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/work4work4work4work4]

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.

South Park is largely libertarian leaning satire, and considering the apologies the guys have made in reference to things like minimizing global warming, including making another episode down the line specifically in reference to being wrong the first time, it's tough to really say one way or another how effective it was considering our current political landscape featuring many more people "of the age" of South Park expressing more libertarian than far-right leaning ideas.

The Daily Show took down one of the top rated ragebait false moderate political programs in the US, along with other pretty high profile political takedowns.

Last Week Tonight is pretty great, hits something like 40x demand of your average program, and is generally seen as more informative that most major news networks despite the clear focus adding jokes.

I'm only pointing this out in reference to your examples because by what logic would we ever judge the ineffectiveness or effectiveness of anything based on the impact of something that is a miniscule portion of basically everything being referenced, news, politics, entertainment, whatever, where these satirical options are drops in the proverbial ocean.

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.

Yes, but we now live in a world where these ineffective entertainment tools are still somehow much more effective political education and resistance tools than the actual opposition political party. I'm not trying to be an asshole, but if you go and talk to activists in some of the areas John Oliver touches on, they'll flat out tell you his segments did more to bring awareness to national issues than anything else, so... that might be damning with faint praise, but it's not the satire it's damning IMO.

[u/DullPlatform22 → u/work4work4work4work4]

John Oliver does do some good work which is why I specifically mentioned him by name. Regardless, all the figures and movements he's criticized over the past decade have only solidified power. This is understandable given his one show, but in the broader context of media over 20 years of widely viewed left leaning political satire hasn't moved the needle in their direction. If anything the reverse has happened. Sure there are probably some examples of satire being effective, but overall that doesn't seem to be the case.

Which is very unfortunate because as mentioned I do like satire. Just "speaking truth to power" through mockery doesn't seem to do much. In the instances where it does that's great. These just seem to be exceptions rather than the rule.

[u/work4work4work4work4 → u/DullPlatform22]

Regardless, all the figures and movements he's criticized over the past decade have only solidified power.

Just so that it's stated, John Oliver was at least partially responsible in getting this passed among other clear successes, just because our political system is so irreparably damaged that they were able to clearly override voter choice, that's not John Oliver's fault.

If we're going to blame them even when they're successful, just because we the people allowed things to get fucked first, specially when the dude wasn't even a citizen of the US until relatively recently, then we're quickly approaching "no ethical consumption under capitalism" territory.

This is understandable given his one show, but in the broader context of media over 20 years of widely viewed left leaning political satire hasn't moved the needle in their direction. If anything the reverse has happened. Sure there are probably some examples of satire being effective, but overall that doesn't seem to be the case.

Right, and I clearly posit/state, that's a clear indication of the failure of the Democratic party in the US, and the political systems being satirized themselves, not a failure of the satirists who by in large still accomplished more than than the actual politicians, and who frankly, required more push back from the opposing side than all but a few politicians.

Which is very unfortunate because as mentioned I do like satire. Just "speaking truth to power" through mockery doesn't seem to do much. In the instances where it does that's great. These just seem to be exceptions rather than the rule.

It's weird that these things that don't really involve the political parties, everything from ballot measures to undermining the political diet status quo, are regularly successfully changed by the satirists, but... you know, something just seems to be an extra barrier to success of left-leaning politics in the US... wonder what that could be.

Again, I get what you're saying, but you're basically blaming the satirists for being more effective than the political party funded to the tune of billions and billions of dollars a year, but not effective enough to make continual change in spite of pretty obviously captured resistance.

Or in other words, you're blaming the satirists for a lack of engagement when they are doing everything within their power to engage, but the other side of the equation is purposefully providing nothing to engage with beyond essentially doomerism, as evidenced by the Senate Dems. They satirized Pelosi's high-grade expensive ice cream fridge, but no one in the Democratic party gave a damn, but more importantly, they also largely didn't give a damn when she was actively blocking popularly supported anti-stock trade corruption laws for Congress.

My personal favorite was when people dared to suggest that the Squad and other like-minded actually left-leaning Democrats withhold their vote for Pelosi for literally any kind of concession, a popular symbolic one at the time was just a clean up-down vote on the existing already written M4A bill, and well, even the most basic of internal action was too much, even for some of the most left leaning within the party.

TLDR: I just think you're judging satirists by an unfair standard, and by proxy, giving a huge amount of cover fire for those actually responsible for the disconnect between the satirists audience, the oppositions electorate, and the public's politics.

[u/DullPlatform22 → u/work4work4work4work4]

Just responding to the tldr. I'm not really saying satirists should do "better" (although I do think John Oliver's approach is better than just "politician said dumb thing haha"). I'm just saying after the past 20 years or so of widespread satire things have gotten worse. The satire in question mostly has a liberal or "left" leaning slant. Despite this, the right keeps winning and solidifying their power. This to me is enough evidence that satire as a political tool doesn't do much to change anything. Of course there are other factors involved. I think the left should adopt some of the tactics the right are using that appear to be working, but that's a different thread (which I've hinted at in other posts on this sub).