True. Also, another target of **Life of Brian **wasn’t just organized religion but pop culture’s–especially Hollywood’s–often-crass treatment of material regarded as sacred. The plot is pretty much a piss take on Ben Hur and other biblical epics of the 50s and 60s like Quo Vadis, The Robe, and The Greatest Story Ever Told. However, most people born over the last 30 years are unfamiliar with these movies so the satire would be lost on them.
He supported Romney in 2012, and has said that he ‘leans libertarian’. But I nelieve he also supported Bill Clinton.
I want to post the usual stuff: A lot of good comedy comes from making fun of the establishment, the powers-that-be, the way things are. Since conservatism likes those things (originally), that takes away a lot of possible conservative comedy.
But …
I remember Johnny Carson, for example, back in the 60s and 70s making fun of hippies and all that. So there was comedy in going after the counter-establishment.
So what happened? Did the counter-establishment get incorporated into (one part of) the establishment?
Who would you make fun of today that’s on the fringe to the leftish? Sure, there’s anti-vaccine nutjobs but there’s a lot of sadness there given kids are dying because of preventable diseases. And the anti-vaxxers are all over the place politically, not left or right.
Going after Oprah? You have to avoid just doing racist/sexist stuff. Letterman would make some jokes about her. But not about her politics. And that’s a person, not a group/subculture/whatever.
Note that Trump gets big yucks at rallies calling Warren “Pocahontas”. But that’s incredibly offensive to a lot of people. Not exactly humor to people in general.
If you want to make fun of people without being a horrible person due to race/religon/etc. you have to be better than that.
(Look at the kerfuffle about that SNL comment about a veteran last weekend. Yeah, he should get flack from people, including the right. Just as Trump should be getting flack from the right as well for his “jokes”.)
Etc.
I don’t think there’s been a great explanation of why this is usually true, so I’ll give it a try.
“Art” is of course even more slippery a term than “conservative”, but I think it’s useful to focus on the avant-garde. You can paint a painting in the style of Rembrandt and it might be technically just as good, and even sell for enough to support you, but it’s not ever going to make an impact on the world of art. Because it’s already been done.
Art is about doing new things. It’s about progressing and transgressing and remixing. It’s experimentation and blasphemy and chaos.
Conservatism is the opposite. It’s about old things and traditional ways. The tried and true. The known, the comfortable, the solid.
Art is proactive. Conservatism is reactive.
This division is exceptionally clear in comedy. Because comedy is fundamentally about subverted expectations. Things are funny when there’s a moment of dissonance between the thing that your brain expected to happen and what happened. Which means that the second time you hear a joke, it’s a dud. You already knew that was going to happen.
It’s also worth noting that people trend more conservative as they get old (either because of society’s changing mores or because their positions change), which means that “conservative” comedians are likely to be old guys peddling the same schtick that worked for them 30 years ago.
On the other hand, it could be that ‘art’ has gatekeepers, and conservatives aren’t welcome. This is what has happened in academia, where faculties that were once perhaps 60/40 or 70/30 liberal/conservative are now often 95-99% liberal.
It’s interesting that there has been a rise of conservative ‘street artists’ like Sabo. And conservatives, including conservative comedians, are thriving online where there are no gatekeepers. Yet.
It used to be that street art was a reaction to the closed commercial art world, and was generally made up of left-wing artists. Perhaps now that the ‘establishment’ in art, comedy and other media is dominated by the left, the new counterculture will come from the right.
It could also be that you’re completely wrong and your statistics are still warm from being pulled out of your ass.
One particular aspect of conservative humour as I have observed is to affect a dumb-guy voice and pretend that what the liberal is saying is incomprehensible to us regular joes like us. Well, no, it’s not incomprehensible, you’re just pretending to be stupid, which means you may as well be stupid, and unless you’re doing something entertainingly stupid like riding a segway down a flight of stairs, screw you and stop wasting my time.
My favorite Ron White joke is not political at all.
(Paraphrased)* "I took my dog out for a walk on the grass outside the bank. The manager came out and said, ‘The sign says NO DOGS’.
That’s right!"
*
I’d love to pull that off, but alas…
Rodney Carrington is a conservative comedian who I’d call funny. He explicitly said in the most recent special of his that I’ve seen that he’s a Trump fan, though his set was otherwise mostly apolitical.
