History of political satire

The following section will attempt to provide readers with a basic knowledge in the genre of political satire in order to contextualize the arguments to come. I will first briefly describe political satire’s historical roots, before moving on to its modern incarnations in Western popular culture, and then its Canadian incarnations, past and present.

When I use the term ‘political satire’, I am referring to the genre, which uses different rhetorical devices including satire, but also parody, mimicry, cartoon, burlesque and more, to make humorous statements regarding dominant or hegemonic forces in politics and culture.

As Chesterton notes in The Essence of Satire, “it perceives some absurdity inherent in the logic of some position… draws that absurdity out and isolates it, so that all can see it… this is the great quality called satire; it is a kind of taunting reasonableness” (1989).

Henry and Rossen-Knill (1997) define political satire as involving four intentional acts: the imitation of a prior situation or text; the desire to bring light to that prior situation (‘flaunting’); a critical act; and a comic act.

Therefore, it needs to be based in some truth, have something about it the creators feel is worth highlighting, contain some sort of critical commentary, and some sort of humorous element (though the subjectivity of all four criteria could be easily brought up for debate).

According to this definition, political satire is necessarily subversive within its fundamental critical act, although levels of subversion vary by source. It serves to draw attention to power dynamics and subvert those in power. As Griffin (1994) argues, “satire is inescapably a product of and therefore implicated in the social, political, and economic culture that produced it.”

Political satire can originate from many sources: mainstream media, the general public, even political parties or organizations. Griffin outlines certain conditions that make political satire more accessible in a culture, from its creation (a state open enough to allow for the critique of dominant forces), to its distribution (established means with which to disseminate the content, the possibility of some sort of compensation), and consumption (an audience engaged and educated enough in order to understand the satire itself) (Griffin, 1994).

Political satire’s roots run deep, with many Ancient Greek examples, most notably classical humourist Aristophanes’ Lysistrata (c. 411 BC), wherein all the women of Athens band together and refuse to have sex with Athenian men until the men agree to end the Peloponnesian War.

In Elizabethan times, the recurring construct of the Fool (a character who both jests as well as brings to light truths to the audience that other characters may not see) became heavily employed, including in over a dozen Shakespearian plays. Use of the Fool as a foil could be a metaphor to the relationship of political satire (and satirists) to politics at large. The Fool is able to operate in plain view, subverting while entertaining, and makes dissent harder to pinpoint as such because of his disguise as a simple joker.

Julia R. Fox describes the connections between the fools of old and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: “Like court jesters of old, Colbert and Stewart… criticize the ruling administration in a manner that is humorous and therefore non-threatening while also insightful and brutally honest” (2011). As Freedman writes in The Offensive Art: “as compared with other dissenters, satirists enjoy a certain amount of protection by encasing their hostility in humour. And throughout history the jester has been allowed to speak truth to power” (2008).

Contemporary Political Satire

The dawn of the television age allowed political satire to reach a broader audience, whose age, location, and class mattered less than they have historically (for example, illiteracy became less of a roadblock to its consumption, and many would gather around communal television sets).

As Amber Day states in Satire and Dissent, “parody, irony and satire have not only surged in popularity since the 1990s, but they have become complexly intertwined with serious political dialogue… these modes seem to offer a particularly attractive method of political communication” (2011).

The “fake news” genre has been especially important to this development, as the rapidly expanding academic study on the topic suggests.

Stewart and Colbert

The Daily Show premiered in 1997 with comedian Craig Kilborn at the helm until Jon Stewart took over in 1999, a move seen as a turning point for the show and for the fake news genre, as ratings soon skyrocketed and Stewart, as well as the comedians/correspondents on his show, achieved widespread recognition.

Stewart’s coverage of historical events, such as the 2000 Presidential election, the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and the 2004 Presidential election only served to solidify this reputation and amplify his reach (Day, 2011; McClennen, 2011; Tally, 2011; Gournelos & Greene, 2011). Day and McClennen argue that this timing, specifically the 2000 and 2004 elections, which resulted in George W. Bush’s election and reelection, and the 9/11 attacks, which led to a heightened emphasis on security and patriotism as well as silencing voices of dissent in the United States, created both political content and almost a democratic necessity for their brand of political satire.

As McClennen states,

“Many members of the media, educators and public intellectuals came under attack in the years after 9/11, some losing jobs or worse, when they dared to question the decisions made by the Bush government. Satire became one of the few means through which the public could express resistance to reigning political policies and social attitudes.” (2011)

In 2005, Stephen Colbert, a longtime Daily Show correspondent, was given his own show, The Colbert Report. An historic moment in American political satire (and perhaps American history itself) soon followed, as Colbert’s groundbreaking speech at the White House Foreign Correspondents’ dinner in 2006 saw Colbert in character as an absurdly obtuse right-wing pundit, standing a few feet away from George W. Bush, brazenly dismantling the Bush doctrine and presidency in front of the White House press gallery, foreign dignitaries, senior political players, and more.

The speech, broadcast live on American public affairs channel, C-SPAN (but subsequently and rapidly attaining ‘viral’ status online) (Sandoval, 2006), included references to Bush’s habit of misspeaking [1], the Bush regime’s falsified information presented to Americans as cause for the Iraq War [2], the subsequent failure of the Iraqi regime to function [3] and Bush’s low approval ratings in the polls [4] (C-SPAN, 2006).

In the academic study that followed, many scholars remarked that in modern American history, never had there been such a clear example of a private citizen mocking the leader of the free world to their face.

McLennan called it “a turning point… [a] temporal shift from BC (Before Colbert) to AD (After Dinner),” while Grey, Jones, and Thompson (2009) argue it proved “contemporary satire TV often says what the press is too timid to say, proving itself a more critical interrogator of politicians at times and a more effective mouthpiece of the people’s displeasure with those in power, including the press itself,” many of whom were in attendance that evening.

There have been other notable examples of historically and culturally significant reactions to political satire, including Colbert and Stewart’s “Rally To Restore Sanity and/or Fear,” and Tina Fey’s aforementioned Saturday Night Live impression of Sarah Palin, which some argue fatally destabilized the McCain/Palin presidential ticket by rendering Sarah Palin into a punch line (Kliff, 2012).

This is all a part of what Amber Day describes as the current state of political satire in mainstream American culture: “a blurring of the traditional categories of entertainment and news, art and activism, satire and political dialogue” (Day, 2011).

[1] “Guys like us, we’re not some brainiacs on the nerd patrol.”

[2] “That’s where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. Now, I know some of you are going to say, “I did look it up, and that’s not true.” That’s ‘cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did.”

[3]“I believe the government that governs best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq.“

[4] “Now, I know there are some polls out there saying that this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don’t pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in “reality.” And reality has a well-known liberal bias… Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is half empty, because 32% means it’s 2/3 empty. There’s still some liquid in that glass is my point, but I wouldn’t drink it. The last third is usually backwash.”