Conservatism and Anti-Liberalism: A Seinfeld Case Study
Jerry Seinfeld has just released his sixth season of Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee on Netflix, where he recruits comedic legends to hold candid conversations over fame, humor and their most current observations. In each episode, Seinfeld illustrates his commonly known arrogant, pragmatic persona, a tactic of comedy that, in his circumstance, is simultaneously pretentious and authentic. Specifically in his stand-up performances, he religiously maintains an observational humor. His most infamous jokes include:
“People who read the tabloids deserve to be lied to”
“Sometimes the road less traveled is less traveled for a reason”
“My theory is that 98% of human endeavor is killing time”
These jokes are indicative of Seinfeld’s style: succinct and oftentimes predictable. He follows a pattern where the structure and climax are visible, but the punch-line is interesting and smart enough to arouse laughter. Comedians such as John Mulaney and Kevin Hart follow this sharp, visible technique, while others like Dave Chappelle and Chris D’elia are greater conversationalists, flowing in and out of jokes without notice. These two schools of thought create a discrepancy over style and structure. Similarly, in architecture school, some claim the greatest architecture should be seen and beloved, while others say it should seamless and barely noticed. But, in comedy and architecture, those who both reveal and conceal their techniques have found great success. Thus, considering comedians with a similar structure, why are comics like Seinfeld and Mulaney so drastically different?
To Seinfeld, tradition is seen as the greatest form of knowledge.
Essentially, if you were to attend Seinfeld’s comedy show for a decade, he would open by congratulating the audience for “getting out of the house” and proceed to repeat his most hard-hitting bits every time. Many criticize his repetition, yet in a rare conversation between Ricky Gervais, Chris Rock and Louis C.K. entitled Talking Funny, he defends his methods; Seinfeld claims that if you went to a rock concert, you would want to hear the greatest hits. It’s this mindset, where jokes can be repeated “because it works,” as he explains on Lettermen’s My Next Guest, that solidifies Seinfeld’s conservatism. Edmund Burke mimics these beliefs in Reflections on the Revolution in France. Burke claims, “the science of constructing a commonwealth, or renovating it, or reforming it is, like every other experimental science, not to be taught a priori” and that men have a right to “the fruits of their industry; and to the means of making their industry fruitful.” He, in fact, claims to put his “foot in the tracks of [his] forefathers where [he] can neither wonder nor stumble.” Hannah More also shares this sentiment in Village Politics, warning “the more we riot, the more we shall have to pay.” Thus, in each case, tradition is seen as the greatest form of knowledge. Seinfeld works tirelessly for his living and treats each observation as a life’s masterpiece, paralleling when Burke defends nobility and suggests he doesn’t “like to see anything destroyed; any void produced in society; any ruin on the face of the land.” Ultimately, conservatism the driving force in Seinfeld’s methodology, to which he has the authority and confidence to know the worth of his previous work.
This method is contradicted by an increasingly consumption-oriented society. YouTube stars, late-night talk show hosts and social media all decrease audiences’ attention span for the traditional comedy Seinfeld holds so dear. The rise of daily political humor and a race to develop a new hour for Netflix results in more of a sensationalized news cycle than an artform. Even The Onion and more established sources base their content off of current events. In response, Seinfeld poses another qualification to his conservatism; it’s rooted in content that’s timeless and observations that aren’t wholly dependent on politics. But, why can’t both fleeting and timeless observations have merit for understanding humanity? Many may claim Seinfeld does adapt in his show Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee, which keeps his similar content, but adjusts the method of delivery for a more modern audience. However, it is specifically Seinfeld’s stand-up that lives in complete conservatism and traditional values. On stage, Seinfeld chooses to remain unchanged, yet if that signaled an inherently high-brow “correctness” about comedy, the creative culture would become mundane.
Seinfeld would argue his appointment as one of the most successful comedians in history validates his repetitive content, no matter modern discontent.
Seinfeld rejects critics’ claims of boredom and fans urging for new content. He is unaffected by outside forces and unapologetically himself. However, he also believes comedy “is the ultimate democracy. The laugh is the vote. We’ve decided as a group. [He doesn’t] decide. [The audience] decides.” Therefore, there’s a conflict between how he sees the role of the audience and the role he takes on. The ultimate question arises from his driving principles: is Seinfeld liberal or anti-liberal? One may originally claim he values Locke’s liberalism, believing that each individual is the greatest judge of their own good. If this is true, he would believe each audience member should be in control of the “vote” or ticket sales, determining what is best for their entertainment consumption. However, at least his public persona consistently refuses to adapt to others’ wishes, as exemplified in his interview with Netflix’s “What a Joke” entitled “Jerry Seinfeld Knows He is Funny and Doesn’t Want Your Feedback.” Seinfeld’s unwavering attempt to not adjust to the audience’s call for evolution indicates he assumes an element of authority. In fact, I would argue Seinfeld is actually anti-liberal, more mirroring Rousseau than Locke. Rousseau, in On the Social Contract, believes in a democratic ruling where “each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and as one we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” Once the general will determines legislation and who is worthy, in a government or in a club, this “sovereign is formed entirely from the private individuals who make it up, it neither has nor could have any interest contrary to theirs.” Thus, because the general will, or audience, reaches a consensus and is “indivisible,” no critic has a right to rebel against an already established sovereign. Seinfeld would argue his appointment as one of the most successful comedians in history validates his repetitive content, no matter modern discontent.
In the prospect of comedy, I would claim anti-liberalism is not the most effective philosophy. From my perspective, the audience is voting for celebrity, not comedy. They are voting for who he once was, the show he once created, the jokes he used to tell. This may “work” to sell tickets, but it fails to assess the true intentions of the laughs. A democracy can only produce the greatest possible product if the method of voting is precise in what it’s measuring. In other words, Seinfeld’s rogue mantras or “strategic amoralism” can only be virtuous if it overlaps with audience interest. Even Machiavelli, who believes the best rulers will attempt to “satisfy the masses and keep them content,” would suggest Seinfeld can only be successful when his comedy is truly derived from striving for the common good and not self-interest.
Ultimately, I must assess my original assumption and determine if the majority of his audience truly does call more revolutionary content. I have assumed this perspective, because the majority of online opinions would agree, yet the majority of online opinions are most likely millennials or younger. This age discrepancy paints Seinfeld using two different narratives: an outdated artist or a traditional legend. Either way, Seinfeld could undeniably expand his brand and satisfy a greater audience of younger generations through discussing more revolutionary topics. Therefore, Seinfeld’s stand-up genius may rest in his confident, established demeanor that appeals to an older, increasingly conservative demographic, but if he truly believes in his artform, he cannot rely on sameness to materialize and achieve his greatest potential.