To echo what others have said in the thread, it seems to me that most good comedy requires at least some degree of self-deprecation, and there seems to be a hesitancy among conservatives to admit that there might be anything about themselves worthy of being made the subject of fun.
Yeah, Dennis Miller really puts on a dumb guy persona. So does Greg Gutfeld. In fact, I have never seen a consrvative act like you are talking about. Most conservative comedians act like they are smarter than liberals, not dumber. Steven Crowder is curently having fun setting up tables on college campuses with a sign that says, ‘Convince me I’m wrong’, then debates anyone willing to take the challenge.
Perhaps what you are talking about is schtick from the ‘blue collar’ comedians like Jeff Foxworthy. I wouldn’t know, having paid little attention from them.
As for the ratios in college, I’m talking about liberal arts faculties like sociology, philosophy, psychology, history. These are now overwhelmingly liberal. Here’s what Scientific American has to say about it:
Is Social Science Politically Biased?
That’s for social scientists as a whole, across the country. Specific fields at specific universities can be even worse. From Cass Sunstein:
Those numbers are in line with the ones I posted.
Can someone please define what “conservative humor” is that is not explicitly political, and without naming names?
If this is an actual genre of humor, then you should be able to do that.
I don’t get it: is this supposed to be funny, witty, original or interesting? Just comes across as dull.
What Carlson does in this segment is absurdly cherrypick some quotes from people, as if he is listing a ruinous trend of their expression of political views being religious fervor by proxy. He ends by saying to the viewer, “If you want it to end, stop talking like this.” I take this to be ironic, since those words could be re-interpreted as a moral lecture of his own after several minutes of bemoaning what moral panic is doing to society.
I never really watched Stephen Colbert - isn’t this the kind of stuff he would do? It could function as satire in a different context. And yes, it could be conservative satire
(that doesn’t take itself too seriously) because there is truth to some of what he says, it’s just flimsily constructed reasoning.
No, Stephen Colbert is funny. He tells jokes. There are punchlines. His sentences are deliberately constructed so that the audience laughs at them. Sometimes, he uses wit. He also uses other humorous devices (for example, here’s last night’s monologue around 0:35, he deploys a “play on words”) When I watch that, I laugh (or at least I know when the writing staff was trying to get me to laugh, even when the joke fails).
When you watch the Tucker Carlson show, do you find it funny? Perhaps the reason that there is so little recognition of conservative comedians is that the sense of humor they use is very different from what is commonly thought of as comedy.
Tucker Carlson is not a self-styled comedian. I’m not saying he’s never ever said something funny, but I don’t even see why he’s being used in the discussion.
Sort of on topic: Jimmy Kimmel Asks Dennis Miller: ‘What Happened to You?’
Comedy has to be among the forms of art with the fewest gatekeepers, though.
The way you get started in comedy is go to open mike nights and hope people find you funny. Then move on to slightly bigger shows and so on. There’s no union, no credentials, no tenure track. The world of comedy is nothing like academia.
If you can’t progress from an open mike night, probably it’s because you’re not that funny.
At the same time, that makes it have the greatest number of gatekeepers.
You don’t need to convince a hiring manager of your credentials, you don’t have to convince a professor of your PhD thesis.
You have to convince many individuals that you are funny.
That’s not what a gatekeeper is. 
I just want to comment that for Norm MacDonald, you’re right that he’s hilarious. I though would be very careful about reading anything into his politics. Norm is a pure comedian’s comedian and everything that he does you have to assume is a set-up. One of the reasons that he is so hilarious is that he completely blurs the line between artist and person, so you never know if you’re laughing with him or at him or even at the fact that you’re laughing at him. He likes to bend the audiences reality so that you start to lose yourself and then smacks you in the face to drag you out of it. I commented in another thread about his Oscar Pistorius bit that is very indicative of this, but you can also see it with ‘The Moth Joke’ or ‘Uncle Hector.’ He weaves a tapestry to make you expect some sort of sophistication before pummeling you with childishness. My personal opinion is that he’s the absolute funniest man alive.
If I had to guess, I’d say that he’s definitely religious and likely leans right, but it’s a Canadian right and not an American one. He’s an iconoclast, so he never gets hung up on anything so much that he isn’t willing to tear it down, but he’ll do so in such a way that you never know whether he’s really destroying it or giving it more power. Anyway, he’s a clever guy.
The punchline for the version I’ve heard was:
“That’s not funny”
or “One! And that’s not funny!”