundane actions of Bill Clinton in office, and this is a repeated punchline in different fashion

ergo, nonsensical humor.

“Uh sir we’re only been jogging for 3 blocks.”

This is the follow up to the first line, the punchline to this standard joke. The brain

expects for someone to have been parched by jogging maybe 3 miles or maybe 5, but when the

reality of the scenario hits we find it was only 3 blocks, far lower than anticipated and results in

laughter.

In a scientific sense, this is the essence of comedy, the surprise is what we laugh about

and in a way, it's just instinct. But how does this work in a larger sense of what is funny to

someone or not? This is called Disposition Theory

Part III: Research and Analysis;

If we know how comedy works in general, the only way we could ever hope to use it to
unify us is to connect it to the specific. This is because people will react so differently, and

oftentimes more potently when in a large crowd, as such the general application of political satire

cannot compare to the specific. So how do we know what we will find funny? Well, we would

have to understand what we are predisposed to not find surprising, or more often, what is deemed

threatening. In Mark Boukes “At Odds: Laughing and Thinking?”, he discusses how political

satire reactions can be predetermined by how someone thinks about politics. This is called

disposition theory. In essence it is what someone will find funny based on how they act, and

what they don’t find funny is what they deem a personal attack against themselves. This has

many implications, most notably how what we find unfunny and offensive is what we find as

directly attacking ourselves or our image. We also have many different scenarios to fit this into,

for instance what we find offensive is often completely thrown out the metaphorical window

when in the presence of someone we like, but recognize that they don’t think like we do. If your

significant other were of a different party than yourself, then politics may be something that goes

undiscussed at the dinner table.

There are many ways to get around this as a comedian too. There is a tool many standup

comedians use called “finding the line” in which you make a series of jokes all about the same

things, but connecting various other subjects. Like if you want to know how an audience feels

about the COVID-19 pandemic then make jokes first about Costco, and connect it to COVID-19

and the toilet paper flying off the shelves, if they don’t laugh, then they won’t further discuss the

topic.

The implications of this on the political satire stage are numerous. As it were, those who

find politician A to be a good guy may model themselves after it, and when someone makes fun

of this politician they take it as an attack on themselves. This you would think, might generate
political discourse among those “offended” by the subject at hand. In a way you would be wrong

and right. In the same article, Mark Boukes finds that although young people and old people who

have gone through the same things this year and think the same politically, they don’t react to

satire in the same way. As it is, young people seem to regard political satire less and less as

satirical and more as political fact, ergo trusting the source of the satire as a funny reporter, less

as a comedian. Older generations have the same problem in the opposite direction. They will

more often than not see political satire more at satire, even when what they say may not be

exaggerations. What you have then is political satire intending to be both, but people still see it

as a “black-and-white” problem.

On the flipside, disposition theory in political satire can be used offensively as well as

defensively. This isn’t seen very much in political talk shows and TV monologues as they are

subject to a lot of scrutiny over their words. A better place to look for offensive political satire is

political cartoons. Here are two examples:

The first image is from after the events of January 6th of 2021, where pro-Trump voters beliving

that Trump had won the 2021 election tried to assualt the legeslature and what they call “saving

America.” The second image depicts Joe Biden and Kamala Harris taking the “We” out of the

preamble of the United States constitution.

This is a perfect example of offensive disposition theory and political satire, as these images are

meant for only one crowd but it is still sent around to people every which way, with intent on

getting more of a “heated” response from those who disagree, in either case. You can get a good

sense of this when you show these images to individuals whose political beliefs align with the

images. You’ll notice that these images are just unfunny to them, and with a cheap punchline and

no real setup any comedian could tell you that.

Political satire wasn’t always like this, in the 1970’s and 1980’s the comics really rallied

around singular causes, the movement to get out of the Vietnam War comes to mind. But why is

it that now, even bigger things like the COVID-19 pandemic get politicized by our comics? Why

has political satire changed so drastically?

Part III: Research and Analysis

The only way to fix this divide is to first know how it happened.Many news sources and

personal experiences may lead to drawing the conclusion that 2020 was not an orthadox year..

And that is what many people say, that 2016 was what changed all of that. But like a lot of other

things, there isn’t one reason for the political divide in modern American politics but there are

methods to further our understanding.

Political satire, historically, started with the skits of fammed playwright Aristophanes, a

republican conservative of ancient Greece. One could say that for as long as we’ve had

democracy, we’ve made jokes out of it. As democracies around the world picked and chose what

aspects of ancient Greece they would incorporate into their own, most also allow the comedy that

follows it. What we have today is the natural progression of Aristophanes ideas, a long

monologue followed by consecutive and “rapid-fire” one-liners. Today’s political satire also
follows this rule, and it has since 1954, with The Tonight Show starring Steve Allen. Before the

age of television, radio and political sketches in cartoon forms on the newspaper filled the streets

of America. Political satire was less divisive than it is today, as for the most part hosts or

comedians would poke their fun at the equal side of the isle, with no one being safe from the

ensuing comedic firestorm that was Johnny Carson’s hosting of The Tonight Show. Johnny

Carson’s Tonight Show is what many call the “pinnacle” of what bi-partisan political satire is.

