If Obama Were Funnier, He'd Be a Lousy President

You've seen clips of President Obama speaking at those Washington Press dinners, doing shtik. When he comes to a good joke, he suppresses a chortle, and then burps the punch line out, as pleased with himself as a third-grader who's just spelled "Mississippi." Obama's highly touted roast of Rahm Emanuel should be studied for how not to deliver comedy.

Of course, those funny lines were written by someone else - in that sense, Obama is more like a comedy performer than writer. But he's poor at both jobs.

Why is that? What qualities would make him better in the comedy field? Truth is, in reviewing these traits, we realize they're the opposite of what makes for a caring, effective chief executive.

Detachment and irony. Comedians detach themselves form their surroundings, observing their social settings critically. In doing so, they put themselves outside the fray. People don't want their elected officials outside the fray. They don't want to be led by a person observing, perhaps mocking them.

Perspective shifting. Comedy is about creating and delivering lines that jar our ordinary sense of events - "you know, you could look at this a whole different way - your reality is pretty strange from an alternative perspective." Americans don't elect presidents to help them shift their vision of themselves and their worlds - that's why, even if they were legalized, hardly anyone would use hallucinogenic drugs.

Either/or - it's all the same. Comedians are in the business of relativity - not good or bad. That's why comedians noted for one type of a political slant are unreliable ideologues - they'll often shift to a position equally offensive to their own team at certain moments. Stephen Colbert seemed like a fairly safe choice to roast George Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents Association dinner - certainly more so than his Comedy Central cohort, Jon Stewart. Wrong - if there was ever a more uncomfortable roast of a political figure (look at Bush's smile), I'd like to see it.

This is serious - not! And when a crisis arises, we want the President standing four square, somber-minded, before the nation (even if he or she is cowering under the bed off camera). Not some joker looking to reassure himself by making light of the situation - "It could be worse - George Bush could still be President!"

Don't rely on me. In combination with the above, comedians are telling you - "Don't count on me to be there for you - go to your priest for support and solicitude. I'm looking for a laugh." A comedian just doesn't work if you're looking for a Gibraltar.

In other words, even if Obama could come up with a good line, he would doubtlessly decide not to utter it - it works against the image he is seeking to create.

P.S. Have you noticed how unfunny Al Franken has gotten? His first remarks delivered after finally winning the recount of the Minnesota senatorial election seem to have been designed to eliminate any hint of humor. From Stewart Smalley, to political humor, to humorless. Maybe he still has a chance to lead our nation!

Comments

[jon e 7]

I watched SNL faithfully all those years and don't recall Franken being all that funny, but I suggest that a healthy sense of humor would serve one well in politics (often mistaken for pro wrestling in suits).

[TomR]

Franken has not lost his sense of humor--he's just selective as to when he uses it.

Colbert was absolutely brilliant--a beacon of light during a very dark 8 years. Remember, those on the right think Colbert's a legit rightwinger. They don't get satire. That's how Fox News/Billo sued Franken and then got laughed out of court.

- Tom

[pdxsean]

I agree with the basic premise of your article, you list some very good reasons as to why a comedian would not do well as a President... or more accurately, why an acting President would be unable to be a successful comedian. Their need for detachment and satire doesn't fit with the President's need to be involved and sympathetic.

However, I believe your paragraph on Stephen Colbert undercuts your credibility. The suggestion that Colbert was considered "a safe choice" for the roast, with the implication that pre-roast he was right-leaning, is completely off the mark. From Day 1 Colbert has been a subversive comedian ruthlessly satirizing the right. This didn't change before the roast, or after... he's been the same all along. It was a (thankfully notoriously hilarious) blunder on the part of the planners to select him for the roast, as anyone who had been in tune with Colbert's act would have known that was coming.

Franken, of course, has not made any secret of the fact that he has taken off his comedian hat and put on his public servant's hat. He's stated that his job now is to serve the people of MN, not to entertain america. As much as I loved it when he made me laugh, I think he's serving us better where he is now. And maybe, just maybe, in a decade or so he'll prove that a comedian can grow into something greater.

[bugsbonzai]

That's pretty patronizing. You're insinuating that comedians need to grow, that they're somehow incomplete people. Rude.

Second, as far as Colbert- did you not see the research that showed the high percentage of right-leaning people that didn't "get" Colbert, they didn't "get" he was satirizing them, thyat they thought he was one of them? My bet is that a lot of conservatives who were lost on Colbert's humor really did think he was a safe bet.