The lazy political writing of ‘SNL’

For the life of me, I can’t understand why in the world Kate McKinnon has an Emmy. Or, for that matter, why anyone finds her Hillary Clinton impression funny.

Mark Twain wrote, “[h]umor cannot do credit to itself without a good background of gravity and & earnestness.”

{mosads}The problem with “Saturday Night Live” in general and with McKinnon’s Clinton impersonation is that both represent extremely lazy writing. Having not much to go on, they decided to opt for the old, sexist “ambitious woman” angle, portraying Democratic nominee Clinton as somehow just as ridiculous as GOP nominee Donald Trump, only in a different way.

The problem with this, of course, is that it’s not only untrue; it’s idiotic. It’s as if, in their attempt to be “even-handed,” they forgot how to be intelligent.

To me, the funniest “SNL” bit of all time was “Celebrity Jeopardy.” It was funny, in part, because of the grain of truth within it: “Celebrity Jeopardy!” seemed much easier than regular Jeopardy!.

“SNL” exploited this, creating categories such as “Words that Rhyme with Amburger” and Final Jeopardy subjects that simply asked the contestants to “pick a number — any number.”

The recurring skit included a ridiculous caricature of Sean Connery that was funny for the very reason that it was so out of character for Connery — basically, an alternate version of him.

What truly made the skit funny, though, was Will Ferrell as “Jeopardy!” host Alex Trebek – the “straight man,” as it’s called. If Ferrell had made the mistake of trying to make Trebek out to be the ridiculous one, the entire thing would’ve fallen flat.

And this is why McKinnon’s impression just isn’t funny to me. There just simply seems to be no truth to it.

You can’t seek the presidency and not be somewhat egotistical and ambitious. After all, you’re seeking the highest office in the land. Clinton is no more ambitious or egotistical than any man who ever sought the presidency, yet no one made fun of them for doing so. Did Barack Obama, John McCain, or Bill Clinton, for that matter, not just as strongly want to be president?

But Hillary Clinton’s a woman, so we have to make fun of her for it?

The other problem with the impression is that it creates a false equivalency and lulls people into believing that each of the presidential candidates is somehow equally ridiculous. It supports the “two bad choices” notion that is so dangerously misguided.

The truth is that portraying Clinton as overly ambitious was in no way necessary to make the sketch funny, and definitely diminished the humor. It would be much funnier to have Clinton as the “straight man” while Trump, rightfully, acted the buffoon.

Having it any other way is being intellectually dishonest and, as a result, just plain stupid. Frankly, they’re selling out to the lowest common denominator.

This is not a surprise. After all, “SNL” first sold out their integrity when they decided to allow Trump to host the show last year, long after he had told us that Mexico was sending us rapists.

As Mike Pesca did a great job of pointing out on Slate’s The Gist (his spiel on it starts at 18:30), the show was terrible, and the writing, as has often been the case, was lazy, repeating bits in a different form and pretending that they were new.

“Last Week Tonight” host John Oliver is, frankly, 10 times better than SNL at this point.

And why is that?

Because he doesn’t give a damn about who he offends or about promoting a false equivalency in order to appear “even-handed.” His brilliant takes on the election don’t give Clinton a free pass, but they expose the fact that most of her baggage, though not insignificant, is minor, while Trump’s faults are not only glaring, but numerous, dangerous and — if you have any sense whatsoever about you — extremely alarming. Oliver did a fine job of illustrating this point with his hilarious raisin analogy.

“Late Night” host Seth Meyers has been similarly funny with his “A Closer Look” segments.

Both, unlike “SNL” or “The Tonight Show” host Jimmy Fallon, have imposed “Trump bans,” refusing to have him on their shows. To them, their integrity is worth more than a short-lived ratings jolt.

“Saturday Night Live” has sacrificed one of the greatest comedic opportunities in history. Here they had a chance to get huge laughs by showing how ridiculous this election is because of the racist, bigoted, misogynistic nominee the Republicans chose, and instead of playing to that point, they took the safe route, pretending that both candidates are equally ridiculous.

If the writers of “SNL” truly think that each candidate is just as dangerous and just as ridiculous, and that they shouldn’t expose one more than the other, they either don’t understand facts or don’t understand comedy.

Rosenfeld is an educator and historian who has done work for Scribner, Macmillan and Newsweek.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.