This is because as Johnny Carson’s writers had the material of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B.

Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush,

his show was never the subject of controversy throughout all the political turmoil and 4,531

episodes.

But how? Why is it, that after the age of Johnny Carson, with the Tonight Show making

its way to other various writers and hosts, that now all the sudden it seems political satire is now

some sort of evil? A difference occurred during the Bill Clinton administration. Historically,

Johnny Carson’s Tonight show would stray away from the world of politics as best as it could,

which leads many to believe that he never made political jokes. This is a false presumption,

Johnny Cason by today’s standards isn’t a political comic but in his era he definitely was. Jay

Leno would also format his hosting of the show the same way, by never really delving into the

deep end of it, more so just dipping his metaphorical feet in.

About as close to political humor at this time you can get at this time was the occasional

nonsensical humor of Johnny Carson, who would try and describe situations and less people or

politicians. As an example, here is an excerpt of Johnny Carson’s show:“Do you believe the drug
scandal in the white house? It’s the only high the Carter administration has had in 18 months.”

What we can see is the subject of this is the scandal, and the administration, not any specific

people being targeted which is very important to Johnny Carson’s bit. This works with

disposition theory as well, people will self identify with President Jimmy Carter and less with

just the Carter administration. In a subservient way, this is Johnny Carson getting political but

not divisive. This joke is also what many historians call the political revolution in late night

political satire, when things really started to heat up. 1990’s political satire, kicked off by Johnny

Carson, would be a very political scene while still trying to stay bi-partisan. These shows were a

place of nonsensical humor and sketch comedy, stuff like Saturday Night Live really started to

blow up during this time. By staying bi-partisan, they chose to go after the scandals of the

political era.

Jay Leno created a different approach to incorporating politics into his hosting of The

Tonight Show, by starting his monologue of a subject as always. He then normalized his Man on

the Street skits where the actual subject being mocked was the actual voter base, which if the

voter’s aren’t identified, is very funny as well as bi-partisan. This bi-partisan political humor can

also be done by avoiding the parties all together, like a joke told by Stephan Colbert during the

White House Correspondents dinner, during George W. Bush’s administration.

“I believe the government that governs best is the government is the government that governs

least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.”

The subject isn’t the parties at all, and remains bi-partisan in this way. The humor stems from the

fact that the man who designed the failure that is Iraq’s government was sitting ten feet from
Colbert at the time, George W. Bush.

As Andy Richter put it, “Humor is observational.” This is a common thing and saying among

many comedians, if the world or subject wasn’t funny, there would be no jokes, but given there

are jokes about it, it is funny. Basically, reinforcing that they are just observing the inheirant

comedy in the world around us.

As damaging as it has become, political satire was once a driving force to unify us

against common enemies, like the Vietnam War and the Watergate Scandal. Back in its time,

Tommy and Dick Smothers, more commonly known as The Smother Brothers on their late night

TV show of the late 1960’s, would invite many anti-war and peace lovers onto their show. People

like Pete Seeger and Joan Baez didn’t have much of a platform to talk about their concerns until

their appearance on the show. This, it seems, is no longer the case.

Now, political comedians almost never invite activists onto their shows or stations, even

when their views align with the activists. The reason is simple, the line between political

comedian and activist is blurred to the point that it is now the same thing and any googling of

famous comedians nowadays will tell you this. Notice how long researching their works and

likes brings them to light as an activist first, comedian later.

Something to ask is simple, “Why is there no conservative John Stewart?” Again, the

answer is simple. The line between political activist and comedian becomes as blurred as it is,

those more successful drive the opposition out. As it is, democrats have effectively hijacked the

late night comedy shows, evident from the outwardly democratic values that many of the show’s

jokes and hosts share. Later-day comedians on these shows often kept their political views
hidden from the audience, as dividing the audience by your own beliefs leads to a smaller

audience; i.e a smaller paycheck. But how can this divide be fixed now?

Part III Research and Analysis

Many satirists would agree that one of the cornerstones of a healthy democracy is to

laugh at ourselves and our differences alike. As it is being used now, political satire is a pry bar

against the doors of the capitol in some cases. Many historians say that this political divide being

as it is and the willingness to enact political violence is what leads to civil wars, in the context of

history. Just look at the similarities between these two political cartoons:

They may look like the same image, but they are separated by more than one-hundred years of

history. The left image is from 1965, depicting states cutting off their own branch from the Union

in a foolish manner. The right is Obama cutting down the branches of government, leaving the

Executive branch, his own branch, alone. Looking at these images often remind Rachel Moranty,

student at CSU and sister to the author of this paper, of another piece of political cartoonism.

This is a simple, and sadly not bi-partisan cartoon,

depicting Uncle Sam walking past a monument to the

Civil War, and noticing that it may have started in 1861, but the statue doesn’t say when it ended.

How can we combat this downwards spiral that is gripping the nation?

