Political Humor

Modern society allows humorists to touch upon offensive topics without receiving much criticism. As Alain de Botton claimed in his 2004 book, Status Anxiety, humorists’ role is not merely to entertain but “to convey with impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly.” De Botton’s argument proves legitimate. Many humorists, such as cartoonists and television hosts, decide to use their humor as a tool to prove an idea or express a belief that cannot be voiced candidly in public.

Most of the appeal in this speech is to pathos. Very early on in his speech Reagan states, “And so many times I wanted to stop and reach out from behind the glass, and connect. Well maybe I can do a little of that tonight”. This is the beginning of his regard to pathos. With this statement he is trying to make a connection with the people which he did a phenomenal job of doing so. He uses the term “we” throughout the speech because he wants to be sure that the people know and understand that he has served this country for them. Reagan is also sure to make the people apart of his serving time. “I’ve been asked if I have any regrets. Well I do. The deficit is one”, this is another example of Reagan stepping out of his President shoes and admitting that there were mistakes that were made during his term. His intentions are to simply make the American people proud to be Americans.

"Ronald Reagan didn't attack the people around him. He didn't demean the people around him. You know, he brought everybody together," Michael Reagan said Saturday.

During his Remarks on East-West Relations at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, Reagan said, “For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.]”(Source C). In this line of the speech, Reagan has a very inflated tone when speaking but at the same time he is not harsh, more hopeful. Reagan is simply trying to include everyone that is relevant in this situation. Also in his Farewell Address Reagan stated, “Common sense told us that when you put a big tax on something, the people will produce less of it. So, we cut the people's tax rates, and the people produced more than ever before.” (Source A). His speeches were also concrete and straightforward in effort to relate to the people even

We had to make the country from the “swamp” it was into something that others are envious of now or the “stars”. Reagan believes that our country is worth fighting for, but he is not sure that it a war that he would want to take part in. He believes it to be a “cheap demagoguery” and that we should be able to make agreements to live in peace without sacrificing the blood of our loved ones. He believes there is only one sure way to avoid war and that is to surrendering. He ask the rhetorical question of “APPEASEMENT OR COURAGE?” trying to urge each person in the room to think about the choices of going to war and the choice of staying home and building an even beautifuller

Along with his picture, and society, he falls in love with his personality. They enjoyed hearing his speech, which is full of amusing anecdotes and jokes. He knew he meant well, but lost sight of the actual error. Most people do not realize that someone else wrote Presidential speeches, anecdotes and jokes. His sense of humor is also fascinated by the audience when he joked about the assassination attempt by John Hinckley on it. Its popularity has increased and has received more support from the public and Congress. Reagan was "an instinctive ability to soothe a grieving Americans ..." after the tragedy. After the Challenger blew up in early 1986, he delivered a speech based on restoring Americans need to move forward and achieve greater success in honor of the fallen. Reagan also trying to fulfill their promises. In order to reduce taxes

Reagan was and still is somewhat of a mystery. He is shrouded in tales of

He rarely made eye contact with his audience or looked down but gave occasional glances over their heads. If Reagan’s speech was fully memorized, he would have enabled himself to better eye contact with with the audience. Also, since Reagan was behind a podium, he came across a bit stiff. This would have been better received if he had used some hand gestures to express his inner thoughts and feelings.

The Russians were not pleased, to say the least. In some of the darkest days of the Cold War, in 1984, no world leader was smiling. The world was on the brink nuclear annihilation. To show humor was a sign of weakness. However, in all the darkness that surrounded the world at this time, one man’s bright smile and wit shined through; Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan said on March 23, 1983,“ We maintained peace through strength; weakness only invites aggression”. This quote struck the heart of the people of America. Reagan wanted to“begin an era of renewal”. (“The Reagan Presidency, n.d.”) He believed that our nation would be the perfect example of freedom and a guide of hope for the people who do not have the opportunity to have the same freedom that we have. Also, Reagan was completely against communism that was spreading around the world, at the time, and believed that the Soviet Union could not be trustworthy. On March 3, 1983, in one of his famous speeches, he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and also stated that the Soviets were “the focus of all evil in the modern world.” (“Cannon, 2016”)

