Jim Sullivan interviews Jimmy Tingle for the Cape Cod Times (8/6/2017) where he admits to being both a comic and an activist:
I consider myself to be a stand-up comic/social and political humorist and activist. Not everything I do makes a political point or leads to social change, but most of it’s pretty funny.
Despite the idea that he’s trying to do both, here we see a slight differentiation – he’s trying to be primarily funny, but also make some points. He later expands on this:
I’m trying to use humor, where I can, for purposes beyond just entertainment. So, Humor for Humanity is a social enterprise. When I went to the Kennedy School I saw so many committed people doing great work around the state, around the country, around the world, I said “How can I use what I do, my skills as an entertainer? Maybe, they have a bigger value than just the entertainment.” I want to raise spirits, funds and awareness.
Admittedly, humor can’t do everything, and it is not always appropriate. He admits here that humor and entertainment skills are something to be used, like a tool, and it could perhaps be used in a number of different ways. I’ve talked about some of them here before; however, there is a difference between telling a joke that has a political or social intent, and telling random jokes at a fundraising event.
A political joke
Still later, he’s asked:
Q: I know you come from the liberal side of the spectrum, but you like to cast a wide net. While most of the audience probably agrees with you, some may not. Is it part of your job to get those people laughing and maybe convince them a bit.
A: Or to consider my point of view. Not that I’m necessarily right. You be the judge? What do you think? For example, the debate around immigration: First of all, Trump was asked on the campaign, “Why won’t you release his taxes?” and he said, “I’m being audited.” Asked why his company has been audited every year for the past 12 years, he said, “I think it has something to do with my very strong Christian faith.”
Yes, we can all see the influence of Jesus and Christianity on Donald Trump. I think it was Jesus himself who once said, “Build a wall across the Southern border, get the Mexican government to pay for it and keep out other people named Jesus.” So, how does the support of the Christian right and religious right reflect the principles of Christianity with his administration and with his rhetoric? I’m not telling people what to think. I’m just pointing out what I observe as a commentator or comic. It’s not all criticism. I’m trying to be as funny and entertaining and insightful as I can be.
Tingle claims he’s trying primarily to be funny, and simply broaching the topic and leaving it open, but the tone is definitely one of criticism, of satire; the implication is that 45’s rhetoric and actions have nothing to do with the principles of Christianity. He’s right that the joke doesn’t explicitly say that, we have to infer, to supplement what he said with what we think (or what we think he thinks), but he also admits that he’s trying to provide insight: he has an angle and he knows we know that. It is commentary on 45’s lack of faith and anti-immigration stance, and we could infer that good Christians should oppose the wall.
Or we could just laugh again at what has become an overused trope: 45 is illogical, and does whatever he wants. Some who voted for him will laugh at that. And there’s both the strength and flaw of doing politics through humor: we could read it a number of different ways, and each of us laugh for what may be wildly divergent reasons. In any case, it doesn’t seem to cut particularly deep.
The mix
Good public speakers and arguers know that you have to start from areas of agreement and work toward areas where you disagree. Similarly, Tingle talks about warming up the audience with “the things they can understand and relate to, something that they feel comfortable hearing about and laughing about. You have to be able to set it up so they can identify.”
He also mixes it up:
I’d break it [the set] down to one-third autobiographical, one-third hardcore politics and one-third topical.
A lot of comics mix things up, which can keep the audience laughing through the bits they don’t agree with. However, others think that this dilutes any potential message; it gets lost in the swirl of thoughts.
Summary
I find Tingle to be a great example of the way comedy has been used for political purposes: it’s used to draw people in, to raise money and awareness, but only sometimes through the humor itself. When it does so, it leaves the interpretation open, and doesn’t cut too deep. But all this is mixed in with other jokes and thoughts, and so might not produce any effects. I hope to find something better.
Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Additions?
