Jerry Seinfeld, the maestro of observational comedy who simultaneously never observed how young his girlfriends were, once said that his least favourite part of George Carlin’s act was the political material. Which is a lot like saying your least favourite part of Lionel Messi’s work is the football playing, but I digress. The reason that he said this is that he believed fundamentally that Carlin’s political material was divisive. It was a way to assuage the people already on your side, but it was never going to change the minds of the people who disagree with you.
This is the crux of a common argument in comedy these days. Because conservatives would never be persuaded by political material told by liberals and vice versa, the value of these jokes is inherently lower; a long winded way of saying the material is secretly more about getting applause than laughs, which is the greatest sin a comedian could make.
Personally I think the greatest sin a comedian could make is puns. I think they’re a gateway to fascism, but that’s an article for another time.
In any case, the argument made by Seinfeld and many of my peers is a deeply flawed argument. It assumes that the only minds worth changing are the ones that disagree with you, but reality has proven otherwise because there are more ways to disagree with a political point than simply holding the opposite view.
For example, many people agree with progressive political points but believe it’s a lost cause. They believe that there is nothing they can do. They seek to look the other way because to otherwise examine what they feel is a hopeless cause would be devastating.
It is here that the value of political comedy can be truly powerful. The goal is not to change the minds of the opposition; the goal is to inspire the action of the restless believers who assume there is nothing they can do.
Part of this comes from the self-destructive nature of many on the left.. Liberals often try to frame issues of collective action as requiring all of us, but it’s a flawed framing. People will never assume that EVERYONE will collectively do anything.
In their defence, history has always proven them right. It is why we could never get everyone vaccinated or get everyone to believe the world is round. Instead, history also proves another thing: we don’t actually need everyone, we need more. Not all people, but additional people to fight for a just cause.
Take for example when Trump was initially putting children in cages. He didn’t let them out because everyone started caring. He let them out because enough of the right people started to care. And when they stopped caring openly enough? He went back to putting kids in cages.
In a world where such evil is happening. I don’t think there is much value in comedians distracting the masses of people with comedy that refuses to acknowledge such events, especially when the people who are getting distracted are the very people who could stop these events from happening but refuse to grapple with their privilege or join the fight in any way.
But there is value in comedians making these issues funny enough to get people to learn what they can do. Because actually there is so much they can do. Numerous causes are lost in the darkness as they are prevented from getting the attention they deserve. Political comedians can change this by actively seeking out causes worth fighting for for their audience.
Take my volunteer work with the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies. The goal is not to convert non-believers into fans of asylum. The goal is to get people who claim to be progressive to care enough to donate 15 quid. Then, the goal shifts to getting that money in the hands of the attorneys who will spend it to save asylum seekers. Suddenly hopeless causes are given the injection of cash they need to have a fighting chance!
The right cause with the right money can create real societal change. The Center for Gender and Refugee Studies has won some of the biggest battles you probably haven’t heard of. They are the reason victims of female genital mutilation qualify for asylum. They are the reason domestic and gender based violence victims qualify for asylum. They even prevented Trump from denying asylum to refugees based on the theoretical idea that they might have Covid. And the tiniest part of why they can do that? Money from my fringe audiences. What a privilege to help such a cause, and a joy to identify it for people who actively were looking for hope and a way to help.
All the comedian has to do in order to do their part is to be funny enough to get the audience to care, which isn’t that hard. Most audiences want to care, they just don’t think there is a positive outcome anymore when they do. As a political comedian, your job should be to change their mind.
Otherwise, what are you really doing by sharing your opinions on stage? To list your opinions without giving the audience a blueprint towards change is to simply want to hear yourself speak. Maybe that was enough to be radical in the 90s, but now? What a pretentious waste of time.
Change is possible. If you believe it, challenge yourself to be funny enough to achieve it. It’s possible. I’ve done it, and if I can, so can you.
Sid Singh: Love Bombing The Counting House (The Lounge) Every day at 4:15pm until the end of the Fringe. MORE INFO