Shortly before Reagan’s Evil Empire Speech, the Congress was in the process of supporting a “nuclear freeze” policy; a bilateral nuclear disarmament policy of the United States and the Soviet Union. I will stand by my opinion that Reagan’s speech was to convince the audience about the righteousness of his nuclear policy in regard to the Soviet Union. All of Reagan’s arguments prior to addressing the nuclear policy between the United States and Russia had to be convincing as well. Reagan was a master with language (the great communicator) and he got the audience on his side before hitting his critical point regarding the nuclear policy the audience could assimilate this information. We are going to have to agree to disagree, you have your

“Have you called for service,” he asked, to which Nancy Reagan replied, “Yes; he is here.”

Today, comedy news shows are becoming progressively more popular, and in so, becoming a new source of information – which may, or may not, be a positive consequence. Most comedians twist the truth in order to connect to people and make them laugh. The article “A Serious Business: What Can Comedy Do?” suggests some comedians “use logic to make painful things make sense” (O’Hara 108). Satirical comedy acts as a relief mechanism in that it comforts people that may be wary about a certain subject, especially in the realm of politics. Similarly, Peter McGraw and Joel Warner discuss how comedy can act as a coping mechanism. The authors conclude that “activists all over the world have been using comedy as a form of political protest” (McGraw & Warner 147). Iain Ellis writes about how political satirists do more than just deliver jokes, they use satire “to expose, ridicule, and–implicitly–call for action and change” (Ellis 152). Ellis contends that comedy can make a difference by its constant presence in our daily lives. Socrates, Plato, and even shows like South Park believe that humor is a way to persuade others. One of the most effective expressions of humor to affect social change has been the inclusion of satire. Although humor often provides people a welcome escape from the burdens of their daily lives, the satirical comedy deconstructs social issues in various ways as a means to persuade the

A fundamental truth in American politics, as already stated, is that there will always be some level of partisan resistance within our essentially two party system. In 1964, partisan politics were starting to replace debates over issues as the main political discourse and A Time for Choosing takes full advantage of those sentiments. At the beginning of his speech, Reagan mentions his past as a liberal democrat. According to his own auto-biography, An American Life, Reagan aligned with the left until his relationship with conservative actress, Nancy Davis. During the duration of their relationship, Reagan had abandoned support for the democratic candidates in 1952 and 1956 in favor of the republican alternatives. He eventually registered as a GOP with the famous quip, “I didn’t leave the democratic party, the party left me.” He asserts this stance again in his speech for Goldwater. Towards the beginning of the speech, Reagan asserts that he had spent, “most of his life a democrat,” and continues with the claim he “recently” had “changed his course”. This line is brilliant at the beginning of a speech because it establishes ethos for Reagan immediately with moderates and rank and file democrats. He gets around the automatic resistance to “across the aisle” ideas by claiming he used to have the same viewpoints as some democrats before he switched parties. This causes those democratic audience members to view his argument less from an oppositional standpoint

And for her friend Peter, the obverse of communism isn’t necessarily democracy or capitalism, right-wing politics or a welfare state, but any system that does not involve totalitarian oppression. The counterpoint to communism thus takes on many different forms, shifting across speakers and political positionings. The third and final point is that in uncertain political and economic times, social memories of communism and, in particular, of communism’s downfall provide a much needed sense of national unity. These forms of recollection not only promote collective visions of past and present but are also crucial facets of shared visions of the future. Despite the emphasis on different generations, personal narratives, activist declarations, and official remembrances bring together old and young, linking together those who collaborated (in the past) with those who were not yet born during this time, and implicating all of them in a singular past (living through totalitarianism) and therefore, in very broad terms, in a single future—that is, a future without communism—whatever range of shapes it might