If only more people did that.
I agree these political memes / images (i.e. ones that aren't actually based on a meme image just styleedlike one) are not great. The humorous ones are usually only funny if they share your politics, so only worth being shared in places you know people won't have a problem with them - unless you want to get into an actual argument about politics (which is not normally the reason for sharing a "funny" image).
For example the zombie meme vs. my Star Wars example, some would see the first and say it's a bullshit argument against people who are standing up for equal rights today, others would see the latter and say it's a bullshit argument against people who are just not overreacting to Trump's early actions (e.g. Stadler rightly called out the analogy of the Emperor fails, but didn't feel it was worth noting that the analogy of activists arguing against zombie hunters fails too). Apart from a few good examples, most are only "funny" to the extent that they fit more closely with your ideas.
More worrisome than the attempts at humorous ones are the ones that are supposed to be "informative". Just as people only want to see and share jokes that fit their political views, people want to see and share "facts" that fit their politcal views. And I would say those are tied very closely to "fake news" - not the definition now peddled by Trump and others of any news you don't like, but the actual definition I would stick with, which is sometimes in the form of one of these memes (or is at least shared in a similar way). Media organisations with some bias in what they report like Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, aren't "fake news". Even ones that lean heavily in one direction like Mother Jones or Breitbart aren't "fake news". "Fake news" is the stuff that's generated either based on incredibly
slim evidence or from thin air, and put in a parcel that is designed to grab attention by appealing to people's preconceived beliefs, and then be shared for clicks.
Take a fitting image, slap some white text on it with an unverifiable claim or an extreme exaggeration of something that's true, then if you can hit the right people that such "information" would appeal to, you might be able to get them to share it with many others. And there's an interesting phenomenon when it comes to the psychology of how people react to false information. I read this article
a while ago (the title is more anti-Trump than the actual meat of the article regarding the psychology I would say, in case anyone is put off by that) which I think gives a very good explanation. If we hear once piece of information first that is later corrected, we can still be influenced by that first piece. If we hear something repeatedly then we can start to take it on board even more. And when it comes to emotionally charged information like politics, people are even more likely to believe something they read - even when later corrected - if it fits their previously held beliefs. And that's assuming people actually read something which corrects the original false statement - when it comes to "memes" shared on Facebook, plenty of people will see something once and never read anything further on it.
Maybe that's going quite far from the topic of humorous political "memes", but I think that the same logic that applies to images that are purely meant as jokes (we only want to see ones that reinforce our previous beliefs) also applies to ones that are meant to be more informative.