Mark Twain saw humorists as having a critical role: to challenge authority and consensus. He argued that irreverence is the "champion of liberty" because despots fear a laughing public more than anything else. This frames satire not just as entertainment, but as a vital tool for maintaining a free society.

Trump's comedic style is a direct imitation of Johnny Carson's deadpan delivery. This allows him to effectively land jokes and control narratives, even when punching down. The political opposition often disarms itself by failing to recognize or counter his humor, which contrasts sharply with the scripted jokes of other recent leaders.

Historically, figures like Hitler were initially dismissed as buffoons. This perceived lack of seriousness is a strategic tactic, not a flaw. It disarms civil opponents who can't operate in that space, captures constant media attention, and causes observers to fatally underestimate the true threat. The defense to "take him seriously, not literally" is a modern manifestation of this pattern.

Jane Fonda points out that historically, authoritarian regimes always attack artists and educators first. These groups are the "storytellers" who control the cultural narrative and shape how people think and feel. By silencing them, a regime can more easily impose its own version of reality.

Zarna Garg views humor not just as entertainment but as a functional tool. She describes it as a "weapon" to be used correctly for a "higher good." She consciously applies humor tactically to diffuse tense situations, disarm conflict, and bring people together in her daily life and work.

Contrary to their image of strength, authoritarian figures often rely on bluff and "anticipatory obedience." When confronted with direct, organized resistance, they frequently lack a follow-up plan and retreat, revealing their inherent fragility and dependence on their opposition's inaction.

Jane Fonda argues that defeating an authoritarian regime requires weakening its "pillars of support" like finance, military, and art. This is achieved through strategic noncompliance—strikes, boycotts, and mass actions that hit the economy—rather than traditional protests, which are less effective against entrenched power.

Salman Rushdie posits that humor is more than just entertainment; it is a potent tool against oppression. He observes that dictators and narrow-minded individuals are characteristically humorless and that satire can provoke them more effectively than direct criticism, making it a crucial element in the struggle for free expression.

Engaging controversial figures through a comedic lens serves as a powerful humanizing agent. It punctures their self-serious persona and tests their ability to laugh at the absurdity of their own position. This can disarm audiences who expect confrontation and instead reveal a more relatable, self-aware individual.