Does Anything Date as Badly as Political Humor?

[Wifetheif]

I'm reading the sequel to "Forrest Gump" "Gump & Co." by Winston Groom as part of a podcast that profiles "bad" books. It is clear that Groom CAN write, but his late 80's early 90's politically targeted humor really falls flat. It is written in Alabama dialect in the first person to give us Gump's point of view. The book isn't "bad" as much as it is seriously dated and boring. The podcast has done some really atrocious books in the past. I'm an old fart and lived through all the events portrayed in the book. New Coke! There's a comedic goldmine! Reagan is senile! Original Iran Contra! The Ayatolla! Sadam Hussein! Whitewater! Everything this book tries to do was done better at the time by "The Tonight Show," "SCTV," and "Saturday Night Live." It's like watching a stand-up comedian who hasn't ever updated his material. He's not funny, he's mostly sad and annoying. What besides broad political humor dates as badly? In every other genre, I can think of, you find examples surviving into the modern-day or at least having a longer shelf life. Shakespeare's timelessness and his humor still get chuckles. There are cold war thrillers and hard-boiled private eye novels that are still read today. Ray Bradbury's Mars was nothing like the real thing yet folks still read "The Martian Chronicles." Examples are endless. Is there anything as fleeting as broad contemporary political humor?

 

[KeithD]

I suspect Shakespeare's allusions survive better because they are just that--allusions to issues, rather than specific citations. There are always current events that fall into references to such allusions.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Can't comment on the Gump books as I havent' read them, but, topical political humour serves an important purpose when it's written, but it's not fair to expect everything to still work decades later especially if it's goal is to attack something specific now.

On the other hand, at the top level, it's still possible to write timeless political humour - I've been watching the TV series Yes (Prime) Minister from the 1980s again at the moment and, because the fundamental nature of government never changes, it works just as well now as it did back then.

 

[Winter_Fare]

Borat is still fucking hilarious.

 

[KeithD]

I've come to watching "The Good Fight" belatedly, and it's possibly more amusing watching its take on the Trump administration now that it's past than it would have been while it was still there.

 

[SimonDoom]

That sounds about right. Humor doesn't work as well, in general, if it focuses too specifically on topics of interest only to people at a certain time. Humor about timeless topics endures.

 

[SimonDoom]

I thought Veep was very funny, but part of what made it so funny is it wasn't overtly partisan. It made fun of the venality and cynicism of politicians without taking partisan sides. The things it made fun of are timeless, not rooted in specific times or issues.

 

[Wifetheif]

Good points by everyone so far. I'm not claiming that all broad political humor loses its relevance or goes out of date, just that it TENDS to lose its comedic impact faster. Written humor more so than film or drama, as those can become genuine classics. Would "Borat" have had the same impact if it was a novel? I seriously doubt it. The thing is that Groom goes after low-hanging fruit EVERY time. There is very little that is sophisticated about it. What's funnier Steve Martin or a drunk guy doing Steve Martin's routine. The jokes are the same but ...

 

[windar]

Everything this book tries to do was done better at the time by "The Tonight Show," "SCTV," and "Saturday Night Live.

OK, but then you're saying it wasn't that funny in the first place, so the aging is beside the point. I never read the book, but saw the movie and didn't find it funny and wasn't really aware it was intended to be. I think the Sarah Palin sketch on SNL, for example is still funny. Of course now she's running again...Python is still hilarious-Ministry of Silly Walks. Even going much further back to people like Will Rogers, HL Mencken and Mark Twain and even further to Jonathan Swift and Voltaire, their satire still bites, though literary styles have changed enough that it's not rolling on the floor funny.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I don't think it's limited to political wit; much once-popular humour has lost its luster. I remember my family laughing our heads off at the Red Skelton show and The Beverly Hillbillies when I was young. I saw some reruns a while back and found them dead flat.

 

[JakBird]

"Jeff Davis rides a big white horse; Lincoln rides a mule.
Jeff Davis is a gentleman; Lincoln is a fool."

I first heard this on a record in the early 1970s (Peggy or Mike Seeger??? not sure). Made me laugh, even though it was over 100 years old then, 150 now. So yeah, political humor can persist providing the listener has the historical context.

Then there's Will Rogers, whose comments, though political, are timeless:
"I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts."

 

[TheRedChamber]

"Jeff Davis rides a big white horse; Lincoln rides a mule.
Jeff Davis is a gentleman; Lincoln is a fool."

Possibly made even funnier as history has only remembered 'the fool'. (I'm not American so maybe the other guy is known?)

 

[windar]

Possibly made even funnier as history has only remembered 'the fool'. (I'm not American so maybe the other guy is known?)

President of the Confederacy...

 

[TheRedChamber]

President of the Confederacy...

See, if I was writing an evil empire in one of my stories I'd go with a name like Adolf or Darth Vader. I'd probably avoid Jeff. Sometimes history has no sense of style.

