On satire and snark

I have been waiting for the next powerful political video to go viral, the one that will emerge from the grassroots in this election and convey something of the hope and power of what might be possible. In 2008 it was the will.i.am video.

I think there’s a chance that this year it might be this piece that draws on Les Miserables. At least, it’s one worth nominating for the honor.

Yet today I read a blog post by an author whose work I usually agree with and cherish, Bruce Reyes-Chow, and found that my "take" on this parody is very different. He was disturbed by it, and wondered whether it was in any way developing community across chasms of ideology.

I don't know. I think Bruce is asking good questions. And I certainly agree with his desire not to denigrate people whose political views I oppose.

But this video did not strike me in that way. And I think the fact that it didn't might have something to do with the different kinds of satire.

I also think that there's a big difference between "snark" in response to brutal power, and violence in response. That is, I think that there are factions within the right wing ecology who are using brutal power -- power of the sort that commands mercenaries, leads Halliburton, wipes out women's rights, refuses to see the poverty and hunger driving people into an abyss, and generally simply ignores the common good. To resist that kind of brutal, direct power with comedy is actually a pretty gentle response. I think that at some times and in some places, it would be very tempting to use violence in response to the overt displays of power we've seen enacted by the corners of the right wing ecology depicted in the One Term More parody.

In that context to take a piece of musical theater and layer another set of meanings over it is actually a pretty interesting, creative and hope-filled act. So, at least in this case, I reject Bruce's interpretation.

(By the way, here's the piece that the parody is working off of)