Court Jesters and the WHCD

Until I was maybe 20 (OK, 27), I probably believed in the liberal consensus: incremental change, expert knowledge, different institutions promoting diverse political goods for a thriving public culture. Harvard kids really are better and smarter than the rest of us!

Back then, I also probably thought the White House Correspondents Dinner was funny.

Now that I am not 27, I probably believe in... not the liberal consensus. It's pretty embarrassing to have ever believed in it considering I was alive and aware during a time that included the Iraq War and the financial crisis.

But perhaps more embarrassing of a realization is that the WHCD is basic AF. It's Jared Kushner eating a macaron in Brooks Brothers in Manhattan drinking Starbucks basic. It's late-era Taylor Swift boyfriend basic.

And in 2018, I'd assumed everyone understands that.

So imagine my surprise when I heard that Michelle Wolf's entirely respectable monologue at this year's dinner was causing offense to not only the usual butthurt conservatives, but to actual serious broadsheet journalists. 

I have whatever issues I have with Wajahat Ali and Kumail Nanjiani, but their reactions are on point here. Wolf punched up at liars, particularly Trump's press secretary, by calling them liars in a demeaning and common way- she did comedy in other words.

So are journalists, who pride themselves on their toughness, really so sensitive on behalf of the people they're supposed to be tough on? There's something at issue here more than just their performative offense.

At its best, the comedians who host the WHCD are court jesters- they're granted a chance to tell the truth to the rulers' faces, and something serious can be said because everyone is laughing. Poetic idea, right?

Except that these are seldom ever pointed truths. No comedian ever said "Hey Obama, why have hundreds of thousands of civilians died in those wars you said you were ending? LOL."

So ultimately, the jesters promote an image of the regime's humanity in its ability to laugh at itself. 

Of course, that's all gone now. Trump has no time for the WHCD. We have a president who either has no sense of irony or is the joke of a mercilessly funny god.

But the liberal mainstream upper-middlebrow journalistic establishment hasn't changed. They devote enormous amounts of bandwidth to norms and practices issues, to their offense at Trump's vulgarity and contempt for the ways things are supposed to be done. You could call this self-regarding offense "pearl-clutching". But that would be sexist and inaccurate. I prefer "cufflink-clutching" because this establishment is overwhelmingly male.  

The media protest at Trump's indignities all the while promoting the idea that his being a loud racist idiot is giving air to workin' folks' legitimate grievances with an indifferent system.

But Trump didn't win the popular vote. More Real Americans™ disapprove of him than approve. So what Michelle Wolf's cultured despisers are saying is that because Ed Murrow or whoever might have found truth delivered with insults to be impure or distasteful, this majority doesn't deserve to hear its anger in Wolf's jokes that Trump's minority deserves to hear in his polices.

Why would they think this way? Journalists might claim that they hold themselves to higher standards than the politicians they cover, but what does this really mean, and who else would really believe it? 

I think the fact that so many reporters have rallied to defend the feelings of Trump's press secretary says that they value their relationship with her so much that they can't tolerate even the mild ritual joking the whole correspondents' dinner is premised on. 

That shows WHCD journalism for what it is. While the comedians at the front of the room might be the king's jesters, the guests have chosen to be his captives for the sake of being close to him.