They really are. The right, or large portions of it, has a great sense of humor. But it’s a humor that’s directed outward. They don’t laugh at themselves, they laugh at others, and very well they do it.
Now big names on the right are trying to show they can laugh at themselves. But the only way they can think of doing this is to put on a silly garment and get photographed. Without the garment, one assumes, they would figure there was nothing at all silly about them.
The left is different. They’re supposed to be humorless, and it’s true they often get pissy about the things the rest of us get up to. But in my experience they tend to laugh themselves. The first time I heard the term “p.c.” it was in college, as in “Yep, tonight we’re eating real p.c.” when the rice and lentils were being served. I was reminded of this when reading Bechdel’s big new Dykes collection. So many of the strips make fun of the lesbians just for being left-wing lesbians with left-wing lesbian attitudes, eating habits, etc.
I’ve read my share of right-wing prose and I’ve known a few conservatives in my time (some fine people, some not), but I can’t remember ever hearing a conservative make fun of himself/herself for being a conservative. They might say there’s nothing funny about conservative beliefs because (in their view) conservative beliefs make so much sense. But left-wingers take their beliefs seriously too. I would guess it’s the matchup between the person and the belief that strikes left-wingers as funny. All these sweeping principles about the earth in balance and the global revolution of the poor, and what they come down to is serving lentils. Whereas conservatives, at least our modern-day variety, tend to feel that they and their principles make a fine match. Turning the course of history from collectivism to freedom — why, sure, that’s right up my alley (my theoretical conservative says) and it does me credit that I take on the job.
When I was in Florence, I was struck by all the people who wanted pictures of themselves standing next to Michelangelo’s David. Without them, they figured, the photo would be incomplete. Reminds me of conservatives.
P.J O’rourke makes fun of himself, and of fellow Reaganite Conservatives, all the time.
Other than that, I can’t really say if I’ve noticed enough to agree or disagree. I do think that Conservatives might tend to be less self-reflexive; they’re less aware of themselves “being Conservative” as Progressives seem to be aware of themselves being Progressive, which seems to usually involve making some kind of overt gesture, or showing that they’re with the program.
There’s just more room for irony there, I think.
There’s nothing “to do” to show you’re a Conservative. You can eat lentils cause they’re good.
-But I have to say, I’m uncomfortable identifying myself as a Conservative if you’re basically talking about Rush and his drones. I think you need to refine your terms a bit.
Can you point me to O’Rourke’s making-fun-of-conservative pieces? I like what I’ve read by him (Parliament of Whores, the articles he did for Rolling Stone around 20 years ago). But I’ve never seen him laugh at conservatives.
I do think that Conservatives might tend to be less self-reflexive; they’re less aware of themselves “being Conservative”
Man, I’ve got to disagree. The right-wing blogs do a lot of chest thumping about conservative this, conservative that. They give the ideology a lifestyle sound. For instance, the people at NRO were just compiling a list of movies with the right outlook on life for conservatives. That kind of thing crops up in the rightosphere.
I think you need to refine your terms a bit.
I’m talking about a group that includes Evelyn Waugh, Rush, P. J. O’Rourke and the right-wing blogs I’ve visited. Not sure if it would include you, but the list makes me about as clear as I can get on the point.
BTW thanks for being such a thoughtful response. I appreciate it even if I don’t agree with the points made. You’re a sport, sir.
No problem Tom. I like your writing in TCJ a lot.
I don’t read Conservative blogs much, at least not the day-to-day type things- One of the reasons I could only speculate on the subject at hand.
I’m not sure if Conservative media types are representative of more ground-level, reactionary Conservatives.
I do live in near-Socialist St. Paul, MN, so I’m not around Conservatives much, must admit. I can’t really say.
I do think there’s an element – wether you think it’s valid or not- of Conservatives believing they’ve been marginalized, or are losing the war, so to speak. So when you talk about being Conservative, it’s a pretty serious thing.
– Again, more speculation on my part.
I want to dig through some of my G.K Chesterton collections. He approached almost everything with a sense of humor. I can’t help but wonder if that’s because, at the time, his views were pretty middle of the road and widely accepted. He’d be called a Theocratic Nationalist or something today.
This discussion actually made me think of Chesterton too…who is extremely funny…and C.S. Lewis as well.
Also, actually, it reminded me of your point, Uland, from a while back that there’s not a lot of conservative activist art (that is, you don’t have conservatives organizing anti-abortion happenings or mixing art with their philanthropic efforts the way that lefties do.) There isn’t any logical reason I can think of why that shouldn’t happen, but it really doesn’t…and it seems related to the lack of humor.
Thinking about it, I think it’s probably puritanism. Chesterton and Lewis came out of a more Catholic Christian tradition, where art-making was seen as a logical extension of religious beliefs. I think American conservatism is heir to a more Puritan tradition, where art and the kind of not-saying-what-you-mean needed for self-distancing jokes are very much mistrusted.
Though…are there more conservative artists in Europe? If not the theory sort of collapses….
Thanks, Uland. Any recommendations for PJ O’Rourke pieces about the right?
I’m not sure if Conservative media types are representative of more ground-level, reactionary Conservatives.
two points: Rush is big because of all the non-media types who adore him; most of my right-wing exposure comes from blogs, which are ground-level
I do think there’s an element – wether you think it’s valid or not- of Conservatives believing they’ve been marginalized, or are losing the war, so to speak. So when you talk about being Conservative, it’s a pretty serious thing.
that matches my impression of how the right sees itself.
G.K Chesterton … at the time, his views were pretty middle of the road and widely accepted. He’d be called a Theocratic Nationalist or something today.
I think even at the time Chesterton might have been called a theocratic nationalist. My impression is that his thinking was to the right of British opinion and a bit wacky in general. Becoming Catholic was not a middle of the road thing to do in Britain. A big part of his essays’ appeal, as I remember, is that he turned ideas upside down and argued his readers into accepting conclusions they would not have expected to.
I think it’s probably puritanism. Chesterton and Lewis came out of a more Catholic Christian tradition,
Hi, Noah. Lewis was Anglican, though I admit that still makes him “more Catholic” than your typical American-style Protestant. He was pretty High Church, if I remember, so your argument isn’t much touched.
Someone or other remarked on how funny it was to see Lewis’s favorite pipes and his beer stein on display in a museum run by Billy Graham’s people. Very out of place.