A History of "Ludicrous"

I. What "Ludicrous" Means

lu*di*crous (l—oo´di kres), adj. causing laughter because of absurdity; provoking or deserving derision; ridiculous; laughable: a ludicrous lack of efficiency.

—Webster's Unabridged Dictionary

The English word "ludicrous" is synonymous with "ridiculous," "absurd," and "laughable." "Be ludicrous!" is invariably preceded by "don't." To have the misfortune of being perceived as ludicrous, or to utter a statement deemed ludicrous, means that one's words or actions have inadvertently aroused in one's audience either contemptuous, skeptical, or condescending laughter. Although sometimes audible, more often than not this laughter takes the form of a sensation of superiority and elevation, delight in witnessing the sweeping vista of another's vulnerability, his or her paucity of insight, skill, or common sense. We do not call statements or actions which knowingly solicit laughter "ludicrous": instead, we categorize them as either witty, clever, funny, or ironic. On the other hand, statements or actions which solicit laughter in contexts not conducive to laughter—tableaux of funeral and deathbed come to mind—are painfully ludicrous. Likewise, we perceive failed or artless attempts at soliciting laughter as ludicrous. Although we might smirk or chuckle in these scenarios, we do so at the expense of the speaker or actor: laughter, in this case, functions as rebuke, derision rather than acceptance of a tactless or ineffective invitation to laugh. To accuse another of being ludicrous, then, means to question not so much that individual's truthfulness or integrity, although this might be a secondary or indirect motive, but rather his or her capacity to perceive and to assess with requisite competence a given set of facts. This incompetence is either constitutional, that is, caused by lack of acuity or subtlety, a perceptual defect, or, more likely, it is circumstantial, the result of ignorance, lack of access to a given set of facts, a body of knowledge. "Ludicrous" is wielded by those in the know, by those who wish to appear in the know.

The frequency with which "ludicrous" is used in the media has increased dramatically over the last two decades. Contrary to the predictions of information-age enthusiasts, the proliferation of twenty-four-hour news networks, the advent of the Internet, and the metastasis of talk radio have only superficially democratized and decentralized the dissemination of information. Nevertheless, for individuals in search of the word "ludicrous," the information-communication industry's perpetual chatter, the dueling pundits and political gossips, constitutes a veritable El Dorado. Indeed, in the endless procession of prefabricated debates—about politics and law, culture and sex—that fill American airwaves and newspapers, "ludicrous" makes a regular appearance, proving one of the more popular rhetorical devices with which partisans discredit the opinions and philosophies of their opponents. Political commentator Spencer Ackerman, for instance, dismisses as "ludicrous" former House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt's prediction that Democrats would "pick up 30 to 40 seats" in the 2002 midterm elections.¹ One hears former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich complain: "The concept of the American secretary of state going to Damascus to meet with a terrorist-supporting, secret-police-wielding dictator is ludicrous."² About Democrat Bill McBride's failed effort to unseat Florida governor Jeb Bush, CNN pundit Tucker Carlson concludes: "It was a ludicrous campaign to begin with."³ In an attempt to deflate the heroic image of former NATO supreme commander General Wesley Clark, who, in the summer of 2003, was pondering a run for the Democratic presidential nomination, conservative columnist George Will preemptively snapped: "Comparisons of Clark to Dwight Eisenhower are ludicrous."⁴

The political right, of course, does not own the word. In August 2002, in a New York Times op-ed enumerating the Republican party's history of anti-internationalism, Democratic strategist Ted Widmer proclaims: "[Senator Joseph] McCarthy's accusations [against Democratic policymakers] were ludicrous."⁵ Skeptical about reports that Americans desire war with Iraq, Arianna Huffington ponders "the ludicrousness of basing our national security policy on the shoot-from-the-lip responses of a person who has been interrupted in the middle of dinner . . . by a pollster."⁶ New York Times columnist Paul Krugman...