Clown Car 2016

[Traitorfish]

Also, apropos of nothing at all, conservatives really seem to lack a sense of humor. Like, they don't even see humor, much less generate humor.

Humour is often explained as a response to incongruity, which I think has something to do with it. Conservatives are most often committed to the assumption that the world is fundamentally well-ordered and just, that whatever problems arise are because of specific individuals or groups behaving improperly, so they will less readily recognise the absurdities, contradictions or injustices which are the source of so much humour. The humourist is always fundamentally an outsider, and while people on the left are usually able to assume the viewpoint of the outside at least temporarily, conservatives who identify very strongly with inside-status find that much harder to do. Those conservatives who do have a well developed sense of humour tend to be the ones who are more deeply dissatisfied with the modern world, who don't buy so automatically into the idea that the status quo is worth defending, and so can occupy in at least some small way the position of an outsider.

I mean, there's also something peculiar about the sheer humourlessness of the American conservative movement, which I think has a lot to do with the widespread and deeply-rooted anti-intellectualism of the American right and the resulting suspicion of anything subtle or ironic. But as a more general explanation, I think the difficulty recognising or acknowledging incongruity is a lot of it.

 

[Borachio]

P.J. O'Rourke is pretty right wing, imo.

And he's hilarious!

Well, maybe not gut-burstingly hilarious, maybe. But I certainly chortled a bit when I read him.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Humour is often explained as a response to incongruity, which I think has something to do with it. Conservatives are most often committed to the assumption that the world is fundamentally well-ordered and just, that whatever problems arise are because of specific individuals or groups behaving improperly, so they will less readily recognise the absurdities, contradictions or injustices which are the source of so much humour. The humourist is always fundamentally an outsider, and while people on the left are usually able to assume the viewpoint of the outside at least temporarily, conservatives who identify very strongly with inside-status find that much harder to do. Those conservatives who do have a well developed sense of humour tend to be the ones who are more deeply dissatisfied with the modern world, who don't buy so automatically into the idea that the status quo is worth defending, and so can occupy in at least some small way the position of an outsider.

This is a brilliant point. Humor often relies on mocking/satirizing the status quo/mainstream phenomena. Conservatism often is the status quo/mainstream phenomena. So they can't do comedy as well because that would often require mocking themselves.

His imitation of a conservative blowhard is almost as good as Colbert's.

Colbert admitted that his model is O'Reilly not Rush

 

[JollyRoger]

O'Reilly was a good comedian for Colbert to look up to.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What's weird to me is that Fox News, despite their (accurate) claim that they have more viewers than other cable news networks, still only draws about 2-3 million viewers.

What always gets me, is when Fox advertises that they are the #1 cable news show in America (which they are) and that they get higher ratings than all the other news networks (which they do), while simultaneously condemning all those other, lower-rated networks as the "mainstream media" and bemoan how poor-downtrodden FoxNews is being oppresed by the all-powerful "mainstream liberal media"

What's more mainstream than #1? What's more powerful than being the top-rated network? Its smacks as intentionally stoking delusions of persecution and creating a romaticized "underdog" narrative.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is a brilliant point. Humor often relies on mocking/satirizing the status quo/mainstream phenomena. Conservatism often is the status quo/mainstream phenomena. So they can't do comedy as well because that would often require mocking themselves.

Even further, when conservatism isn't typical of mainstream attitudes or mores, it still tends to imagine that it is. In the United States, there's an increasingly distinct and insular conservative subculture, but its members actively reject outsider status, insisting that they represent "true" American culture, and that it's the other 80% of the population who are the weirdos.

 

[Farm Boy]

Humour is often explained as a response to incongruity, which I think has something to do with it. Conservatives are most often committed to the assumption that the world is fundamentally well-ordered and just, that whatever problems arise are because of specific individuals or groups behaving improperly, so they will less readily recognise the absurdities, contradictions or injustices which are the source of so much humour. The humourist is always fundamentally an outsider, and while people on the left are usually able to assume the viewpoint of the outside at least temporarily, conservatives who identify very strongly with inside-status find that much harder to do. Those conservatives who do have a well developed sense of humour tend to be the ones who are more deeply dissatisfied with the modern world, who don't buy so automatically into the idea that the status quo is worth defending, and so can occupy in at least some small way the position of an outsider.

