A New Yorker Cover For National Review

[UPDATED, below.]

Andrew Sullivan pulls this editorial cartoon from David Horsey, and asks, "How would the Republican base react to this?"

Of course, all things are relative. I would imagine that there are many readers of the National Review who would likely get exercised over this, get offended, and question whether the magazine was doing all it could to ensure a conservative stays in the White House. But then again, McCain isn't a Republican candidate who has a significant, invested fan base among conservatives, so it's just as likely that many readers would shrug and say, "Yep. That about covers it."

In any event, while I think Horsey does a brilliant job in covering the same ground as Barry Blitt, this imagined cover fails in the exact same way as the real cover of the New Yorker, in that it does not actually satirize stereotypes or criticize those who trade in them.

UPDATE: Katrina VandenHeuvel of The Nation responds, along with two of that publication's regular cartoonists.

KVH: "While I understand why many object to this cartoon--and to images which they believe reinforce stereotypes (and there are many at The Nation who found the New Yorker cartoon offensive), I believe satire--even if it flops or offends --has a place in our culture and politics.

Comments

[jaundicedview]

One thing fer sure, Horsey can draw rings around Blitt. Blitt's draftsmanship is plug ugly, Horsey's is sharp and lively.

[LeoMarvin]

The main difference between the New Yorker cover and the mock National Review cover grows out of one of the few Republican talking points that actually has some legitimacy, i.e., that for many voters Obama is still largely a blank slate. And because he's so new to many people, they're susceptible to being fooled about even basics features of his bio. Like his religion. On the other hand, McCain's been on the public scene since Disco. Nobody has any doubts about who he is that might be answered by a magazine cover.

[mbrownNY]

This is not true. A majority of voters have no idea where McCain stands on abortion, and most have no idea how many times he has changed his position of vital issues in the last year or two. A lot of voters still see him as the maverick.

[southafrica4obama]

This one is based on truth, the other on falsehood. lol

[wmbear]

NOW ***THERE'S*** A COVER YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!....

The main difference between this and the New Yorker cover -- The New Yorker WAS being "ironic and satirical"....

[LouisPutzel]

In fact, the New Yorker cover is brilliant satire. The National Review cartoon is a good satirical response to the New Yorker cover, but it would not be particularly funny on its own, as I am quite sure the artist would recognize. While the Obama cover is a comment on wild accusations unworthy of an elementary school name-calling session, the McCain cartoon is grounded in actual concerns about the Republican candidate and his crew.

The problem with the New Yorker cover is not that it is not funny, intelligent and timely (it is all of these), but rather that it might confuse people who cannot recognize absurdity when they see it. Alternatively, individuals from the extreme right who do understand the satire of the New Yorker cover might use it to hoodwink their less-gifted pals into giving credence to the moronic falsehoods that have been circulated about the future first family.

I, for one, have decided to appreciate the New Yorker cover for the great cartoon it is. It fully ridicules the smears that have been made on the Obamas. The age of stupidity in politics has to come to an end at some point, and the New Yorker is not known for seeking the lowest common denominator. To all Obama supporters who have not yet done so, it is time to get your subscription.

[LeoMarvin]

"The problem with the New Yorker cover is not that it is not funny, intelligent and timely (it is all of these), but rather that it might confuse people who cannot recognize absurdity when they see it."

Yes, but that problem is a serious one.

"The age of stupidity in politics has to come to an end at some point [...]"

That's a lovely aspiration, but you can't legislate IQ. I like normative platitudes as much as the next guy, but they won't pay the doctor bills when Republicans win again because some yahoos thought "even those New Yorkers said he's a terrorist."

[LouisPutzel]

Of course you have a point, both in that my comment is idealism-based and in that it contains some normative statements (it is opinion, of course, not science.) I hope that no potential supporters of Obama will misunderstand the New Yorker cover.

I would like to qualify, however, that the stupidity I refer to is not so much a question of anyone's IQ, but rather the tendency of politicians and the media to willfully lower the intellectual quality of our national discourse. Obama has attracted a majority of Americans so far (hope he doesn't mess it up by trying to average himself out), and I don't think that these will have any trouble seeing the the New Yorker cover for what it is - completely absurd!

