Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The complicated political legacy of ‘Saturday Night Live’

Published

on

The complicated political legacy of ‘Saturday Night Live’

In a book released next week, “Saturday Night Live” executive producer Lorne Michaels addresses the show’s politics, saying “SNL” has never favored liberals or conservatives. “It’s the hardest thing for me to explain to this generation that the show is nonpartisan,” Michaels is quoted as saying in “Lorne: The Man Who Invented Saturday Night Live” by Susan Morrison. “We have our biases. We have our people we like better than others, but you can’t be Samantha Bee.”

Michaels’ insistence on impartiality will likely bring howls from conservatives, who have complained for decades that “SNL” has been a liberal viper pit, mocking right-wingers and taking it easy on the icons of the left.

‘It’s the hardest thing for me to explain to this generation that the show is nonpartisan,’ Michaels is quoted as saying.

In 2019, after the show ran a sketch satirizing one of his press conferences on border policy, President Donald Trump lashed out at its “Republican hit jobs,” vowing “retribution” for making fun of him. Over the years, conservatives have called for the show to be “put out of its misery” because of its political slant, suggesting the executive producer is either “stupid or a liar” for claiming the show is nonpolitical.

And progressives, of course, see “SNL” as their own playground. In a 2003 interview, then-head writer Tina Fey told a reporter“We have a liberal bias, obviously,” and her fellow progressives have never doubted her. This is why, when the show steps out of line and allows anti-woke celebrities like Shane Gillis to host, “SNL” fans react with horror — after Gillis’ hosting gig in 2024, one comedy writer said Michaels was “unfit … to run a major network show in 2024.”

“SNL” was forged in the post-Watergate leftism of the 1970s, an era when politicians were viewed with heightened scrutiny and distrust. Michaels and young progressive writers like Al Franken and Chevy Chase drove the show’s political conscience. Three days before the 1976 Jimmy Carter-Gerald Ford election, the show simply replayed the speech in which Ford announced he would be pardoning Richard Nixon, which Michaels later listed as one of his proudest moments as the producer of the legendary comedy show.

But despite “SNL’s” progressive roots, a full review of the show’s history (which I have undertaken as part of a two-year podcast project called “Wasn’t That Special”) uncovers some truly inspired moments of traditional political conservatism.

In the show’s first sketch after Trump’s election in 2016, comedian Dave Chappelle’s character attends an election night party filled with fellow progressives. As the sketch proceeds, Chappelle’s white, New York City-based friends grow increasingly incredulous as election night progresses and Trump keeps winning states. Chappelle’s character, by contrast, simply laughs at how naive his liberal friends had been throughout the election year.

To conservatives, the sketch was an admission by the show that it had been operating in a liberal bubble, unable to see why support for Trump had been growing over the past year.

Or take, for example, a 1990 “Weekend Update” desk bit in which Chris Rock complains both about how much he hates taxes and how he doesn’t mind if prisons are uncomfortable for the inmates. (“Jails are so nice, they come back twice. … They don’t have this problem in Iran because it’s hard to snatch another purse if you don’t have another hand.”) A year later, Rock returned to support the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, accusing him only of the crime of using bad pickup lines in the workplace.

An array of recurring characters in the show have mocked progressive activism. Eddie Murphy played a recurring character named Tyrone Green (first introduced in the famous “Prose and Cons” short film), an illiterate, poetry-writing prisoner who was regularly feted by New York’s rich elite. The whole series of sketches, in which rich progressives are harshly lampooned, has a strong Tom Wolfe-ean “Radical Chic” vibe to it.

Sure, the show famously took joyous whacks at Sarah Palin, but that’s because Sarah Palin is a ridiculous person.

The show also had a particular sore spot for public sector employees. In March 2001, Maya Rudolph portrayed a sassy postal worker who has no time for customers, lending comfort to those who think customer service improves when privatization reigns. In 2010, a brutal sketch featured the “Public Employee of the Year Awards,” in which government workers were given awards for being surly and amassing outlandish benefits packages.

