Provincial Progressives: The New Yorker Magazine and Why Obama May Lose

What explanation -- other than everyone at the New Yorker being turned into a Pat Buchanan clone -- can one find for the fact that the best magazine in America has produced the FOX News/Karl Rove poster of the Obama family? If this cover works as "satire" then so did the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Call vicious caricature by it's name. If this was well intended then more fool the editor.

As a former lifelong Republican, as an activist key in the formation of the Religious Right, as a white middle-aged middle-class man who is an avid supporter of Senator Obama, let me explain what went wrong: the editor only knows people like himself. The editor of the magazine should have learned from one of the most famous New Yorker covers of all time: the one that mocked NYC provincialism and portrayed the rest of the country as a footnote to Manhattan.

I happen to have come from a background that was very different from your average New Yorker reader. My parents were fundamentalist missionaries. I know how the "other side" thinks. I WAS the other side (as I explain in my book CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All--Or Almost All--Of It Back).

Editors who live in hermetically sealed rareified echo chambers seem to think that everyone thinks as they do. They don't. The editors of the New Yorker should really get to know the "other" a bit better and hang out less with people like themselves and more with the sorts of unwashed mob they scorn. But even so that might not have helped stop this cover.

More than provincialism was at work here. This cover was a blackface-style racial insult. It is either the work of well intended fools or racists. Note: being cool, educated, ironic, smart, self-aware, progressive and powerful is no excuse and doesn't give anyone a pass.

As a white man cognizant of my country's racial sins, I say that this cover crossed the line. Race is no joke. The cover was a racist slur. LOOK AT IT! Look at the racially exaggerated features. We've had enough parody of black men and women in America to last us about another 1000 years before we need more crap like this. And even if this was intended as satire, the editor should have read the latest brain science and psychology on how repetition of lies stick, even when the lies are being denied (or satirized).

Progressives, Democrats and all those independent voters like me who long to turn the page on the Bush catastrophe -- get a grip! What is a joke to some of you is face value serious to Obama's legion of goofy, misguided and frankly stupid (and sometimes deeply racist) enemies. If Obama loses this election thank the liberals, progressives and Democrats carping about Obama's "mistakes." And thank the smart ass provincial little editors at the New Yorker who squandered a historic opportunity for the sake of a few extra copies sold at the news stand.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back"

Comments

[jet222]

This "satire" is no different than Shearer's Bush cover which is defended (and advertised!) ad nauseum around these here Huff parts.

[GunnyJ]

For a magazine geared for the "sophisticated" reader they certainly showed poor taste with the cover. I grew up in NYC and now live in the south and there is no real difference with racial attitudes period. The only difference is that ethnic whites will take you "out" quicker up north. At any rate the attempt at satire did nothing to improve anything.

[PuppaX]

Why are the editors of The New Yorker required to "get to know" anybody but their readership?

[eden4barack08]

Maybe because they're wrong about their readership. Do you really think that all 1million plus subscribers are all Manhattan elites?

[tbone99]

Maybe if the cover had a picture of the Obamas as they appear normally, nicely dressed,dignified on one side , shaking hands with the generic voter , while on the other side they appear in the terrorist garb meeting with some right wing pundit with a an elephant pin on.

Somehow the real people they were making fun of, got no critique!

[ohboynotagain]

Frank, what is all this you wrote? I mean you actually saw this garbage for what it is? and the pitiful justification for it.

I think somebody in the republican camp got a hold of the New Yorker and offered them something. No one who supposedly has good things to say about Obama would have made a decision to allow this. Free speech or not, you have choices and what you say.

It's just a subtle form of bigotry, well maybe not so subtle

[Doofus]

A vast right-wing conspiracy, perhaps.

Or maybe just a mash-up of Clintonistas.

[DieboldHacker]

"Obama's legion of goofy, misguided and frankly stupid (and sometimes deeply racist) enemies."

