I trust it goes without saying that this is a non-partisan question. You'd undoubtedly get the same sort of fulminations from the right if the Weekly Standard ran a Bush-Hitler cartoon, with the same kind of fatuous "Of course we support free speech and understand the clever multi-layered satire, but there are all those leftist literalist loonies out there..." What has clearly got knickers in a knot is the sense of betrayal. The update to Chet's post to the effect that this cartoon would have been tasteless and offensive if it had appeared in the New York Post has it precisely backwards. These kind of cartoons (and much worse) appear all the time in right wing and left wing journals and nobody bats an eye. Their readers devour them with glee and their detractors pay no mind because they assume everything in the journal is wrong and offensive. The New Yorker's sin was to satirize the wrong side.
Good post, but I don't how American political discourse is necessarily an issue for "us" progressives.
A little too much cross-border solidarity there, for my taste. By the last paragraph, you almost seemed to have forgotten what country you live in.
I think we're all implicated. After all, I was prompted to write the post by a Canadian blogger and his Canadian commenters.
The New Yorker's sin was to satirize the wrong side.
Somebody has to do it.
Let me try this one last time:
Given that the intent of the cartoonist was to create satire, and given that the goal of satire is to diminish or damage your targets through mockery and exaggeration, and given that the cartoonist's targets have been unaffected, the only logical conclusion is that the satire has failed.
If anyone was playing it safe, it was this cartoonist, who chose the cheap and easy method of just depicting the myths about the Obamas, without any attempt to explain where they came from, name any names, or identify the actual targets of his attempt at satire.
Excellent post, Dawg. Spot on.
I thought the cover was a lot of fun (I was a little disappointed that more people did not catch the Angela Davis homage in Michele).
Basically the anti-cartoon lefties make the assumption that the American public are morons and cannot be relied upon to recognize satire when they see it. Frankly this is not a terribly surprising assumption as it has pretty much governed the actions of a certain segment of the left in the US from the time Clinton left office.
Of course, people resent being taken for morons and my sense is that the left's outrage is really doing rather more harm than good. Especially when some on the left make absoulutely no attempt to conceal their contempt for the majority of the electorate. (And why would they? After all, from the hills of Marin County or downtown Madison, that majority elected Bush....twice. Res ipsa loquitur.)
given that the goal of satire is to diminish or damage your targets through mockery and exaggeration,
I don't think that is true, at least not about New Yorker cartoons. Many of them don't really have targets at all. They are just clever, surreal spoofs on urban life, modern foibles, excesses, politics, etc. Isn't it possible that everyone is making the mistake of assuming the cartoon had a target?
Random pot-shot at the witless Jay Currie:
Of course, people resent being taken for morons and my sense is that the left's outrage is really doing rather more harm than good.
His "sense"....*snort*
So it's just clever and surreal, a jolly New York cocktail-party bon mot, to depict black people as terrorists?
And for the record, the New Yorker claims that the cartoon did have a target.
that majority elected Bush....twice.
Er...it did?
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/
2000pr...esgeresults.htm
So it's just clever and surreal, a jolly New York cocktail-party bon mot, to depict black people as terrorists?
Well, no, it's clever and surreal to portray the right-wing image of what the Obama couple are really like.
Chet:
Depict black people as terrorists? C'mon, the man is running for president of the United States, not applying for a job through affirmative action, and he is doing a damn good job of it. Do you think AARP should be marching over this:
"How about that John McCain? He looks like the guy at the movies whose wife has to repeat everything. He looks like the guy who has to always be told something is on his chin. He looks like a guy who still has a rotary phone. He looks like a guy who's backed over his own mailbox. He looks like a guy whose sweater is always mis-buttoned. He looks like the guy who always tells you he's 72 years young. He looks like the guy who's bragged that oatmeal has lowered his cholesterol. He looks like the guy who should be co-hosting with Kelly Ripa." –David Letterman
Maybe the cartoon really did have a specific target, in which case it didn't work very well but was still clever. But maybe the New Yorker is just in damage control mode. I note it's not the cartoonist being quoted there.
The cartoon portrays excellently what has been a loony right-wing undertone (thank goodness I managed to avoid "subtext"--oops! I didn't) about the Obamas.
Surely people should be able to deal with that. And also with cartoons mocking Mohammed (pbuh). Are we in a modern world or some mediaeval time?
Mark
Ottawa
By the way, for those who think Mr Obama is the cat's peaceful ass:
"Barack Obama is no Jack Layton...and no Stephen Harper either"
Mark
Ottawa
Dawg,
Great post, especially that bit about "soft bigotry of low expectations."
Best,
Terrence
My jaw dropped when I saw the mag cover. I was shocked. I thought it was AWFUL. It gave me pause. I may be displaying my working class IQ here, but I did have to take a minute or two to sort it all out. WHAT was the New Yorker trying to SAY? It was a shocking PLACE to see those representations.
But I did sort it out. And I didn't think it was funny. As satire, I didn't think it worked.
Since when has it been worthy of comment for the New Yorker to run something that isn't funny?
Great one Dawg ... congrats.
As an aside, what I found amazing, is that after 7.5 years of the hardest hitting satire and outright hateful media blitz of all types against Hitler/Bush, you'd think the "progressive" class would let satire just roll off them. The New Yorker spoof, no matter who or what it was aimed at, was incredily tame. Compare that to the thousands ... nay, tens of thousands, of smart to vulgar "spoofs" of Bush that have been produced world-wide. Even Hallmark cards has Bush spoofs ... there are even Bush bashing calendars to buy at Coles.
Everybody should lighten-up ... and if you cherish our freedoms, laugh at em even if they lampoon your views ... it's part of being free. Failing that, you can always slit your wrists.
After all, what's the fun in politics without a down and nasty cartoon that stings ... but makes a good point. We conservatives get nailed all the time. It's just part of the free market of ideas. Enjoy your freedom folks.
Thanks Dr. Dawg ... perfect.
Commenting by HaloScan
