I think that Obama is very cool. And I think he's clever, and I

"I think that Obama is very cool. And I think he's clever, and I think he can be witty. But I don't think he's funny in either the way that Reagan was funny - or John McCain and Dick Cheney are both funny in that ruthless, kind of mean way." These words from Mo Rocca provide an insightful commentary on the nature of humor and how it plays a role in the political sphere. Rocca’s observation contrasts the wit and charm of Barack Obama with the more ruthless, even mean-spirited humor that some political figures, like Ronald Reagan, John McCain, and Dick Cheney, are known for. What stands out in Rocca’s reflection is his acknowledgment that humor, while a powerful tool in politics, can take different forms—ranging from light-hearted cleverness to a more sharp-edged, often cutting form of comedy that may be used to undermine or criticize others. This raises the question: what is the true role of humor in shaping public perception, and what does it say about the character of the individuals who wield it?

In the ancient world, humor and wit were also recognized as powerful tools in the hands of leaders and philosophers. Socrates, for example, was known for his sharp wit and his ability to disarm his opponents with clever questions and ironic humor. However, Socrates’ humor was often used not to ridicule or belittle others, but to lead his followers toward greater understanding and self-awareness. In contrast, the Romans had a different relationship with humor. Figures like Cicero used humor as a means of political persuasion, often employing satire and irony to attack the corrupt practices of politicians. In this way, humor has always had the dual potential to either elevate or demean, depending on the intent of its use and the character of the person wielding it.

This tension between playful wit and ruthless humor can be seen throughout history in the way leaders use their words to gain influence and win over the public. Consider the case of Abraham Lincoln, who famously employed humor as a way to defuse tension and win over his political opponents. His sharp wit and self-deprecating humor endeared him to many, and he often used humor to make a point, rather than to harm others. For instance, during the American Civil War, Lincoln used humor to soothe the emotions of his soldiers and citizens, showing that humor can be an effective tool for healing and unity. In contrast, leaders like Winston Churchill used humor in a more cutting way, using satire and mockery to criticize his enemies and rally his countrymen during the dark days of World War II. Churchill’s humor was often ruthless, but it served to underscore the strength of his leadership in times of crisis.

Rocca’s comparison between Obama’s cleverness and wittiness and the more ruthless humor of figures like Reagan and McCain highlights the role of humor in political communication. Obama, often known for his charismatic and intelligent humor, used his wit to convey his vision for change and to connect with people across the political spectrum. His humor, though sometimes biting, was rarely cruel. Instead, it reflected his belief in a more positive, inclusive approach to leadership. This is evident in how Obama used humor to diffuse tension during political debates or to mock the absurdities of the political system. In this way, his humor was not only a tool for engagement but also for connection, a way of bridging gaps and bringing people together.

On the other hand, Reagan, McCain, and Cheney used humor in ways that were often divisive and sharp-edged, sometimes at the expense of others. Reagan’s famous quip during a presidential debate, “I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” exemplified how humor could be used to undermine an opponent while maintaining an air of playfulness. McCain, known for his irreverence, often used humor as a weapon to challenge the status quo, but it was frequently laced with a certain cynicism that could cut through the air with a harshness that left little room for empathy. Similarly, Dick Cheney was known for using humor that was often at the expense of others, reinforcing his image as a leader who wielded power not just through policy but through forceful, and sometimes mean-spirited, rhetoric.

The lesson from Rocca’s words is not just about the role of humor in politics but about the character and intent behind the humor. The use of humor in leadership speaks volumes about the leader’s values and how they want to be perceived by the public. Is humor being used to connect and uplift, or to tear down and divide? The choice of humor reflects the kind of leadership one offers to the world. The type of humor that is inclusive, witty, and clever can unite people, build empathy, and inspire a sense of shared humanity. In contrast, humor that is ruthless, cutting, and designed to demean others reflects a leadership that seeks to maintain power through division and mockery.

In practical terms, this means that we must pay attention to the way we use humor in our own lives—whether in personal relationships, in the workplace, or in public discourse. Humor can be a powerful tool for connection, healing, and empowerment, but it can also be a weapon of division and harm. Just as Obama’s wit served to unite and inspire, we should strive to use humor to bring out the best in others and create environments where laughter is a force for good. Let us ask ourselves: Are we using humor to build and uplift, or to tear down and mock? Are we contributing to the strength of our relationships, communities, and societies, or to their fragility? The true power of humor lies in its ability to reflect the values of those who wield it, and it is up to us to ensure that it serves the greater good.