Okay, so I've been watching David Brooks spew conservative anecdotes to a roomful of eager collegiate conservatives. Most of what he has to say is not at all surprising; frustration over the lack of public support on social security reform, praise for Hamilton’s style of conservative governing and a nod to Christian campuses that in his opinion do a better job of shaping character. Nothing out of the ordinary aside from mentioning that possible presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, is phenomenally good looking (he actually used the word phenomenally twice). I was getting bored of watching when a student asked Brooks why his columns had a more humorous tone than the columns of his colleagues. Brooks responded by referencing a 19th century conservative journalist who advised that using humour is the most effective way to convert people to your political cause. This got me thinking about the tactics and responses that Democrats have used in the wake of Bush’s re-election. Sure we have made some serious strides in trying to understand the composition of the conservative base and we have vowed to ‘fight back’ against Republican extremism, but the question is, “Where has this taken us?” Has increasing the outrage factor had the desired effect of inciting moderates and the apolitical to be angry with this administration? For the most part I think not. Voicing anger and dissent is an important part being an opposition but it must be done with caution or else it facilitates the ‘divide and conquer’ strategy of the Republican Party. In our attempt to reach out to America progressives have overlooked the humour variable. Brooks and other conservative talking heads have used humour wisely to create a comfortable and approachable vibe to their political viewpoints. This bodes well with the general public who will often lose site of a political message that is packaged with too much hostility or seriousness. Americans might have left Fahrenheit 9/11 somewhat outraged at this administration, but on Election Day, “who had the last laugh?” Democrats should not underestimate the importance of using humour to reach out to people even when it concerns very serious issues.