One method is to incorporate disposition theory into a defensive manner, and putting that back

into our late night talk shows. When applying the disposition theory on the political parties, we

can see that the Republican party is in a defensive stance, as if the Democrats political satire has

gone “too far.” Someplace to start can model some comic shows of today. It is a common rule

that if you push the line too far that you have to apologize and get on with the show while

avoiding the topic the audience doesn’t enjoy. A collective political party cannot apologize the

same way a singular comic can, but the hosts of the late night shows very well can. If the hosts of

our political satire shows apologize for the divisive comments made during the Trump

Administration then make a solid effort to avoid being partisan in their humor we as a nation can

collectively move forward. The next step may not be as easy, but it is possible. The Republican

has to find the humor in mocking someone other than the opposition. Political humor that

offensive according to disposition theory is normally the right’s go to when talking about

political satire, this also has to change. As it is these two things would have to happen for

eventually phasing the parties out of the talk shows. What could a world look like at a time when

politics has been phased out of these shows may look a lot like SNL’s Weekend Update skit, or

maybe Stephan Colbet’s Meanwhile skit. These two have political connotations but no bias.

Part IV: Conclusion

Political satire is indeed the nuclear bomb of rhetoric, and at the same time nuclear power

may power the world. It is at the same time a gun to the head of democracy with the ability to

destroy us at a moment's notice and yet it is the only way to keep us in check. As it is, history
recounts how the impact of 9/11 and the Bush Administration changed how we as Americans can

joke about ourselves and the human experience. We saw how when something that changes us

changes our politics, the tool we use to either build us up or knock ourselves down is comedy.

Political satire was once a shining beacon in the dark of the world, showing how a functioning

democracy works, and the world saw America as an example. There hasn’t been another truly

great time for our country politically since what seems to be the 1950s. And even then it was a

lie, as at the same time millions of our people were being treated harshly based on race. But the

values of that age can come back in a better way and better fitting for the times, something that

definitely needs to come back is our way of going about comedy. Comedy used to be the tool to

cope and the method we used to bring us together. In many ways comedy is what kept us

together during the Cold War, look to The Man from U.N.C.L.E by Sam Rolfe and Norman

Felton. The show depicts two spies, one American and one Soviet, working together to bring

down bad guys. As action packed as it was, it was the first TV show of its time to bring light to

the differences between two raging nations. This force for good was not unique to this show,

comedy in general and political satire in specific can be used to push the envelope, make light on

what divides us and makes the wall between the isles, maybe just a little bit smaller.
 Works Cited

Boukes, Mark, et al. “At Odds: Laughing and Thinking? The Appreciation, Processing, and
Persuasiveness of Political Satire.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 15 July 2015,
academic.oup.com/joc/article/65/5/721/4082317.

Holbert, Lance. “Developing a Normative Approach to Political Satire: An ...” International

Journal of Communication, 1933,
www.researchgate.net/publication/289347395_Developing_a_Normative_Approach_to_Political
_Satire_An_Empirical_Perspective.

Kulkarni, Anushka. “Internet Meme and Political Discourse: A Study on the ...” SSRN, 31 Dec.
2019, www.amity.edu/gwalior/jccc/pdf/jcc-journal-december-2017-13-17.pdf.

Baumgartner, Jody C, and Brad Lockerbie. “Maybe It Is More Than a Joke: Satire, Mobilization,
and Political Participation*.” Wiley Online Library, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 5 Mar. 2018,
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ssqu.12501.

Hoon Lee, S. Mo Jang. “Talking About What Provokes Us: Political Satire, Emotions, and
Interpersonal Talk - Hoon Lee, S. Mo Jang, 2017.” SAGE Journals, 7 July 2016,
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1532673X16657805.

Belarde, James. “Your Brain on Politics: What Neuroscience Reveals about Political Orientation
and Sense of Humor.” Medical Health Humanities, 1 Sept. 2020,
medicalhealthhumanities.com/2020/09/01/your-brain-on-politics-what-neuroscience-reveals-abo
ut-political-orientation-and-sense-of-humor/.
Finkel, Eli J., et al. “Political Sectarianism in America.” Science, American Association for the
Advancement of Science, 30 Oct. 2020, science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6516/533.full.

Abramowitz, Alan, and Kyle Saunders. “Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The Reality of a
Polarized America.” The Forum, vol. 3, no. 2, 2005, doi:10.2202/1540-8884.1076.

Brown, Marley. “10 Best Political Comedians Of All Time.” Mic.com, Mic.com, 24 July 2013,
www.mic.com/articles/56107/10-best-political-comedians-of-all-time.

Bertsch, Don C., and Jeane M. Bertsch. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Pew
Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy, Pew Research Center, 28 Aug. 2020,
www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/.

“President Bill Clinton at McDonald's - SNL.” Performance by Phil Hartman, et al., YouTube,
YouTube, 4 Oct. 2013, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYt0khR_ej0.

Suslov, I. M. “Computer Model of a ‘Sense of Humour’. I. General Algorithm.” ArXiv.org,

Cornell University, 13 Nov. 2007, arxiv.org/abs/0711.2058.

“Civil war tree cartoon” unk. 1865

“Civil War” Walt Handelsman 2017 08 17

“We don’t need to go to Congress” Ben Garrison 2021 03 08

“US Seditionists through History” Neile Anderson 2021 07 01