Are these Neanderthals really going to vote Dem, regardless of what the New Yorker prints? I would much rather spread the meme that he is going to lose because he discarded his base, and took a terrible turn to the right. That's my reason, anyway.

[rebeccaj]

Hear, hear, Frank!

I am working for Obama in Virginia. We could use less "help" from some of our "allies" on the left and in the well-insulated echo-chambers where "progressive purity" reigns.

You all belong with the NRA and Pro-Life folks who think that their opinions are more important than anyone else's.

Those of us who want a Democratic president would rather you just sit back and be quiet until December if you don't feel like doing actual work for the next few months. That would be better than hurting our chances.

Once a left of center president is elected -- you can bother him all you want. Go for it!!

If McCain is elected, you will get more war, another Imperial Presidency, FBI investigations of protest organizations and "free-speech zones." Good luck then.

Of course, the wealthy, intellectual progressive elite will continue to live in their enclaves, to read the New Yorker, travel to Europe and do just fine...

And, the poor? Well, they don't seem to figure into any of the recent progressive complaints...

[bgregs]

You're partly right. No matter what I will still vote for him and still campaign for him, because he's MUCH MUCH MUCH better than the alternative!

However, to claim that I should just sit back while he, IMHO, allows the Constitution to be gutted does NOT match with the democratic republic that we have in this country!

[ashenthorn]

All this highlights the Republicans' confusion and inability to define Obama as sucessfully they did Kerry. All effective caricatures are rooted in truth - an exaggerated truth, but truth nonetheless. In 2004, republicans characterized John Kerry as an effete aristocratic Massachusetts liberal, a playboy gigolo who married money - someone who can't possibly relate to you (the voter). This caricature was effective because it was rooted in truths about John Kerry. Now examine their attempted caricatures of Obama (as lampooned by the New Yorker magazine cover). Obama as muslim terrorist sympathizer. Obama as black separatist radical. Obama as San Fransisco, out of touch liberal eliteist. Obama as America hater who burns the flag. None of these are rooted in any truth about Obama and are in fact made up from whole cloth. They will be easily shed by November. In fact they are so bad that they are now having to turn to "Obama as typical ambitious pol who will say anything to get elected". This can be nothing but good news.

[coollbreezz]

Message to Obama - This is media warfare - The New Yorker, The National Review, Rupert, Lady Lynn Forrester-Rothschild and friends welcome you.
http://joeland7.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/obama-wins

[StephenDedalus82]

The attitude that those of us in red states are too ignorant to understand irony is one of the big reasons Democrats have much more trouble getting elected than they should. How about realizing that anyone who reads the New Yorker understands irony, and anyone who thinks Obama is a terrorist will never vote for him. As a New Yorker reader and a resident of flyover land, I can say with conviction that the hysteria over this cartoon is doing more damage than the cartoon itself. As Jon Stewart pointed out, when was the last time people were outraged over a cartoon? Could it be Muslim extremists? The hysteria reinforces the scary idea that Obama is not a presidential candidate in a democracy, but a messiah figure nobody is allowed to question.

[bgregs]

Once again, it's not that we think everybody who lives in a red state is stupid and can't understand irony or satire. It's that this piece was aimed at the rightwingnuts, who are not shown in the context required. It's kinda like aiming a sniper rifle without using a sight.

[Aleka4]

What about the people who think he is a muslim, but if they had some accurate information would learn their mistake and take a new look?

Let me tell you a story. My father is 67. The first time I ever said Obama to him, he went "I hope he loses, he is a muslim terrorist!" -thanks to all those email slurs that get passed around. He's not stupid, just that which left the loudest impression on him was the email slurs. All he needed was for me to tell him reality, and Voila: Recovered ignorant person.

That is where the problem lies. Your older folk who actually read spammed junk email, but don't research, who would vote for Obama but don't have good information. These are also the same people who will surf a yahoo main page and see the image, but NOT that it was "satire". THAT then reinforces the misperception which then sticks - because you surely are not fool enough to argue the point that repetition of lies makes them stick.

