Humour is a universal human experience. Or nearly so. I am constantly struck by the almost total lack of humor from the angry curmudgeons that comprise Ford Nation on council, such as it is.
Thesis: The conservative far-Right at City Hall employ a humour deficit as they wage all out war against the liberal state. They are deadly serious about winning. Humour is dangerous for Ford Nation because it acknowledges the shared humanity of their opposition, mitigates the vilification of the left, and thus cannot be a part of their scorched-earth discourse.
Historically, humour has had a great deal to offer the political sphere and conservatives have traditionally (ha!) not been very good at it. Satire, for example, has long been a preferred method for launching attacks at those in power. Imagine Voltaire without humour, if you can. Conversely, imagine settling in for an evening of laughs with Prince Metternich. Not so much, huh? In the context of Toronto in 2011, there are myriad examples of humour being effectively deployed against the current municipal administration. During the mayoral campaign Ford put up with endless jokes about his size and health. In time, it became apparent to most that this line of attack, while perhaps eliciting some guilty (or mean-spirited) laughs, only served to feed the victimization complex that the Right, and Ford in particular, wields so effectively against their opposition. Ford's campaign demonstrated a distinct lack of humour. Rarely was a funny word offered. That deficit of yuks should have been a canary in the electoral coal mine.
Having won, is it the gravitas of Office that precludes this administration from demonstrating any sense of humour? I don't think that's it. Plenty of elected officials, including those in power in other contexts, have articulated finely tuned, developed, sophisticated funny bones - (granted, humour is highly subjective) But this crop, Shiner, the Ford brothers, Del Grande, Minnon-Wong, seem to be almost entirely incapable of expressing humour. On the rare occasions they do evince a sense of humour, it is frequently mean-sprited or mocking. Remember Denzil's churlish, "Aw, Poor Kristyn," quip? One gets the sense that Ford Nation would intuitively hire Karl Rove to write their material for Council Improve-Night rather than, say, David Cross - or his right wing alternative. (Denis Miller? Who? Try to generate a list of right-leaning comics - see?) In far-Right, conservative Toronto, SueAnn Levy probably best approximates humour through ugly world play, for example, her tendency to describe liberals as "leftards."Funny stuff, huh?
Liberals and lefties are by no means exempt from these tendencies. I've certainly made nasty cracks at a political foe's expense and I have heard more than a few nasty jokes from others on the left. I submit, however, that the Right is almost incapable of deploying humour that isn't mean-spirited or that has the ability to compel introspection or self-awareness. Effective, high quality humour should force us to examine ourselves as well as skewer our targets.
There is a greater concern inherent in the decline of effective political humour. When humour is lost, or when it is reduced to mere name-calling and invective, what does this do to our political discourse writ large? The best humour within the context of political discourse seeks to raise the level of debate. Conversely, humour without self-reflection leads to bifurcation, vilification, and divisiveness. I must note here that it can certainly be argued that the most effective humour within a political context sets out to destroy the opposing side, the greater good be damned. And there lies the question - is the greater good really the elimination of any effective opposition, or is our society better served by healthy debate? The framing of that last sentence tells you where I stand.
I'm not particularly interested in "nice" humour. I like subversive, thoughtful, and provocative humour. Humour that effectively points up the foibles of a political position or person, but does not necessarily deploy a scorched earth policy. Sherman's march to Atlanta probably wasn't all that funny, though it certainly was effective. And, 150 years later, those wounds are still not entirely healed. Grievous, festering wounds aside, another problem with scorched earth policies is that they tend to breed more of the same.
I've argued that the lack of humour emanating from the current regime at City Hall (or from the Harper Government, for that matter) reflects their belief that politics is a zero sum proposition.They are not interested in building consensus - they are interested only in the total destruction of their political opposition and the elimination of the liberal state. This fight is not new. It did not begin with Rob Ford or Stephen Harper. Humourlessness is a long standing technique of the far Right, even if the far Right has not frequently been in a position of power. However, humourlessness also comes with a built-in antidote: laughter. Humour has no place in furthering their discourse - let's make sure that smart, thoughtful, provocative, belly-shaking laughter plays a central role in ours.
I'm looking forward to laughing again.