I mean, there's also something peculiar about the sheer humourlessness of the American conservative movement, which I think has a lot to do with the widespread and deeply-rooted anti-intellectualism of the American right and the resulting suspicion of anything subtle or ironic. But as a more general explanation, I think the difficulty recognising or acknowledging incongruity is a lot of it.

Conservatives are funny as hell. But in that humor is often the result of personal or intimate weaknesses and not infrequently a good bit mean when applied to other's weaknesses, conservative humor, the real good stuff, tends to be more intimate than the hilarity of the braying jackasses.

 

[JollyRoger]

In December, when a mentally ill Texas man convicted of murder was poised to be executed—and a number of prominent conservatives were calling to postpone the killing—Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) declined to criticize the pending execution. "I trust the criminal-justice system to operate, to protect the rights of the accused, and to administer justice to violent criminals," Cruz declared. This was not shocking. As a politician and public officeholder, he has long supported capital punishment. While running for Senate in 2012, Cruz repeatedly mentioned his win as Texas solicitor general in a case before the Supreme Court that preserved the death penalty for a Mexican citizen convicted of raping and murdering two Houston teenage girls.

Yet as a lawyer in private practice two years earlier, Cruz had argued that the criminal-justice system, in at least one instance, had gone awry and nearly killed the wrong man. This happened when Cruz was assisting the case of a Louisiana man wrongfully convicted of robbery and murder who spent 18 years in prison—14 of them on death row—before being freed. As an attorney for this man, Cruz argued that local prosecutors could not be trusted, that institutional failures in the justice system had nearly led to his client's execution, and that this fellow was owed $14 million in restitution because of these miscarriages of justice. But after his experience in this dramatic case—which included coauthoring a passionate brief presented to the Supreme Court—Cruz the politician would still offer a full-throated endorsement of the criminal-justice system and capital punishment.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/ted-cruz-death-penalty-thompson-connick-supreme-court

 

[ParkCungHee]

Conservatives are funny as hell. But in that humor is often the result of personal or intimate weaknesses and not infrequently a good bit mean when applied to other's weaknesses, conservative humor, the real good stuff, tends to be more intimate than the hilarity of the braying jackasses.

I know the kind you mean, but there's definitely something to the general point that Traitorfish raises that the conservatives that tend to be funniest, and portray that intimate humor are almost always outsiders in some form.

Either Agrarians, regionalists (southern, state identity etc.), Religious Traditionalists, etc. I think they're right that when you identify yourself with power, you can only punch down (the Rush Limbaugh method).

But there is also definitely a stultifying trend in movement conservatism. I think on top of the issues that Traitorfish and Sommerswerd I think it also has to do with the fundamental intellectual weakness of American Movement Conservatism.

That isn't to say all conservatism or rightwing thought is weak. Simply that as it became accepted in America, movement conservatism was a grab-bag of issues that came together at a particular time and a particular place, that as a matter of political convenience, was decided to be one Thing.

A wise TV show once said "When you really know who you are and what you like about yourself, changing for others isn't such a big deal." Movement conservatism never knew what it was about really. It was always an uncomfortable alliance.

And while humor requires an outside status, like most things, it also needs an unmoving point. A point that it can use as a base for launching it's slings and arrows from, without even having to defend.

And that was the problem of Movement Conservatism. Under the hood it was a tangled mess and so it had to defend all it's bases, constantly, and had to take itself terribly seriously to prevent from falling apart.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you want to cast the conservative umbrella that wide, and then claim that massive movement has no coherent humor of it's own while differentiating agrarians, the religious traditionalists, rednecks, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... then, I guess, sure? But how are we classifying "outsiders?" An outsider to the general demographics of what? A young-ish, wealthy-ish, white-ish, urban-ish, American-ish, liberal-ish person who interacts with CFC posters?

 

[ParkCungHee]

If you want to cast the conservative umbrella that wide, and then claim that massive movement has no coherent humor of it's own while differentiating agrarians, the religious traditionalists, rednecks, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc... then, I guess, sure?

