Satire and Politics

This chapter introduces the book and discusses satire as a genre and the practice of the satirical mode. It outlines how the relationship between satire and politics in various political systems is explored in the subsequent chapters and summarises their findings to give an overview of the book. Arguing that Australasian (Australian and New Zealand) cultures of using humour provide useful insights into how political satire operates, the chapter describes what characterises the Australian use of humour and the origins and etymology of the term “larrikin”. In contrast to the serious-minded nature of the British John Bull image or the American Uncle Sam, Australians have come to use the irreverent image of the larrikin as a shorthand to depict their national identity. The authors trace how this image has evolved over time, especially as mediated through Australia’s cartooning history, and why cartoonists have played so important a role in national self-definition. A number of popular and long-lived cartoon characters have incorporated the larrikin over the years and, taken up by successful writers, playwrights and comedians, the larrikin has provided a useful image for politicians to adopt when appealing for the popular vote. As several cases show, cartoonists can turn the image back against the nation’s leaders when they expose themselves through hubris. The larrikin’s current status in Australia’s multi-cultural and diverse society is uncertain, although its connection with nationalist populism still remains.

This rhetorical tradition is entwined with political satire and cartooning, posing disparities between the purported ideals of democracy and the supposedly dismal realities of politics. It persuades because it plays to widely held beliefs about politics in the Anglosphere which are referenced in well-known shows like the British Yes Minister and Australian TV series The Hollowmen. The common political rhetoric between the UK, the USA and Australia has been replenished by a continuous tradition of journalists and commentators weaving satire into their critiques of politics. Current examples demonstrate continuity of purpose and of form with this established pattern.

This chapter explores political co-option in contemporary satire, a process whereby politicians successfully co-opt satire for their own purposes in a way that neutralises the possibility for satirical critique. Popular satire is celebrated as a form of critique that “holds politicians to account”, and as satirists have gained public trust and prominence, politicians of all political persuasions have appeared more frequently on satire programmes. They have been interviewed by comedians, played along in quiz or panel games, appeared in scripted skits, and even participated in self-satirisation. Cases discussed include British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg appearing on the UK TV show The Last Leg in 2015 and US President Barack Obama’s 2014 co-option of host Stephen Colbert’s “The Word” on The Colbert Report. Utilising theories of dominant culture absorbing counterculture and producing it as a consumer product, this chapter explores the complexity of satire as an oppositional yet incorporated element of mainstream political discourse. It develops a theory of the political co-option of satire, demonstrating how, when politicians play along, they can successfully present themselves as having the traits—good-humour, rebellion, honesty, ironic self-awareness, truth and so on—that are so celebrated by satirists and comedy fans alike. Satire’s celebrated critical edge is blunted when politicians use it as a public-relations tool. A more critical approach to satire requires not only acknowledgement of satire’s possibility for critique but also allowing for the possibility of political co-option.

The deadpan style of humour, which is primarily characterised by emotionless comic delivery, is a common feature of Australasian comedy. This is particularly notable in relation to satirical humour, with a number of popular and successful Australasian satirists adopting a deadpan aesthetic. Drawing on media examples from both sides of the Tasman—including John Safran of Australia, Taika Waititi of Aotearoa New Zealand and the binational comedy of John Clarke—this chapter argues that a consideration of the deadpan comic mode can productively complicate conceptions of satire as a political mode, particularly in relation to the attribution of political intention, and even aggression, to satirical humour. This analysis takes as its basis Lauren Berlant’s work on critical affect and “public feelings” in order to characterise deadpan as more than just a matter of facial expression. Instead, deadpan is better understood as a mode of comic aesthetics characterised by a flattening of comic affect. This broader definition of the deadpan aesthetic is illustrated with reference to three satiric examples as a means to interpret the cultural and political work of deadpan in the contemporary media context. An appreciation of the role of deadpan aesthetics challenges the interpretation of satire as a political form, especially with regard to the celebration of popular satire as a form of dissent. Given the prevalence of the deadpan mode in Australasian satire, such an analysis calls for a reappraisal of the perceived politics of Australasian humour.

Although easily absorbed initially, political cartoons possess a complexity of method and context that affects attempts to study them. The disciplinary home of this scholarship is not clearly defined: is it media studies, cultural studies, humour studies, politics or fine arts? Since the field crosses all these disciplinary boundaries, it is reviewed and mapped to provide a guide to scholars researching political cartoons. Published research across a corpus of over 100 studies relating to political cartoons is surveyed. Topic areas include editorial cartoons, caricatures, strip and pocket cartoons and other images satirically commenting on politics. The large, representative base allows the identification of various subfields and common assumptions among the studies and approaches, taking an important step towards unifying the field of political cartooning research. The six major subfields are: meta-studies or surveys of political cartoons, the properties of political cartoons, their function as cultural mirrors, political cartoons’ impact, audience reception, and the cartoon ecosystem. The chapter’s focus is static images in print news media—editorial cartoons, caricatures, strip and pocket cartoons—used to make comment (usually humorous but also critical) on newsworthy events and figures. Work on political cartoons is distinguished from contiguous work on both non-political cartoon books and animations and political satire in prose and/or TV and digital media.