Sure, the show famously took joyous whacks at Sarah Palin, but that’s because Sarah Palin is a ridiculous person. But those who complain about Tina Fey’s broad Palin impersonation also fail to mention a sketch from 2008 in which editors at The New York Times try to enlist their newsroom’s reporters to spend six weeks in Alaska to cover the vice presidential nominee.

The sketch savages the newsroom, portraying reporters as naive Manhattan elites who had never seen the real America. The reporters, confused about Alaska culture, wonder how they will get around without being able to call a cab, worry about polar bear attacks, and mistake a photo of a snowmobile for a “baptizing machine.”

But perhaps one of the most observant political sketches in show history ran just before the presidential election in 2016, when actor Tom Hanks joined in a performance of “Black Jeopardy!” It is assumed that Hanks, playing a red-hatted MAGA enthusiast, will embarrass himself when posed with questions (or “answers,” in “Jeopardy!” style) meant for Black contestants. Yet everyone is shocked when Hanks’ answers comport perfectly with “Black culture,” crystallizing something that had yet to be put into words — politics is a horseshoe, and Trump supporters had more in common with Black Americans than we all thought. (For instance, Hanks’ character, Doug, downplays the importance of voting, saying the outcome of elections are decided months ahead of time, anyway.)

Of course, the show hands plenty of ammo to Republicans who argue the show is hopelessly biased in favor of Democrats. When Trump won, cast members Kate McKinnon, Cecily Strong and Sasheer Zamata all sang songs either bemoaning Clinton’s loss or mourning the end of the Barack Obama era.

But just a year earlier, “SNL” allowed Trump to host an episode while he was running for president. Trump hosted twice, eventually becoming the first president to have hosted the show. And who can forget the ratings-busting show when Palin finally showed up in Studio 8H? The New York Times even gave Palin a rave reviewcalling her “remarkable” and “delightful.”

Whatever your opinion of ‘SNL’s’ politics, Michaels has noticed how each side reacts to being ridiculed.

Nonetheless, there is clearly a pattern in how Republicans are depicted on the show versus Democrats. Generally, GOP politicians lampooned by the show fall into a few select categories: Palin (stupid), George W. Bush (stupid), Dick Cheney (old, evil), George H.W. Bush (old, clueless), Dan Quayle (stupid), Bob Dole (old, clueless) and Trump (clueless, old, evil). And yet, one of the show’s most inspired political sketches featured Phil Hartman playing Ronald Reagan as a secret genius, which suggests the show perhaps should have inverted the formula more often.

Meanwhile, the show has regularly depicted Democrats as being too brainy for the presidency (Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore). Of course, Bill Clinton got the full treatment once his priapic activities threatened his presidency; his travails were simply too juicy a target to ignore. (Even Monica Lewinsky made an appearance on the show, in 1999.)

Whatever your opinion of “SNL’s” politics, Michaels has noticed how each side reacts to being ridiculed. “Democrats tend to take it personally; Republicans think it’s funny,” he said in 2014. We will know if that’s true in 2025 if Michaels avoids a Trump-mandated prison term.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

The two words Democrats are avoiding in praising the Israel-Hamas peace deal

Published

on

The two words Democrats are avoiding in praising the Israel-Hamas peace deal

Democrats are heaping praise on the peace deal struck between Israel and Hamas, which unlocked the release of all living hostages in Gaza. But there are two words most Democrats are omitting when discussing the peace agreement: “Donald” and “Trump.”

In statement after statement, Democrats on Capitol Hill lauded the end to the fighting, the liberation of hostages and the hope of a new chapter in the Middle East, applauding “all involved in succeeding to broker the ceasefire agreement” and touting the “power of diplomacy” for getting the globe to that moment.

“After two years of abduction and torture, every living hostage is finally home. Those who were taken on October 7th will outlast the terrorist organization that tore them from their families and homes and unleashed a war of untold suffering,” Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., wrote on social media. “Against all odds, the timeless call to ‘Let My People Go’ has been answered.”

Notably, however, there was no mention of Trump.

The same could be said for Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.

