Now the comedians are fighting?
In this corner, wearing the polka-dot trunks and weighing in at soggy ottoman, we have Larry David. He is a comedy god who co-created “Seinfeld” and then spoofed his own neuroses in “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”
Mr. David is known for his left hooks.
In this corner, wearing a heterodox smoking robe and weighing in at a bunch of twigs, we have Bill Maher, the late-night host of HBO’s “Real Time” and bête noire to both the woke and MAGA.
Mr. Maher is known for his uppercuts.
Isn’t it a bummer when two people you admire climb into the ring? Why can’t everyone be like George and Amal Clooney? This heavyweight bout in the comedy world started Monday when the New York Times published a satirical essay by David: “My Dinner With Adolf.”
In the piece, David imagines getting an invite from Hitler in 1939:
“Two weeks later, I found myself on the front steps of the Old Chancellery and was led into an opulent living room, where a few of the Führer’s most vocal supporters had gathered: Himmler, Göring, Leni Riefenstahl and the Duke of Windsor, formerly King Edward VIII.”
Although David does not mention Maher by name, the target is obvious. Maher was recently invited to the White House to dine with Donald Trump. This did not sit well with some of his fans, especially after he described his host as “gracious and measured,” not at all like the raving lunatic we see on TV.
This confession inspired passages in David’s mocking essay:
“I joked that I was surprised to see him in a tan suit because if he wore that out, it would be perceived as un-Führer-like. That amused him to no end, and I realized I’d never seen him laugh before. Suddenly he seemed so human. Here I was, prepared to meet Hitler, the one I’d seen and heard — the public Hitler. But this private Hitler was a completely different animal.”
In an unusual move, the Times also published an accompanying piece. Patrick Healy, deputy opinion editor, wrote about receiving David’s submission and thinking, “This is different.”
“Larry’s piece is not equating Trump with Hitler,” wrote Healy, even though that is precisely what the piece is equating. This was not an imaginary dinner with Charles Manson, Vlad the Impaler or even Bernie Madoff, a more apt metaphor.
But let’s leave the Führer in the Führerbunker and debate David’s overarching criticism: it was wrong for Maher to meet with Trump. This dovetails with others who accused Maher of “normalizing” an abnormal president. Or “bending the knee” to an aspiring dictator.
What’s next? Is Maher going to play pickleball with Luigi Mangione?
I defended MSBNC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski after they were lambasted for making the pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago. I will defend Bill Maher with the same argument.
Now, more than ever, we need non-cultists to infiltrate the red hats. Trump 2.0 is a clown car filled with bootlickers and zombies from the Upside Down. During his dinner, Maher says he told Trump to his face that he lost the 2020 election and he was scaring people. He criticized and challenged policies. These are things Trump does not hear from the ambitious dipsticks who only shout, “Sir, great idea!”
The real problem with David’s essay is timing. He should have waited to see if this Maher-Trump summit influenced the comic to pull his punches. But there is no evidence Maher will treat Trump with kid gloves just because of Kid Rock.
Maher was throwing haymakers last week. He will throw more on Friday night.
It was churlish and condescending for David to assume otherwise.
We need more Trump critics to Trojan Horse this bonkers administration and offer countervailing meds to the nostrums snorted by the true believers. Trump is obsessed with TV. Now that they’ve broken bread, who knows, maybe he will be more inclined to listen when Maher savages one of his hare-brained schemes.
The idea Maher “normalized” Trump is ridiculous. Americans knew exactly what they were getting — and voted for it twice. To those voters, Trump is normal. Everyone else has TDS. Maher believes dialogue is important because the old way — shouting past one another — has created a stalemate of tribal rage and fortified silos in a field of eternal division.
Right or wrong, he was trying to dialogue when he had Dinner With Donald.
What he should try next is to invite David on his “Club Random” podcast. Let them sit together and hash out the merits and pitfalls of any contact high with Trump. Let them discuss this crucial matter without hiding behind satire or monologues. Ditch the humour and embrace the severity.
Trump has hurled the world into turmoil. He is a madman without a master plan.
The two comedians can start their debate by agreeing on that.
