Introduction
Not all political leaders despise being ridiculed with caricatures. In fact, some democratic leaders proudly display such depictions in their offices. However, these leaders are typically democrats, not authoritarian rulers whose power depends on a cult of personality.
Donald Trump’s Intolerance for Satire
The United States’ president, Donald Trump, a democratically elected leader with strong authoritarian tendencies, cannot stand being ridiculed. He reportedly decided to run for presidency after then-President Barack Obama mocked him at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner. At that time, Trump could do nothing about it; however, as president, he can attempt to silence the jesters.
Pressure on Comedians
In September, ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel, a frequent critic of Trump, from his late-night interview program following pressure from the Federal Communications Commission. Trump praised the decision as “great news for America.” However, so many protests (apparently 1.7 million people canceled their subscriptions to Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN) that a week later Kimmel returned to the channel. Despite this, Trump threatened to revoke broadcasting licenses from channels featuring comedians who make jokes about him.
The Power of Satire
Trump correctly recognizes the power of humor. French philosopher Voltaire, one of the greatest satirists of all time, once said: “I have never addressed God in a prayer longer than this: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.” Being made a laughing stock exposes the hypocrisy, hyperbole, dishonesty, and presumption—common tactics of authoritarian leaders.
Historical Context
Historically, monarchs and powerful nobles understood that satire could be necessary to counter sycophancy. It was the role of fools, who had immunity (to a certain extent) to mock their superiors. This was because they could be treated as fools who posed no threat to power.
Since ancient Rome, there have been two primary targets of satirists and comedians: ideas (secular or religious) and the personalities of the powerful.
Satire Targeting Ideas
Satirists (from Voltaire to Kimmel) usually ridicule established authority, which might suggest that this type of humor leans “progressive” or even leftist. However, some of the sharpest satirists have been conservatives. Jonathan Swift, for example, was a staunch defender of the Anglican Church. There is no juicier target for a conservative comedian than the pretensions of seriousness of idealists, whose change-driven zeal is often incompatible with a sense of humor.
Satire Targeting Personalities
The other type of satire aims at the personalities of the powerful. It’s the brave comedian who dares to point out that the emperor has no clothes. As Bob Dylan wrote, “Even the president of the United States sometimes has to stand naked.”
Implications for Authoritarian Leaders
For a common politician, this kind of ridicule is harmless. But the authority of monarchs and autocrats depends on their aura: people obey because they believe kings, queens, and dictators are invincible. The theater of power is as crucial to a ruler as the threat of violence against dissidents. The comedian who mocks this theater, revealing in doing so that the leader is a ridiculous buffoon, undermines the very source of absolute power.
Hitler was enraged by Charlie Chaplin’s masterful comedic portrayal of him in “The Great Dictator” (1940). Chaplin didn’t need to expose the atrocities of fascism; he merely showed Hitler and Mussolini as two clowns. For a demagogue, there is nothing more damaging than being the butt of jokes.
Satire in Liberal Societies
In liberal societies like the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, leaders (including kings and queens) have had to tolerate a certain degree of ridicule. Eighteenth and nineteenth-century caricaturists were often merciless. Thomas Rowlandson depicted the Prince of Wales as a drunken lout, while Honoré Daumier drew King Louis-Philippe as a lecherous oaf.
Like tabloids and yellow journalism, this level of satire is the price of free speech. This applies particularly to the United States, where the First Amendment of the Constitution provides extensive protections for free speech (more than in any other country). Public figures can be criticized, parodied, ridiculed, and even defamed unless “actual malice” can be proven.
Legal Precedent
The late Czech filmmaker Miloš Forman (who emigrated to the U.S. in 1968) made a film called “The People vs. Larry Flynt” (1996), about the legal battle between the owner of the adult magazine Hustler and Jerry Falwell, a televangelist who sued Flynt for emotional distress after Hustler published a parody ad featuring Falwell recalling a sexual encounter with his mother.
In 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that emotional distress was not sufficient grounds to deny the First Amendment right to express critical opinions about public officials and figures.
Forman, a refugee from communist Czechoslovakia, was a grateful admirer of the First Amendment, which allowed a promiscuous pornographer to mock a famous religious leader. If Trump succeeds in silencing those who ridicule him publicly, the country where Forman (who passed away in 2018) and millions of others found freedom will cease to exist.
Key Questions and Answers
- What is the relationship between satire and authoritarian leaders? Satire often targets established authority and the personalities of powerful individuals, which can threaten the aura of invincibility that authoritarian leaders rely on to maintain power.
- Why is satire particularly dangerous for authoritarian leaders? Satire can expose the hypocrisy, hyperbole, dishonesty, and presumption common in authoritarian leaders’ tactics. Being the butt of jokes can be damaging to a demagogue’s image.
- How have liberal societies historically dealt with satire? Liberal societies have generally tolerated a certain degree of ridicule directed at public figures, recognizing satire as part of the price of free speech.
- What legal precedents protect satire in the United States? The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the First Amendment right to express critical opinions about public officials and figures, even if it causes emotional distress.
About the Author
Ian Buruma is the author of numerous books, including “Year Zero: A History of 1945,” “The Collaborators: Three Stories of Deception and Survival in World War II,” and his latest, “Spinoza: Freedom’s Messiah” (Yale University Press, 2024).
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 1995 – 2025
www.project-syndicate.org
