What's So Funny?

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem criticized the show South Park for making fun of her looks. However, she admits she didn’t actually watch the episode, and therefore seems unaware that their parody of her plastic surgery obsession was in conjunction with making fun of her shooting her dog, as well as her cosplaying as an action hero to round up brown people.

I have to admit I’m torn here. I feel similarly conflicted when people make fun of Trump’s orange make-up, his cotton-candy comb over — or (as South Park also has been doing) his small hands and penis. After all, none of these traits are actually important or the basis for why so many of us despise him.

In general, I think it is inappropriate to comment on the physical traits of people just because they are in the public eye. Sometimes it does make sense — if they are actors or models, their appearance is part of the “product” that they are offering to us. But even then, I always err on the side of benevolence. I may notice that a particular actor has aged poorly or put on weight, but I don’t see the need to comment on it publicly unless it affects a role he is playing.

In private, I admit I have a tendency to be sarcastic and often do make comments on such things to my husband or close friends. That’s because they know me and know my values and what I actually consider important. But when making any kind of public statement, I try to keep in mind what Ayn Rand said during a Q&A following Leonard Peikoff’s The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series: “Humor is a destructive element—which is quite all right, but its value and its morality depend on what it is that you are laughing at. If what you are laughing at is the evil in the world (provided that you take it seriously, but occasionally you permit yourself to laugh at it), that's fine.”

Which brings me back to Noem and Trump. They deserve ridicule for their ideas, their actions, and their moral character, but is it legitimate to also make fun of their appearance? I think it is, particularly when highlighting the aspects of their appearance they have chosen. Using humor to fight these evil, destructive people (as South Park is doing) is completely legitimate. Keep in mind that cartoons are a visual art. Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the creators of South Park) had no choice but to selectively recreate these public figures once they decided to have them appear in the world of South Park. It makes perfect sense to make evil and ridiculous people appear…evil and ridiculous.

Of course, humor needs to focus on more than just the absurd appearance of these villains, and South Park certainly accomplished that as well. Despite what Noem alleged (it’s “so lazy to constantly make fun of women for how they look”*), Parker and Stone are not being lazy. Their portrayal of her (and of Trump) is part of a brutal, well-integrated critique of this entire administration. Noem doesn’t want to admit that. She said, “If they wanted to criticize my job, go ahead and do that, but clearly they can’t.” Actually, they can and they did. Maybe she should actually watch the episode.

Humor can’t replace the job of philosophically attacking the ideas that animate cartoonish politicians like Noem and Trump. But if it helps to highlight and draw attention to their absurdity, then I welcome the humorists to the fight.

*I should point out the rich irony of Noem making this statement when demeaning women for their looks is something her boss, Trump, has consistently done.