Prior to the Presidential election of 1932, Will Rogers and Franklin Roosevelt were standing in front of a microphone at a public event. Of the two, Rogers was the better known and held in higher esteem by most Americans. “Franklin,” he began, “and I can call you Franklin now, but if you win the election, then I’ll address you as Mr. President.” He continued with a few of his jokes, most of them at the expense of Mr. Roosevelt and other politicians.
Roosevelt, as we know, won the election of 1932, and Rogers was true to his word. FDR became, “Mr. President,” as a matter of good etiquette and respect, but the political jokes continued.
More than one person thought it was inappropriate for any sort of political humor in the midst of the Great Depression and when the trio of dictators, Mussolini of Italy, Hitler in Germany, and Stalin in Russia, were threatening to the peace in Europe and North America. It was as if they were saying, “We need to be serious, and there is no room for humor anymore.”
Rogers replied when he said he believed political humor was always appropriate, and even necessary. “You see, over in Russia if you poke a little fun at Stalin he gives you a one-way rail ticket to Siberia. The way I see things, as long as we can poke a little humor at our politicians, hope remains for our country and form of government. Lose that humor, and I don’t think we have a future.”
I agree. I think most of us agree with Will Roger’s comments from over 90 years ago. Some of America’s greatest men and women have followed in that grand tradition of having a laugh at the expense of politicians. It is the fodder of many stand-up comedians, and the media. A few politicians, including elected officials offered occasional doses of self-deprecating humor. Sometimes, it appears that the politicians enjoy it. On candidate said she believed her campaign was making progress when she was roasted on a late-night talk show. As long as it is non-threatening, it is a true safety valve for our nation.
The challenge we have right now is that we are losing our national sense of humor. Some say we have already lost it. That might lead to a very dangerous and misfortunate situation. It probably began with political correctness where, if someone or some group did not the ideas of another person, they would work to ‘cancel’ them. Then, it morphed into very widespread trend.
If Person A did not have the right message, mentally hold the right beliefs, or subscribe to the right doctrines, at least to Person B or Group C, they were socially cancelled. Efforts were made to deprive them of their income; their friends were warned to drop the individual or also suffer the consequences. Their lives were threatened.
This divisiveness has recently taken a new twist after the shooting of Charlie Kirk. Attempts at any sort of humor about his death fell flat, and rightfully so. A murder is never an acceptable subject for it. However, it very quickly went beyond a rejection of stupid attempts at laughter.
Soon after, there were dire warnings that those who challenged his ideas and philosophy must be arrested and punished. Those who object to ICE immigration raids or challenge the current administration have been called political threats and even traitors.
Political humor, that essential safety valve for our national life, criticism, disagreeing with the accepted or approved public doctrines were forbidden.
A growing number of people, according to several surveys and opinion polls, believed that political violence is justified, and civil action and obstruction against members of the opposition is acceptable. Calls to tone down the harsh rhetoric from all sides and all parties have been either rejected or ignored.
All of this, from the early days of cancel culture to the threats of political intimidation today, lead to a basic theme of attempt by one group or individual to silence those who disagree with their rhetoric or doctrine.
As I write this column, it is the 17th of September, also known as Constitution Day. Thirty-nine delegates from twelve of the thirteen states (Rhode Island did not send a delegation) carefully and laboriously framed the Constitution. Just when it seemed their work was done, there was a demand for what we now call the Bill of Rights, or the first Ten Amendments to the document. When that work was done, and with the assurance that the Amendments would be ratified as well, we had a new nation. We can take quiet comfort that we have the oldest national constitution in the world.
Reflecting over the Constitution, but especially the Bill of Rights, I am sure that each of us has our favorite. Mine is the first, and I believe, the most important. It guarantees freedom of speech, assembly, and religion. They are included because this makes it impossible for an elected or appointed official to order an individual to hold specific ideas
I like it because as an ordained cleric, no government official can tell me what I must or may not say from the pulpit. No one can outlaw the Episcopal Church or any other church or religion. As a newspaper writer and a published author, I don’t have to take my manuscript to a government censor and ask permission to publish my work.
You and I get to decide what we are going to read, what social media we will follow, which sport team (or even sports) we want to follow. We believe we can trust the statistics used by financial advisors and planners, medical personnel of all types, along with others – rather than be anxious that numbers might be bent to fit someone’s agenda or doctrine. We can work where we choose, plant our own garden, and get up or go to bed without following someone’s orders. If you are an adult, you get to decide about eating beats, sardines, or tomato aspic. That decision is for you, not something you get to impose on everyone else.
And just to make sure the government does not try to ride roughshod over us, there is that Second Amendment to add considerable muscle to the First.
There have been three major revolutions in the modern western world: the United States, France, and Russia. After each of them, political leaders organized a constitution. Two of the three were fiascos. In France, the Reign of Terror began shortly after the Revolution, and thousands of people were publicly executed on the guillotine; thousands more died of other causes. Russia overthrew the Czar and Kerensky organized a new but short-lived government. Lenin and Trotsky waged war against their enemies, but after Lenin died Stalin turned on former friends in another war that resulted in death by starvation by millions of Ukrainians. A few years later came the Purges when intellectuals, clergy, poets, and others were executed or sent to Siberia.
Only the United States maintained its loyalty to the Constitution, even when it was messy and challenging. Different interpretations of the document were negotiated, sometimes with compromise and sometimes with a decision from the Supreme Court. Not once was there an attempted military coup.
Ninety years ago, as America was not really pulling out of the Great Depression, President Roosevelt took extraordinary measures to get things working. The Bank Holiday followed by the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, making certain our financial system was honest and solid. The WPA project-built roads, state parks, and hired artists and writers to travel the country to tell America’s story. The Civilian Conservation Corp hired hundreds of thousands of young men to tend our national forest and parks. They learned discipline which served the free world well when the dictators went to war. The CCC also mandated that the men would send some of their salary back home, rebuilding the economy.
There were people who didn’t like it, who claimed it was a social or communist plot. That led to the infamous Father Coughlin of Detroit who preached a merger of fascism and Christianity until he had his radio microphone wires clipped. And the Supreme Court decreed that some of the WPA programs violated the Constitution.
Remember what did not happen: Coughlin and his followers were not sent to concentration camps or stood up against a wall. Roosevelt didn’t take revenge, although he did threaten to expand the Supreme Court by additional new members – of his choosing, of course.
We often speak of the “Spirit of 76” but let’s not lose sight of the significance of this day in 1787. And may we all remain vigilant to defend the Constitution from all foreign and domestic enemies who would seek to destroy this country.