Jeffries called the agreement “an extremely welcome development.”

“The world will be a better place with a safe and secure Israel living side by side in peace and prosperity with the Palestinian people able to achieve the dignity and self-determination they deserve. We must all recommit to achieve that outcome,” Jeffries said.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., eventually gave Trump a shout-out Monday afternoon, after ignoring the president’s role when the deal was first announced.

In a 175-word statement, Schumer commended “the enormous advocacy of the tireless hostage families, President Trump, his administration, and all who helped make this moment happen.”

While he didn’t necessarily avoid Trump, he was careful to bookend his praise within a statement that celebrated the living hostages coming home and a call to build a lasting peace in the region.

And the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., posted on X that he was “deeply relieved to see the living hostages released from Gaza today.”

“May their freedom mark a process of healing for them and their families, and the beginning of a durable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians,” Meeks said.

There was no mention of Trump.

The divide between celebrating the deal while ignoring the man who helped broker it highlights the politically tricky terrain Democrats find themselves in. They want to laud the potentially historic peace agreement without giving credit to Trump, a figure they and their voters largely loathe and whose actions throughout the war have drawn criticism.

It’s the latest flashpoint in the long-simmering debate within the Democratic Party over Israel, which has pitted pro-Israel Democrats against progressive lawmakers who sharply criticized the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza — a discourse that has played out publicly.

Republicans, for their part, are taking note of the lopsided reaction. On Monday, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., criticized Democrats for not explicitly giving Trump “any credit,” accusing them of being fearful of the blowback from their base.

“They’re afraid, again, as I said in the press conference, of their Marxist base,” Johnson told reporters. “They’re afraid of the radical left, the growing number of radical leftists in the Democrat Party who will attack them if they say anything positive or affirmative about President Trump and his work, and it is a great shame and a great danger to the country.”

The speaker noted that he was “heartened” by the comments of some Democrats, including former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Trump’s rival from the 2016 election. In an appearance Friday on CBS News, Clinton said, “I really commend President Trump and his administration, as well as Arab leaders in the region for making the commitment to the 20-point plan and seeing a path forward for what’s often called the day after.”

Of course, some congressional Democrats have joined Clinton in calling out the president.

Sen. Jon Ossoff — who faces a tough re-election next year in Georgia — praised the White House. “I commend the efforts of the Trump Administration and international partners to achieve this moment and will vigorously support the hard work ahead necessary to secure peace, security, and freedom for all people in the Middle East,” he wrote in a statement.

In a post on social media, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., called it an “amazing day for the families” of returned hostages. “And for @POTUS and all the negotiators who made this day possible,” he said.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., a vocal supporter of Israel, also congratulated Trump the day he announced the peace deal.

And asked during a Sunday appearance on BLN how much credit Trump deserves for the deal, Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., said Trump “should get a lot of credit.”

“This was his deal,” Kelly added. “He worked this out.”

Of course, Trump has played into the stewing domestic political divide over the situation in the Middle East, criticizing his Democratic predecessors as recently as Monday during his speech before the Knesset.

“All of the countries in the Middle East could have — what we’re doing now — it could have happened a long time ago, but it was strangled and set back, almost irretrievably by the administrations of Barack Obama and then Joe Biden,” Trump said in his hour-plus remarks.

Kevin Frey

Kevin Frey is a congressional reporter for BLN. He previously served as Washington correspondent for Spectrum News NY1. A graduate of George Washington University, he grew up in Pennsylvania. When he isn’t roaming the halls of Congress, you’ll find Kevin singing with a local choir.

Mychael Schnell

Mychael Schnell is a congressional reporter at BLN, where she covers all happenings on Capitol Hill involving both Democrats and Republicans. She previously covered Congress at Blue Light News. She graduated from George Washington University’s School of Media and Public Affairs with a bachelor’s degree in journalism and mass communication and political science. She is a native New Yorker, Billy Joel’s No. 1fan and a Rubik’s Cube aficionado.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Washington state waters down child abuse law after pressure from Trump administration

Published

on

Washington state waters down child abuse law after pressure from Trump administration

Officials in the state of Washington have agreed to water down a child abuse law after pressure from the Trump administration and local Catholic leaders.

