Political satire has been widely used since 1864 in the Lincoln vs McClellan election to make sense of the political process with satires created about McClellan’s short stature used as a main strategy in the Lincoln campaign. Now, in the modern day, its importance is greater than ever. Studies have shown that it increases political participation and thus checks the deepening divisions in this country and preserving our democracy. Our democracy is based on free speech and criticism of the government, and political satire is the epitome of such principles. Currently there are many major risks to our democracy as our country is driven further into polarization. Satire is able to prevent these challenges through multiple factors, such as increasing political efficacy and bringing information to the people.
A rise in polarization has occurred recently, largely due to the two party system, which inevitably pits people against one another. It forces the choice between two polarized policies, thus disincentivizing compromise in political dealings within the government. This is evidenced through many factors outlined by Penn State University, “The rise of fundamentalist religious groups, the increasing power of corporations in the media and a deep divide between political parties are harming the democratic process in the country” (PSU). These divides are incredibly dangerous as they are the cause of rising tensions across the US today.
An increase in information made available to the public allows for people to engage in the political process. This spurs an increase in people’s incentive to learn more through non-satirical sources as well as a desire to produce new satirical content. This supports a cycle of increased amounts of satirical content. However, there is still doubt in the ability of satirical news to change people’s minds. Studies from the Ohio State University “found… people chose satirical news that matched their pre-existing attitudes… watching satirical news reinforced those attitudes as much as watching serious news” (OSU). Studies such as this mean that scrutiny is required in terms of whether or not satire is being presented in a way in which it can provide multiple views of a situation. However it does not mean satire is all bad because the same “study found that people with little interest in politics were more likely to select satirical over serious news… watching satirical news affected feelings of political efficacy – people’s belief that they can influence political processes” (OSU). This in turn means that satire is particularly crucial in order to get people educated because even as there is a risk of creating an echo chamber of one’s own belief, it still changes the minds of many .
Even with all of the major effects of satire currently there is still one key factor that is preventing wider usage of satire, and that is copyright law. Status quo copyright law does not consider satire to be fair use, meaning that satirists can only make satires of those who deem it acceptable for their creation to be satirized, chilling satire creation overall. This affects political satire as although political figures are not protected under copyright law, the things they write are. And thus, currently satirists cannot legally critique Hillbilly Elegy (a book by Vice President JD Vance) or Original Sin (a book about former president Joe Biden’s mental decline during his presidency). The rationale for these decisions is that parody requires use of a copyrighted work to make its point, whereas satire can be created on its own without use of a copyrighted work. The solution to this problem lies in giving satire the same protections as parody, which is currently considered fair use. This reasoning chills creation of satirical content as people are forced to skirt around challenging specific copyrighted works and are instead forced to discuss only what they’ve been given explicit permission to discuss. Thus, the United States federal government should consider satire as fair use.
