DPU Hosts ‘‘Comedy’’ Panel

The Dartmouth Political Union is known far and wide for its “nonpartisan” political discussions which bridge the American political spectrum and single-handedly repair the division which threatens our national fabric. After successively solving racism, political violence, and hate speech through previous events, the DPU turned last week to comedy. With a panel of the field’s foremost experts, the DPU set about uncovering who, what, when, where, and why is comedy. 

To answer the eternal question of comedy, the DPU called from every corner of the earth a council of the greatest comics to ever walk the earth. In order of youngest to funniest, the comics were Dartmouth’s very own Jack-O member turned Onion-writer Mike Giles, Jeremy McLellan—a Catholic comedian whose comedy focuses on Catholicism and Islam, a pairing with a flawless historical track record—and Evan Sayet, a conservative comedian who was at the same time both distant and the only person making any effort to interact with the audience. The event was moderated by one of Dartmouth’s own professors, whose primary function throughout the panel was to interject with pseudo-intellectual contradictions and to serve as a reference point relative to which the comics, even at their most mediocre, would appear to be the second coming of George Carlin.

The focus was primarily on the problems facing comedy today and the role of comedy in America’s divided society. Giles quickly established himself as the most learned of the trio, wasting no time in delving into his recitation of the Wikipedia page on the origin of the term buffoon when explaining his branch of comedy. In contrast, Sayet maintained a rather pedestrian approach to the questions, answering with anecdotes and the occasional biting remark, slurring his words once in a while when he was forced to deliver a longer opinion. A word to the wise, Evan, from one with much experience: while pregaming may be the only way you get through DPU events, I would advise soft rather than hard drinks. McLellan, out of all of them, seemed to have the least investment in the talk, chiming in once in a while to dispel Gile’s points when they were vaguely more esoteric than esoterically vague, but otherwise, he stared forward, unblinkingly. 

Surprisingly, there was a great deal of agreement between the liberal and conservative comedians. Early on, Sayet rebuked Giles for interrupting him several times. Apparently, a single telling-off was all it took to scare some respect into the millennial, for Giles restrained himself during the rest of the event. All parties were similarly concerned about the degree of division in modern society and the apparent unwillingness of people to laugh at comedy they do not agree with. Sayet further expressed contempt for those “conservative” comedians who think simply going on stage and saying racial slurs counts as comedy. Indeed, many conservative comics seem to have benefited from cancel culture. Comics being “canceled” for their remarks and then receiving successive Netflix specials is a common enough phenomenon that it is its own sub-career. Giles, in fact, seemed to almost have more sympathy for victims of cancellation in society at large. But he’s a liberal hippie snowflake, so what do you expect?

Indeed, all three attacked comics whose comedy is political first and comedy second. The consensus seemed to be that comedy should be funny first; comedy that seeks to proselytize will be at the same time less funny and less effective at proselytizing. However, even good comedians seem to be self-selecting for each other’s political opinions. In Giles’ opinion, The Onion has few-to-no writers who depart from the site’s liberal conveniences. In his recollection, the satire publication did have a few libertarians, but no longer. While this writer understands the desire to be rid of libertarians, a group of people organized around the fundamental principle of hating groups of people, it seems implausible that The Onion could not put up with even one. 

Curiously, all three of the comics appeared angry at people who refuse to patronize comedy that departs from their personal political views. While this may be because the comics honestly believe that society would function in a healthier manner if our discourse were more open, this writer always tries to read between the lines. Perhaps these peddlers of laughs simply want larger audiences. 

After the moderator finished her pre-written questions and made her final interjection in favor of Samantha Bee, the audience was allowed a short period of time to ask questions.  Usually at DPU events, the audience questions are the most interesting, but this event was the opposite—not in that the moderator’s questions were particularly interesting, but that the audience’s questions were especially inane. Giles diverged into a recitation of the difference between comedy and satire in response to a question that could have simply been entered into Google and saved us all three precious minutes. Repetition, in particular, was the sin of the audience, asking questions that the moderator had posed earlier. Sayet, unsurprisingly, made the one funny comment in the last ten minutes of the panel. In response to a rhetorical question from the moderator regarding Trevor Noah, he replied “I don’t know, I’ve never watched him. I’m too busy watching Samantha Bee!” (The moderator had earlier outed herself as one of the three people to have ever watched an episode of Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.)

So, did the DPU and its brain trust uncover the secrets of comedy? No. Did they, perhaps unintentionally, provide just over an hour of funny commentary and insight into the dynamics of modern-day political satire? Yes. This writer would simply recommend to the DPU that, in their next panel, they dispense with the moderator, the announcer, and most of the audience, and simply put three comedians in a room with a livestream camera and a piece of paper with prompts.