Sure. I mean like, yeah it's a huge wide movement and so the lack of successful humorists from such a huge body is pretty notable.

But how are we classifying "outsiders?" An outsider to the general demographics of what? A young-ish, wealthy-ish, white-ish, urban-ish, American-ish, liberal-ish person who interacts with CFC posters?

Nah. Obviously a large part of this is self-perception but I'm going to say "outsider to the larger American culture and project."

Now, if you want me to lay into mainstream liberalism, I'll tell you all about how that's all sales and no substance. The Daily Show is obviously as entrenched in the existing power structure of America as you can get.

But modern leftism in America has largely convinced it's target audience that it is outside the American Power Structure and outside the American project. As such, it can appropriate humor to it's ends more effectively. Because Ironic Detachment is pretty much the basis of modern leftist politics in America.

 

[Farm Boy]

But wasn't that both your point and mine? Conservatism, defined so expansively, is a hodgepodge of distinct subcultures, TF would even say insular ones(I would agree that the humor tends to be), brought into the same ''camp'' to oppose the general ''mainstream'' urban zerg. They don't all like each other. Look what the Republicans do now that there are enough of them to try and do something. They fight with each other. There's the rich and old and conservative. There's the rich and young and conservative. There's the religious, the pro-choice, the pro-life, the union busters, the union tolerators, the bankers, the populists, the neocons, the isolationists, the God-hippies, the farmers. All these groups have funny people, but that humor won't wind up being associated with ''the conservative political movement'' as named. If you want to ponder something interesting, ponder what could be so odious it drives all these camps that hate each other into the same boat.

 

[Cutlass]

But wasn't that both your point and mine? Conservatism, defined so expansively, is a hodgepodge of distinct subcultures, TF would even say insular ones(I would agree that the humor tends to be), brought into the same ''camp'' to oppose the general ''mainstream'' urban zerg. They don't all like each other. Look what the Republicans do now that there are enough of them to try and do something. They fight with each other. There's the rich and old and conservative. There's the rich and young and conservative. There's the religious, the pro-choice, the pro-life, the union busters, the union tolerators, the bankers, the populists, the neocons, the isolationists, the God-hippies, the farmers. All these groups have funny people, but that humor won't wind up being associated with ''the conservative political movement'' as named. If you want to ponder something interesting, ponder what could be so odious it drives all these camps that hate each other into the same boat.

The idea that what they are unified against is odious to them and that drives them together, if that's what's unifying them, then that, well I can't even really think of the proper way to express the thought. It's not that something is odious, objectively, in and of itself. But rather that what unifies these people is the tendency to see as odious a range of things which they should not.

 

[Farm Boy]

The last sentence, while it makes sense, proves the point and justifies it at the same time. If I want to vote for a major political party that wants science to back its food policy rather than fat shamers and the PETA/vegan umbrella, I wind up with the capitalist overlords and the anti-gays. I detest our system as presently functioning. The fault of people being selfish, ignorant, and harmful pricks is multisided. Welcome to the two party system. Woot. Woot.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Conservatives are funny as hell. But in that humor is often the result of personal or intimate weaknesses and not infrequently a good bit mean when applied to other's weaknesses, conservative humor, the real good stuff, tends to be more intimate than the hilarity of the braying jackasses.

If I follow you... and I will admit that you are sometimes a little too highbrow to follow... I think this is a really good point that is easy to miss/ignore (at least it was for me). Boiling it down to an easier to understand (albeit oversimplified) statement... Conservative humor can be just as hilarious and or counterculture as liberal humor, but the problem is that it comes off as racist, oppresive, kicking people while they're down, stepping on the little guy etc., so people are reluctant to share it publicly, because its not PC.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/03/ted-cruz-death-penalty-thompson-connick-supreme-court

As an attorney for this man, Cruz argued that local prosecutors could not be trusted, that institutional failures in the justice system had nearly led to his client's execution, ... Cruz the politician would still offer a full-throated endorsement of the criminal-justice system and capital punishment.

