In a recent episode of CBS’s The Late Show, former Obama speechwriter Jon Lovett, dished out a few lowbrow humor attempts that were unfunny and distasteful at best.
Stephen Colbert, host of the said Late Show, had Lovett alongside other former Obama speechwriters Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor. Throughout the show, the conversation swung towards the incoming presidential debate, but what tarnished the whole session was Lovett’s continuous banter about flatulence. Yes, you heard it right, flatulence.
Colbert brought along the question of audience impact on the debate, and whether there will be space for humor in a setting without live reactions. This was an intriguing point, but things took a dive into the bizarre when Lovett presented his so-called ‘zingers’ for President Joe Biden, which sounded closer to cheap, playground taunts than humorous political pokes.
Specifically, he advised Biden to remind the audience about a supposed incident where he ‘stunk up a courtroom’ with his emissions. Not stopping there, he progressed to make loaded comments about President Trump’s relationship with his wife, Melania. Lastly, he attributed a rumor about Trump’s supposed flatulence episode to the hypocrisy of his friends who didn’t contact him afterward.
Laughably, Colbert joined the chorus, indirectly approving Lovett’s two-bits. But the fact remains; these flippant quips were an attempt at humor that was bawdy at the very best.
For sure, the right to free speech is undeniable, and humor acts as a bridge between people, politics, and perspectives. But the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Lovett’s unintentionally aerobic contribution straddled that boundary, raising a question mark over the declining decorum in political discourse.
While it’s true that humor can be subjective, surely we can set higher expectations on a former presidential speechwriter broadcasting on a widely viewed late-night show. If the purpose was to elicit laughs, those present in the room that day might have to handle disappointment.
Lovett offered his ‘zingers’ as potential lifelines for the country. It was either a gross misjudgment or a missed gag. After all, mudslinging does not equate to a humorous political repartee to connect with the viewers or the voters, nor does it uplift the democratic spirit.
In conclusion, political parody has a rich tradition in swaying public sentiment and sparking lively conversations, but not when based on baseless personal accusations and crass schoolyard humor. Let’s bring back dignity, decency, and insightful humor into the discourse. In these tumultuous times, our audience deserves more than just fart jokes parading as ‘zingers’. Adults leading our country should act like adults on a global platform, not petulant children in a schoolyard quarrel.