 

[windar]

See, if I was writing an evil empire in one of my stories I'd go with a name like Adolf or Darth Vader. I'd probably avoid Jeff. Sometimes history has no sense of style.

His name was Jefferson, after Thomas Jefferson. He was only called Jeff in songs and jokes and such. People called Joseph Stalin "Uncle Joe" in jest.

 

[TheRedChamber]

His name was Jefferson, after Thomas Jefferson. He was only called Jeff in songs and jokes and such. People called Joseph Stalin "Uncle Joe" in jest.

Oh, Jefferson Davis sound a lot more 19th century and more like someone I'd have heard about in history class (it's been a while though). Prior to my first cup of coffee I hadn't made the connection. I am now imagining the pair of them going round going 'Yo, Jeff', 'Yo, Abey-Baby' to each other.

So in summary, the name Jefferson is evenly balanced between the light and dark sides (Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson Airplane on one side, Jefferson Davis and Jefferson Starship on the other)

 

[JakBird]

Putting aside the current politically correct attempt to cancel a major epoch in American history, the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis was never regarded as an evil person akin to Hitler or Stalin. His only crime was being on the losing side of the war.

The U.S. Constitution had no provision for individual states leaving the federal Republic. The southern states in the Confederacy claimed the right to secede and appoint their own Congress, judiciary and President (Davis) until elections could be held. The northern states (the Union) disagreed. The question of law was settled by force of arms, establishing the principle no state has the right to unilaterally leave the republic.

Slavery was the popular issue to raise enthusiasm for the war in the North, even though slavery was not outlawed in the Union until 1863, two years into the war. Until then Maryland remained a slave state even though it fought for the North. On the southern side "States Rights" was the equivalent rallying cry. "Hurrah, Hurrah, for southern rights Hurrah!" from "The Bonnie Blue Flag", a popular song of the time.

Naturally during the war Davis was the villain, but after the war ended and the thirst for revenge died down Davis was let out of prison and led a quiet life. There is a Jefferson Davis memorial in Kentucky, his birthplace.

I do like the Jefferson Starship analogy though. "White Rabbit" to the good, and "We Built This City" to the bad.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Putting aside the current politically correct attempt to cancel a major epoch in American history, the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis was never regarded as an evil person akin to Hitler or Stalin. His only crime was being on the losing side of the war.

(A war fought primarily to preserve slavery)

Slavery was the popular issue to raise enthusiasm for the war in the North, even though slavery was not outlawed in the Union until 1863, two years into the war. Until then Maryland remained a slave state even though it fought for the North. On the southern side "States Rights" was the equivalent rallying cry. "Hurrah, Hurrah, for southern rights Hurrah!" from "The Bonnie Blue Flag", a popular song of the time.

Slavery was also THE issue to raise enthusiasm for the war in the South. No, the Union hadn't yet outlawed slavery, but it was on the cards following Lincoln's election in 1860 and secession was intended to pre-empt that.

When modern apologists for the Confederacy talk about "state rights", they tend to gloss over that it was specifically about the rights of those states to enslave human beings. But the original secessionists didn't try to disguise it - they were proud of being slavers and they made that very clear. Here, in their own words:

Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina From the Federal Union

Their grievances are entirely related to slavery - basically, that the Northern states had chosen not to return escaped slaves. They conclude by warning that as a result of the 1860 elections:

The Guarantees of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy....

Declaration of the Causes of Secession, Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property ... A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.

(The "property" they're referring to is, of course, human beings.)

Unlike NC, Georgia does briefly raise some other issues of grievance - federal support for Northern businesses over Southern agriculture. But the beginning and end and most of the middle of their grievances are about slavery, and of course Southern agriculture was very much about slavery too.

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union

[Texas] was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy...

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't think it's limited to political wit; much once-popular humour has lost its luster. I remember my family laughing our heads off at the Red Skelton show and The Beverly Hillbillies when I was young. I saw some reruns a while back and found them dead flat.

Uh huh. Not all humour, but a lot of my childhood faves have become less funny than I remembered them.

 

[nicechat]

I think it depends on the skill, knowledge, wisdom and experience of the author.
In the 1970's Australia had such a prime minister, his name was Gough Whitlam who's quick wit and off the cuff retorts entertained many in parliament house, here's an example.
Back then the main political parties in Australia were the Liberal Party, the Country Party and the Labor Party for which Gough Whitlam was the leader of the Labor Party and Prime Minister.
The occasion was part of the usual chaos that exists in parliamentary debates and one particular representative of the Country Party was accused of not properly representing his constituents.
He stood up and protested loudly "I'm a Country member" , to which Gough instantly replied "I remember"
(for those not following, Gough twisted the wording to mean "I'm a cunt remember")
It took some time for order to be restored in the house.

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

To answer OP's original question, pop culture dates works. There's some stuff I loved in the 80's but its so dated now from pop culture jokes that its almost a foreign language.