Catholic bishops and the Trump administration had filed lawsuits seeking to overturn a bill signed by Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, a Democrat and a Catholic, that required faith leaders of all denominations to report allegations of abuse they received in private religious settings — including confession. Though the Catholic Church has a documented history of enabling child sexual abuse, the sponsor of Washington’s bill said the legislation was inspired by reports of abuse within Jehovah’s Witness churches.

Catholic leaders have argued that being forced to report admissions made during a confession amounts to religious discrimination. And after a federal court temporarily blocked the law in July, Washington’s attorney general said late last week that the law will be pared back:

Clergy in Washington will remain mandatory reporters under stipulations filed today by the state Attorney General’s Office and the plaintiffs in lawsuits against the state over Senate Bill 5375. Under the stipulations, however, the state and county prosecutors have agreed — as the court ordered — not to enforce reporting requirements for information clergy learn solely through confession or its equivalent in other faiths. The stipulation now awaits approval by the court.

Most states have so-called clergy-penitent privilege laws that effectively shield religious leaders from having to report child abuse claims they hear in confessional settings. A 2022 report by Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, detailed how this loophole has protected churches from prosecutions and civil lawsuits from victims seeking accountability. Washington had sought to join the few other states without such protections.

In Washington, the governor had denounced the lawsuit filed by Catholic bishops in his state, with Ferguson saying that he was “disappointed my Church is filing a federal lawsuit to protect individuals who abuse kids.”

Jean Hill, executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference, said in a statement last week that “preventing abuse and upholding the sacred seal of confession are not mutually exclusive — we can and must do both.”

Ja’han Jones

Ja’han Jones is an BLN opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog. He is a futurist and multimedia producer focused on culture and politics. His previous projects include “Black Hair Defined” and the “Black Obituary Project.”

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump administration eyes higher food prices as a result of the immigration crackdown

Published

on

Trump administration eyes higher food prices as a result of the immigration crackdown

About a month after Election Day 2024, as Donald Trump prepared to return to the White House, the Republican appeared on “Meet the Press” and explained his victory to NBC News’ Kristen Welker.

“I won on groceries,” he saidadding: “I won an election based on that.” Looking ahead, Trump concludedin reference to food prices for consumers: “We’re going to bring those prices way down.”

After returning to power, the president began boasting about his successes on the issue, assuring Americans that he had lowered the cost of groceries — despite the administration’s own data, which shows grocery costs have gone up this year, not down.

Complicating matters, the president’s own team fears that the problem will soon get worse, as a direct result of the Republican White House’s own agenda. The Washington Post reported:

The Trump administration said that its immigration crackdown is hurting farmers and risking higher food prices for Americans by cutting off agriculture’s labor supply. The Labor Department warned in an obscure document filed with the Federal Register last week that ‘the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens’ is threatening ‘the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S. consumers.’

According to the Labor Department’s assessment, which was first reported by The American Prospectthe administration needs to act “immediately” to prevent the problem from getting worse.

The Post’s report noted that Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has predicted that, in the aftermath of Trump’s mass deportation agenda, the U.S. farm workforce will become “100% American.” Trump’s Labor Department doesn’t see that as realistic, since Americans lack the will and skills to replace migrant farmworkers.

“The Department concludes that qualified and eligible U.S. workers will not make themselves available in sufficient numbers,” the agency said.

In other words, the president who claimed that he won a second term based on food prices, and who vowed to bring consumer costs at grocery stores “way down,” is already lying about his recent record. But making matters even worse is the fact that his own administration expects the problem to get worse, as food production slows as a result of the White House’s campaign against immigrants, which is likely to reduce supply, pushing prices up.

At that point, Trump will have to choose between competing campaign promises: Will he let immigrants stay and help stabilize food costs, or will he deport these workers and risk the fury of consumers who’ll see prices at their local grocery store climb?

Steve Benen

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an BLN political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending