Listen to the article
In a stroke of comedic genius, Saturday Night Live has managed to turn American exceptionalism into laugh-out-loud television with a sketch that viewers are calling an “instant classic.” The bit, featuring comedian Nate Bargatze as George Washington, brilliantly skewers the United States’ peculiar relationship with measurement systems, language rules, and cultural quirks that distinguish it from much of the world.
The now-viral sketch unfolds during the American Revolution, with Washington rallying his troops while outlining his vision for the nation’s future. What makes the scene so entertaining is Bargatze’s deadpan delivery as he presents increasingly absurd plans for the new country’s systems and standards.
“Why should we measure things the same way as Britain?” Bargatze’s Washington asks, before outlining a baffling hodgepodge of measurement systems where soft drinks would use liters and milliliters, but milk and paint would be sold in gallons, pints, and quarts. The sketch cleverly highlights the inconsistencies Americans have learned to live with but rarely question.
Language rules get similar treatment, with Washington declaring the new nation will drop the “u” from words like “color” and “armor” but inexplicably keep it in “glamour” – a decision as arbitrary as it is historically accurate.
The comedy resonated widely with audiences because it taps into something so fundamentally true about American life. These idiosyncrasies have become invisible to most citizens through familiarity, but when spotlighted in such a straightforward manner, their absurdity becomes impossible to ignore.
Bargatze, whose understated delivery perfectly complements the material, has been enjoying a meteoric rise in the comedy world. In 2024, he became the highest-grossing touring comedian globally, known for his clean, family-friendly humor that appeals across demographic lines.
The sketch proved so popular that when Bargatze returned to host SNL again in October 2024, a sequel was produced. This follow-up maintained the winning formula, this time tackling American currency design, food naming conventions, and the education system.
“A real American would never want to know what’s in a hot dog, just as they will never know why our money is called the ‘dollar’,” Bargatze’s Washington declares in the sequel, before describing the back of U.S. currency as needing “Everything, all of it. Crazy stuff, squiggles, Latin words, a pyramid with a floating eye on top.”
Audience reaction has been overwhelmingly positive, with viewers taking to social media to praise both sketches. Comments like “This skit is an instant classic” and “Instantly one of my favorite SNL sketches of all time” have been common, with many noting they’ve watched the segments repeatedly without the humor diminishing.
The writing process behind the sketches offers fascinating insight into SNL’s creative machinery. In an interview with Jesse David Fox’s podcast “Good One: A Podcast About Jokes,” Bargatze and SNL writers Mikey Day and Streeter Seidell revealed that the concept had actually been sitting unfinished on Seidell’s computer from a previous season.
Originally envisioned for a dramatic actor, the sketch initially fell flat during table reads and was placed last in the dress rehearsal lineup – often a sign that a sketch might be cut from the final broadcast. However, Bargatze’s belief in the material and his performance in costume before the live audience during rehearsal transformed it into comedy gold.
What makes these sketches particularly effective is how they employ a classic comedic technique – using historical context to highlight contemporary absurdities. By framing America’s quirks as deliberate founding decisions, the writers create a perfect vehicle for cultural commentary that’s pointed without being divisive.
The success of the Washington sketches represents SNL at its best, combining smart writing with perfect casting to create memorable comedy that connects with audiences while saying something meaningful about American culture.
For those wanting to enjoy more of Bargatze’s SNL performances, both episodes featuring his hosting duties are available on the show’s YouTube channel, where the Washington sketches continue to accumulate views and acclaim as modern classics in the show’s long-running history.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


8 Comments
Glad to see research exploring new ways to combat the spread of online misinformation. Pre-bunking seems like a promising approach, though the effectiveness will depend on how it’s implemented. Looking forward to learning more about the findings.
Agreed, this is an important issue that deserves continued research. Pre-bunking could complement existing debunking efforts and help people develop better critical thinking skills.
The finding that pre-bunking is more effective than debunking is quite thought-provoking. It suggests that getting ahead of misinformation, rather than just reacting to it, could be a more impactful strategy. I’m curious to learn more about the specific techniques used in pre-bunking.
Yes, the pre-bunking approach seems to empower people to be more discerning consumers of online information. Giving them the tools to identify and resist misinformation before it takes hold is a smart tactic.
This is an intriguing study on combating online misinformation. The concept of pre-bunking, or inoculating people against false narratives, is quite innovative. I’d be interested to see how this approach compares to traditional fact-checking and debunking efforts in terms of long-term effectiveness.
Pre-bunking is an intriguing approach to tackling online misinformation. It makes sense to get ahead of false narratives before they spread widely. Curious to see the details of how this technique is applied in practice.
Yes, this is a proactive strategy that aims to inoculate people against misinformation. Debunking can be effective, but pre-bunking could be more efficient in the long run.
Interesting that pre-bunking may be more effective than debunking in stopping misinformation. I wonder how the two approaches differ in terms of cognitive processing and long-term impact. This is valuable research for combating the spread of false narratives online.