[LouisPutzel]

Cont'd:

We have had nearly 8 years of a president who celebrates ignorance in order to create an alliance between, on the one hand, a class of extremely-wealthy-elite-corporate-jock bullies, and, on the other hand, a segment of Americans who were misled to think they might get some advantage from a de-emphasis on education as a prerequisite to holding the highest office. I think that at this point, many probably realize that this was a mistake, and that we need leaders that are learned and have good analytical skills.

Its time for the media to step up to the plate and stop collaborating with anti-education and anti-science power mongers, and this means allowing full freedom of expression and it means challenging all of us to develop our own abilities to see through the muck. The New Yorker does this, on virtually every page of every issue of every week. If the current issue's cover is controversial, it is only because we are worried our candidate is fragile. But he is far from that. As the Horsey cartoon so clearly illustrates, it is his opponent who is vulnerable due to his real shortcomings.

[luvangelHussein330]

THIS is satire, McCain is old, his wife was addicted to pain pills, he did say/sing about bombing Iran, alot of what Cheney/Bush is doing he wants to do thier by burning our constitution.

[joeyp404]

This cover is not satire, it is an outright insult. Insulting age and one's former addiction. The New Yorker cover does not insult. The Obama's are portrayed as the healthiest and hippest terrorists in town.

[jerryfromcalifornia]

HUH?

[AvgPseudoIntellectual]

Oh, I get it, your *post* is satirical. Ha.

[Antacid]

That was funny. You, sir, understand irony and how to signpost it.

[fedupsquared]

Obama is not now nor has he ever been a Muslim
McCain is old
Obama is not now nor has he ever been a terrorist sympathizer
McCain is old
Obama has never done anything that would leave one with the rational belief that he hates America
McCain is old
I've never seen and there is no record showing Ms. Obama sporting an afro or saying anything radical
Mrs. McCain has had difficulty with addiction to prescription drugs
Obama has never said or done anything that would lead one to believe that he admires Bin Laden
McCain has a voting record that shows that he supports 98% of Bush/Cheney's agenda

The National Review's drawing is good satire.
The New Yorker's drawing is not.

[RatgurlSD]

THIS cover would be considered satire. The New Yorker cover is incendiary.

[kickass]

I agree!

[protagonia]

Humor has a punch, as well as just a punchline.

[SantaFeStars]

I agree with several posts. No comparison whatsoever. The New Yorker cover was so blatently false and so imflammatory in nature.

[Ferdberfle]

Your selective indignation is showing. Satire is meant to be inflammatory, at times. I suggest a thicker skin.

[eden4barack08]

I disagree. Satire can be offensive, but it's not meant to be inflammatory.

[genia]

Nice...but the have to work on their Cindy.....make her eyes wider..bigger... ice blue-er. Make her hair more ...more....bee hive-ish. Her neck needs to long and thin...very thin..pencil thin, very long and......ugh
Oh...they should have a contest.
...and while we're at it, let's do one about Hillary ...because after all....this New Yorker cover is probably a result of her "supporters"...ahh yes, meanwhile.....Look...there's Hill, over there.... Hill smiles wide... gin.. eyes popping....oh look, she sees someone..there in the crowd, yeah, yeah..over there...someone she knows and hasn't seen in a while...you can tell by that look on her face...the one where recognizes someone....you know the one.
Picture of innocence...that's our Hill.
6 weeks until the convention and hey....Barack is heading to Europe in a week...oh...won't he look Presidential? Now...wow, how about that New Yorker cover coming out this month. Good timing or what?

[MrWebster]

Oh for Pete's sake Katrina. Nobody is out to get Satire--so no need to give us your pompous defense of the right of satire. The basic critique on the New Yorker piece is that it is ineffective, clumsy, and unclear satire. Given the author's intent, the cartoon simply does not work to those intentions. Posters here and other places have enumerated in insightful ways why it failed. So Katrina and crew, stop all the huffing about some imaginary attack on Satire and oh golly gee whiz wow, people should have the right to cross the line. Hey, cross the line, but do it effectively for Jesus H. Christ.

[Marlyn]

Huh?

[Rainbird]

It isn't comparable to the New Yorker because the art isn't as good. Cindy Pills looks WAY scarier in real life.

[MizLiz]

Now that one I liked!