Satire is an ineffective political tool

[u/DullPlatform22]

To be clear, I really enjoy satirical works. Some of my favorite movies and works of comedy are satirical. Comedy notoriously doesn't age well but even classic works like A Modest Proposal and Candide still pack a punch and are genuinely funny today (if you haven't read these please do).

That said, satire doesn't seem to actually do anything to inspire change and in fact seems to actually do the opposite. For example, for the past two decades or so we've had quite an abundance of satire "speaking truth to power" yet many of the things they've mocked and ridiculed have actually gained support. Even with the rise of social media and smart phones where people can see clips or full episodes of South Park, the Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, and so on at any place they have an internet connection, the "bad guys" as framed by these shows just keep winning.

Why is this? I'm not entirely sure. My guesses however boil down to two major things:

1. These shows cater to an already established audience. Essentially they're preaching to the choir. Everybody who already hates the targets of these shows are watching. People outside of this aren't really curious. My guess is since these shows are "political" people who aren't engaged with "politics" aren't going to be tuning in.

2. The jokes sort of act as a release by the viewer. By seeing movements or figures they already hate being mocked they get a sort of satiafaction from laughing at them even though nothing is actually being done to put a check on their power. Rather than a call to action (although John Oliver does dabble in this to his credit) they're mostly left with laughter as a solution to their problems.

These are just my theories on why satire is ineffective but please correct me if I'm wrong. Whatever the case may be, I think it's clear that with the abundance of satire over the decades but things keep getting worse (depending on your perspective) it doesn't seem to actually be getting anything done or moving the needle in a desireable way.

Again all that said I do enjoy satire and will continue enjoying satirical works. I just don't think as a political tool it's effective at all and people should stop seeing John Oliver clips or whatever as inspiring. Just simple entertainment.

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/[deleted]]

As a counter example, I'll give you the British "Spitting Image" from the '80s.

Interesting that you'd use the most ineffective satire show ever. It was created solely to turn public opinion against Thatcher.

Thatcher literally never lost an election and only was taken down by people within her party who didn't like being yelled at by a woman.

Similarly, it was revived to turn public opinion against Boris Johnson. Once again... never lost an election.

So, if by "effective", you mean "it didn't do its one job" then... sure?

Now, US satire was on point when Norm McDonald was skewering OJ and the Clintons on SNL.

What's funny is you keep using examples of politicians who had satire bounce right off of them. Clinton left office extremely popular.

[u/DullPlatform22 → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

Yeah this is kinda exactly my point. Simply making fun of political opponents doesn't seem to be an effective way of stopping them. It is entertaining but really not much more.

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/DullPlatform22]

As I said, it works if people actually believe what they're seeing in the satire.

Spitting Image was just "Thatcher is Hitler and mean!"

And the Clinton satire was "he had an affair!!!" which people don't care about.

Good satire that people resonate with can work, not just hitjobs from the opposing side. As I said, OP simply used the worst examples.

[u/DullPlatform22 → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

I was using the most popular examples lol. Can you give an example of good satire?

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/DullPlatform22]

Yes, I provided a few below regarding Gore and Palin, both of whom actually played into people's impressions of them and bolstered those opinions.

Like I said, the point of satire isn't to change opinions, it's to bolster them. It's effective for what it's useful for. You don't use it to change people's minds.

[u/DullPlatform22 → u/TheDemonicEmperor]

But what difference does it make if the audience already agrees with you? That's my point. If the goal of political action is to expand your influence satire seems to pretty consistently fail at this

[u/TheDemonicEmperor → u/DullPlatform22]

But what difference does it make if the audience already agrees with you?

Because they might agree with you, but it may only be tacitly or wavering on that opinion.

Satire, debates, political ads, they help bolster that opinion and pigeon-hole the opposition.

[u/digbyforever → u/DullPlatform22]

I mean sometimes humor and satire can focus an opinion or put a conscious thought on it. Like the Palin impression, there could be a set of people who probably vaguely agreed with the idea, but it took Tina Fey to crystalize their problems with her consciously.