I know people hate hearing lawyers defended almost as much as I hate defending Ted Cruz, but the reality is that the position an attorney takes defending a client often is polar opposite of his/her personal beliefs/principles. That's just the nature of the job. So it may be the case that Cruz truly belives in the justice system, and he just criticized it because that was the job he was hired to do as a defense attorney. Or he could just be a flip-flopping opportunist who has no real principles and just says whatever he has to to win

There's the rich and old and conservative. There's the rich and young and conservative. There's the religious, the pro-choice, the pro-life, the union busters, the union tolerators, the bankers, the populists, the neocons, the isolationists, the God-hippies, the farmers. All these groups have funny people, but that humor won't wind up being associated with ''the conservative political movement'' as named. If you want to ponder something interesting, ponder what could be so odious it drives all these camps that hate each other into the same boat.

I know what it is... but I'm not telling

 

[Farm Boy]

If I follow you... and I will admit that you are sometimes a little too highbrow to follow... I think this is a really good point that is easy to miss/ignore (at least it was for me). Boiling it down to an easier to understand (albeit oversimplified) statement... Conservative humor can be just as hilarious and or counterculture as liberal humor, but the problem is that it comes off as racist, oppresive, kicking people while they're down, stepping on the little guy etc., so people are reluctant to share it publicly, because its not PC.

Partially. But not entirely? A lot of it is just self deprecating. Think blue collar comedy tour. Realize conservatives not infrequently love the humor of liberal Garrison Keilor's A Prairie Home Companion. Much of it is just plain personal. We had a conversation regarding manners vs snark vs smarm a while back and I think this ties in. Laughing at your opponents in public is poor manners. It's dismissive snark, often enough. It's humiliating and mean, often enough, and mean people suck. An angry conservative dork that's way too srs is at the minimum paying his or her opponents the honor of treating them seriously. Just one random example, even the anti-Islamic leaning Christians usually seem more inclined than average to advocate that printing cartoons of a specific prophet is inappropriate even while it is legal. Mean people suck. They always suck too, not just when a hot button word is used, be it bullying or homophobia or racist or whatever.

It's not a highbrow sentiment really, though I guess flattery is nice.

 

[Traitorfish]

Conservatives are funny as hell. But in that humor is often the result of personal or intimate weaknesses and not infrequently a good bit mean when applied to other's weaknesses, conservative humor, the real good stuff, tends to be more intimate than the hilarity of the braying jackasses.

That's fair. But I don't know if it necessarily runs counter to what I'm suggesting. When humour is intimate, between two people who are very familiar with each other, the boundaries are well-established, so you can make these little transgressions without bringing the relationship itself into question. You can play on the incongruity between a person's self-presentation or ideals and their reality without really threatening them. Where conservatives struggle, I think, is when the boundaries are not well-defined, when it's not clear what brings relationships and structures of relationships into question, and that's often true of public humour. For most conservatives, and particularly for American conservatives, the ambiguities surrounding gender and sex and race and power are too strong and become paralysing.

 

[onejayhawk]

His imitation of a conservative blowhard is almost as good as Colbert's.

We were talking about the funny parts.

Limbaugh's problem is that the schtick is the same as it was when Bush I was President. Boring.

There is a difference between "generating humor" and just being a laughing stock.

I defer to your experience.

J

 

[onejayhawk]

The last sentence, while it makes sense, proves the point and justifies it at the same time. If I want to vote for a major political party that wants science to back its food policy rather than fat shamers and the PETA/vegan umbrella, I wind up with the capitalist overlords and the anti-gays. I detest our system as presently functioning. The fault of people being selfish, ignorant, and harmful pricks is multisided. Welcome to the two party system. Woot. Woot.

I once reported a post for an highly inappropriate fat comment (about Christie). Only afterward did I notice they were made by a global mod (not this site). Liberals dislike me because I think climate change is non-urgent and champion fiscal responsibility. Conservative dislike me because I support gay marriage, amnesty and legal weed

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

We were talking about the funny parts.

Limbaugh's problem is that the schtick is the same as it was when Bush I was President. Boring.



I defer to your experience.

J

I would guess you have more experience listening to Rush than I have, and certainly more with citing him as a source...in that we are at best dead even.