The twentieth century saw newspapers replace journals, magazines and pamphlets as the most common vehicle for dissemination and consumption of political cartoons. The Internet has brought gradual but inexorable decline in newspaper circulation and readership. Imagining how political cartooning might evolve in the present century, this chapter examines two inter-related aspects: socio-technological forces challenging newsprint media; and new media strategies available to practitioners (both professional and amateur). Digital media bring a paradigm shift in how the public consumes news-media and engages with associated imagery such as political cartoons and videos. By facilitating access to image-production tools and audiences, digital technology may alter the socio-cultural impact of political cartoons. A computer and an Internet connection provide the tools needed to participate creatively—not just consume—in a mode of democratic discourse previously difficult for amateurs to penetrate. Participation does not necessarily equal meaningful dialogue with a substantial audience. Examples discussed include amateur and professional cartoonists in Australia, the USA and the UK like Rocco Fazzari (Sydney Morning Herald), Walt Handelsman (New Orleans Advocate) and Matt Pritchett (Daily Telegraph), who have successfully transitioned from print-media to digital media via animation and social media. All political cartoonists must embrace this challenge if they are to maintain their traditionally significant input to the democratic conversation.

The effect of contemporary satires on the political opinions of their audiences is contested. Some scholars and commentators claim satire has a unique effect and may reach a non-traditional or a non-convinced audience. Others argue that it validates existing ideas and makes traditional forms of political participation less likely to occur. The assumption common to both sides is that satire does have some effect in shaping or influencing an opinion, if only to reinforce it. This chapter asks what kind of an effect can be shown to occur, by reporting an online experiment conducted in 2012 that assessed the effects of satire on the evaluation of political candidates in the UK and the USA. The experimental design controlled for both the self-selecting nature of satire’s audiences and satire’s educational effect. Results indicated that, unless audiences are self-selecting, all publicity is probably good publicity in terms of candidate evaluation—in the sense that even critical satiric coverage improved the candidate’s evaluation in comparison to a control group that viewed non-political humorous material. Further, the effect of viewing satire did not differ substantially in impact upon candidate evaluation from the effect of exposure to negative news coverage, suggesting results due to the acquisition of information rather than any unique effect of satire. The experimental design raises several methodological challenges and design issues for future audience opinion studies and investigations into satire’s reception.

The Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister satires are conventionally taken as realistic reflections of the British political system. A fastidious verisimilitude and the use of genuine statistics help create that impression, and the views of politicians—such as the enthusiastic Margaret Thatcher—reinforce it. It is argued in this chapter, however, that an informing and under-recognised theoretical dimension to the satires is crucial to their understanding. An exploration of well-digested theory about politics—especially that relevant to “The Westminster System” and bureaucracy—together with an investigation of commonly accepted myths about political language and honesty (some derived from satire) greatly complicates any simple relationship that might be thought to exist between satire and political reality. Drawing on archival materials and referring to a wide range of the episodes in both series, the specific topics considered in this chapter are the integration of satire into political discourse and policy promotion, political accountability and ministerial responsibility, differing notions of representation, Orwellian dogmas about political language, and the overall vision of the nature of politics provided by the satires. It is concluded that putting too much weight on such well-worn binary abstractions as theory and practice, satire and political reality, leads to the simplistic interpretation of this satire in particular and its variable relationship to and functions within actual political practice.

“Poetry makes nothing happen” (W.H. Auden, “In Memory of W. B. Yeats”, 1940): what if this is also true of satire? Surely not! Satire is the most obviously worldly of artistic modes, commenting directly on real-world events and people. When we read or view a really good piece of satire, we are confident that its targets must have shrivelled up in their hearts and changed their ways—or at least that the public subsequently rejected them, leaving them to die in ignominy. It seems our intuitive reaction is broadly wrong. At least as defined by political results, the gloomy, Audenesque conclusion is much closer to historical truth. However, if satire never (or very seldom) changes the course of history, that it achieves nothing does not follow. It functions to mobilise and express the harsh emotions of anger, contempt, disgust, and disdain on the part of creators and audiences. Some of the robustness of free political expression in liberal democratic traditions derives from the interplay of shaming and shamelessness generated by satirical practices. This chapter addresses themes and evidence from the foregoing chapters and discusses whether the emotional and cultural effects of political satire provide benefits that outweigh the almost complete lack of evidence of immediate instrumental results.