Dennis Perrin is a comedy writer who has written jokes for Bill Maher and many others. He is also the author of The Life and Work of Michael O’Donoghue, The Man Who Made Comedy Dangerous, and SAVAGE MULES: The Democrats and Endless War. His blog at blogspot is worth reading on a daily basis. I was glad Dennis agreed to answer a few questions for Diet Soap.
Q: You’ve written jokes for Bill Maher and “countless other comics,” you wrote a biography of the comic screenwriter Michael O’Donoghue, and you were a friend to the late George Carlin. You are, in afashion, a comic. You are also a political blogger and far left critic of the Democratic Party. Your book “Savage Mules” was released this year and is seeming more and more relevant as we approach election day. Which is more important to you, dissent or comedy? Is there something radical about comedy, or are you and your ilk just here to make life a little more bearable, like a Pluto cartoon in a Preston Sturgess Motion Picture?
A: First, I never knew George Carlin. I wish I had, but we never met. I have tremendous love for his brand of humor, and I’m sorry that he’s no longer around. Still, considering our present state, Carlin’s probably better off.
Second, I don’t see myself as a “far left critic” of anything. I don’t know what that means in this environment, since there’s no real “left” to speak of. I say what’s on my mind, attempting at times to be funny or entertaining while doing it, but that’s a subjective call. I’ve written straight-up
parodies that people took very seriously. So I never really know how any of
my stuff will be perceived.
At bottom, I’m a comedy writer. That’s my main engine. Politics came after that, and to a degree I’ve merged them, but I’d rather get a laugh than an appreciative nod of the head. Though being called names is fine, too. That usually makes me laugh.
Comedy is only as radical as the times will permit, and given how things presently are, the gates are wide open to pretty much anything. In theory, anyway. In practice, there isn’t much of a market for serious, cutting satire. “The Daily Show” is about as good as it gets, which for many people is more than enough. For me, I wish there was something harder, darker. The times certainly demand it. But that type of humor has been marginalized and watered down to such a degree that today’s audiences believe that the softer brand is the real deal. Humorists and their corporate bosses have colluded in that dumbing down. How else can you explain a middlebrow like Tina Fey being feted as this great satirist? If she was truly that, she wouldn’t be celebrated by the mainstream.
Q: Blogger Mike Gerber criticized the late George Carlin as a cynic who perpetuated passivity and you defended Carlin by pointing out that while other social comics push participation in the bankrupt political system, Carlin aimed at destroying that system. Recently, however, you expressed extreme doubt about the capacity of Americans to unite collectively to change the political order. At what point does attacking the system turn into fatalism, cynicism, and despair?
A: Again, it depends on social/political conditions. Americans are told from birth that voting is the highest and most noblest expression of democratic citizenship. But under this system, voting, especially at the presidential level, is mere ratification, saying yes or no to decisions and positions formed without their participation or input. Of course our owners urge us to VOTE VOTE VOTE. It’s an effective means of control, which demands little of the individual. To get beyond that obstacle would take tremendous effort and sacrifice, and frankly, countless Americans have no interest in such struggle. We’re too atomized to put together a serious grassroots political effort. Plus, the corporate parties and their apologists would attack such independent actions as “selfish,” “myopic,” even “anti-democratic.” It would not be easy. It’s far easier and safer to project our desires on someone like Obama. His marketing people came up with the “CHANGE” and “HOPE” angles, which is truly cynical, since Obama, in reality, serves private power. Many people I know acknowledge this reality, but it frightens them, so they go along with the propaganda and pretty phrases. I wouldn’t say that makes me despair, but it is extremely frustrating.
Q: Naomi Wolf has recently announced that the recent 700 billion dollar bailout amounts to a coup, and she has warned that we are entering into the last phase in a transition to fascism. Is she being hysterical? Is she incorrect?
A: Wolf’s a little late to the party, but better late than never, I suppose. I confess I’m not really a fan of hers, so that definitely colors my perception of her alarm. It’s true that Americans are marginalized and that the country, or what’s left of it, is in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Is that fascism? I don’t know. It’s certainly not democratic, at least based my understanding of that word. It is true that average people are being robbed by the upper one percent, and while that’s nothing new, it is getting worse. Obama’s prescription is essentially, don’t rob average people so blatantly. That’s counterproductive and could undermine elite rule. This is why savvy elitists back Obama — he’ll be a sensible imperial manager, and should help our owners restore some stability to their system. That Obama has dark skin also helps US propaganda, especially abroad. I heard Ted Koppel say exactly this the other day. So, if we have “fascism” under Obama, it will be a feel-good variety, much like Reagan’s and Clinton’s — until the next crisis, and so on.
Q: Both John McCain and Barack Obama supported this 700 billion dollar bailout for Wall Street despite the fact that the bailout was an incredibly unpopular bill. Why did neither candidate choose to hitch his wagon to popular resentment and oppose the bailout?
A: For the very reasons I outlined above. Had McCain opposed the bailout, his dreadful campaign may have taken on new life. He could’ve played the populist card at a moment when such a move would be extremely welcome, but again, both McCain and Obama serve those who own the country, not those getting soaked to pay off the owners’ bad bets and investments.
Q: I’m sure a number of the readers of Diet Soap are considering voting for Barack Obama in the upcoming election. Do you think this is a good idea? Would people change their minds about the democrats if they knew the true history of the party? Make a plug for your book Savage Mules here:
A: The Obama Express is unstoppable at this point. After eight years of neocon management, the national mood has shifted to — here’s that word again — “change.” Facts don’t matter. History does not matter. All that matters is feeling good about the upcoming administration. I get emails all the time from readers who tell me, “Yeah, what you say about the Dems is true. But I don’t care. I want to win.” So that’s that, at least for now. We’re locked into this system. As for “Savage Mules,” it has sold well online, much better than I expected. But after I wrestled with Salon’s Glenn Greenwald over the true nature of the Democrats, readings and discussions that were in the offing dried up immediately. A lot of liberals, even lefties, wanted no part of my critique, for fear, as a few suggested to me, that it would hurt Obama’s campaign. I don’t know how someone as marginal as me could do that, but liberals were taking no chances. At bottom, they simply don’t want to deal with someone like me. Still, Obama’s victory should be good for my career. With the Dems running every branch, there’ll be no shortage of ripe, deserving targets.
