Democrats have taken some heat for their comportment during Donald Trump’s speech to Congress last week, and I hope I don’t disappoint you too much by saying that to some extent, I concur. I’m enough of a traditionalist and ceremonialist, if that’s a word, that I don’t think members of Congress should be shouting at the president of the United States, even one who’s a corrupt neofascist buffoon who’s destroying the country.
I also think they certainly should have applauded more robustly for the 13-year-old child with cancer whom Trump introduced (some did, apparently, despite what the right-wing media said).
But mostly, they’ve taken the wrong kind of heat. Some critics said those little signs they held up were disrespectful. To my mind, they were just lame: “Lies,” “False,” “Save Medicaid,” “Musk Steals.” Blah. So predictable.
What they should have done with those little signs is mock Trump. “Stormy Daniels Says Hi.” “E. Jean Carroll Wants Her Money.” “Convicted Felon.” “43 Counts.” “2029 = Prison.” “Orange You Ashamed?” Whatever. And, reviving the old Spy magazine classic, “Short-Fingered Vulgarian.”
That would have rattled him. He doesn’t care about lies or Medicaid. He cares about his vanity and never being wrong. It also would have completely outraged the right-wing propaganda complex. It would have dominated the news coverage for days. In fact we’d still be talking about it.
But Democrats just can’t seem to think outside the box. They don’t know how to be rude. Even when they try to be rude, they get it wrong. The main thing Green accomplished was that he gave critics an opening to say Democrats disrespect the office of the presidency. Why do that? My signs, in contrast, would expressly not disrespect the office. They would disrespect the man.
Playbook had a thing over the weekend about how Democrats are starting to curse in public. I don’t exactly disapprove. But I ask: What does it prove? Is it supposed to signal that they are particularly angry? Pro tip: It doesn’t. It sounds forced and contrived. Rule: Nobody wearing a suit and tie (and the women’s equivalent thereof) should say “fuck” in public. Whatever the occasion happens to be, it just doesn’t fit it.
But the biggest problem is that the Democrats aren’t funny. They’re relentlessly, solemnly, earnestly, biologically unfunny. You may think this doesn’t matter. After all, these are pretty serious times. Very serious times. No one doubts that for a second.
And yes, Trump is the unfunniest person alive. He has zero sense of humor. His funny gene was arrested at about age 9 (which is roughly four years later than his empathy gene). His idea of funny is calling people names, which stopped being funny to most people in about tenth grade. In all the interviews I’ve seen with him, and they probably number in the thousands, only once—once—have I seen him emit an unforced laugh that looked genuine. It was to Larry King many years ago. I don’t even remember what it was about; it may even have been very mildly self-deprecating, which made it all the more shocking to see, because he never does that. But that’s it. The man does not laugh the way normal human beings do.
However—Republicans can be funny. They’re funnier than Democrats. Say what you will about Ted Cruz—and believe me, I’ve already said it. But choosing to read Green Eggs and Ham during that Obamacare filibuster was funny. If you go to a CPAC conference and inspect the merch, the buttons and bumper stickers and such, they’re almost all humorous. A lot of it is kind of offensive. But some of it is still pretty funny. Effective humor is offensive to somebody or another.
And that, I think, is why Democrats aren’t funny. The public language of liberalism has become so timid, so afraid to offend, that too many forms of humor are just out of bounds. Obviously, I’m not calling for sexist and racist humor, which isn’t funny anyway. I’m just saying Democrats are over-cautious and over-earnest in how they talk about almost everything.
Tim Walz gave an interview to Politico over the weekend. Now he’s funny. He’s likeable. Did you ever see those videos of him and his daughter? Riding the Slingshot at the Minnesota State Fair, or him teaching her to drive? They were funny. And charming.
Walz said a lot of interesting things in that interview:
“We shouldn’t have been playing this thing so safe.”
“In football parlance, we were in a prevent defense to not lose when we never had anything to lose because I don’t think we were ever ahead.”
“I think we probably should have just rolled the dice and done the town halls, where [voters] may say, ‘You’re full of shit, I don’t believe in you.’”
Amen to all, especially that last one. Five bonus points because it was even a natural and unforced use of a cussword.
The interview was interesting precisely because he wasn’t being timid and afraid to offend anyone. He probably offended a lot of Democrats, starting with Kamala Harris and her handlers. Good! He was speaking from the heart.
And he was even funny. He said he hadn’t ruled out seeking the presidency in 2028, but he allowed that the candidate should probably be someone “with hair.” It all reminded me of how misused he was during the campaign. He first got the nation’s attention by calling Trump and JD Vance “weird” and by being impish and just a little bit goofy. The campaign tried to turn him into a moralizing Knute Rockne.
Humor is important to any political movement. But especially the anti-Trump resistance, for three reasons. First, God knows we need a good laugh. Second, jokes at Trump’s expense—gleeful mockery of him—will drive him bonkers. But most importantly, it will help to alter the whole psychological trajectory of the political discourse: Democrats won’t seem like a beaten party if they’re willing to stunt on Trump, Elon Musk, and the rest of his weird, incompetent wrecking crew. Instead, they’ll seem brash and unconventional—and that’s as desperately needed as a good laugh.
So, make with the funny, Democrats. But for God’s sake don’t do this yourselves. Hire writers.