It is naive to assume that the people who think hes a muslim wouldnt vote for him anyway. Many WOULD, imo, if only they had access to the truth. But LOUD sources tells them different, Fox, email, etc. It is all about what they see without looking: you have to READ to know hes not a muslim - but you sure don't have to read a thing to think he is one.

[ouroborous]

While I live in a liberal mecca (Seattle), I completely agree.

Obama's campaign, aside from giving this cartoon FAR more attention than it deserves, is painting itself as humorless and completely incapable of any dissent with or ribbing of their leader. That's a dangerous meme; it reinforces ANOTHER Republican talking point: that Obama followers are all zombified cultists. True or not, this tempest-in-a-teapot outrage over a cartoon reinforces that idea.

[bgregs]

Actually, while the Obama camp is giving it too much attention, the reason that they STARTED to give it attention is the fact that the Media started to spread it out to the WHOLE country, just like they did for the swiftboaters!

[eden4barack08]

Actually O's camp gave it no attention, other than responding to a reporter's question once the issue had hit the nets. The spokesman's answer was very short and simple, and no more was made about it until Barack was asked on Larry King, where again, he stood above it all and dismissed it as a cartoon, a cartoon that failed to deliver its intent, but nevertheless a cartoon.

It's the media that's blows and spins issues 'till the truth is unrecognizable.
The result? People like you believe O's camp gave it "FAR more attention than it deserves,..."which is utterly FALSE.

[NorVaGal]

I disagree with you, Stephen. The "hysteria" over this cartoon is NOT doing more damage than the cartoon itself. The uproar is backlash from an electorate that refuses to roll over and play dead while good people are falsely and unfairly savaged by various media sources. Nobody who supports Obama considers him a "messiah." That is just one more of the swift-boat smears propogated by those who oppose him, such as yourself. IMO, the true irony is the assumption that Obama supporters are too dumb to understand those smears.

[Genisa]

@Michale32086

"That Dems and GOP are simply two different sides to the same vile political coin."

I couldn't agree with you more

[Michale32086]

Thanx

I have my moments, few and far between though they may be.. :D

Michale.....

[bgregs]

No comment, I plead the fifth! :D

[ToeJamSam]

Popping a few brews at the local gun club bar with some of my buds, I picked up the New Yorker mag on the counter. We discussed the cover. We all thought it was funny-- and harmless. I didn't hear anyone suggest that this is what Obama and his wife were all about.

What's *really *satirical is the notion progressive "elites" have about us folks in the fly-over states being all a bunch of redneck hillbillies too stupid to discern irony.

[bgregs]

It's not that. It's that the satire was supposed to be directed at the rightwingnuts who DO believe all those things about Obama. However, without adding in that context, it changes from being satire directed at the right, and becomes almost (but not quite) slander directed at Obama and his wife!

[meanguy]

it was the hysterical caterwauling of the Left that changed it from being satire directed at the right into being the biggest laugh i've had in a long time

remember, it's only funny until someone throws a hissy fit....then it's hilarious

[ouroborous]

You really think the New Yorker magazine has EVER been directed at the right wing?

It's ALWAYS been directed at the smug, over saturated in irony, left wing intelligentsia.

Methinks you misunderstand the magazine's demographic if you think that there are a lot of Republican New Yorker readers who will be confused by the cartoon.

[Aleka4]

So who voted for Clinton after all the news said she was lying about the gas tax, after all her racism, etcetc?

Yea, those hillbillys were SO hard for her to fool.

[SpencerCat]

Wait a minute, your local GUN CLUB subscribes to the New Yorker??? My brain is spinning....

[Doofus]

Think of it this way, since The NYer doesn't actually
recognize your existence: the cover was designed
by Hillary Clinton supporters so as to antagonize
Barack Obama supporters. Everybody else just
happens to be in the cross-fire.

No harm, no foul! Fahgeddaboutit!

[eden4barack08]

Frank,
finally someone who sees the racial stereotyping of African Americans as one of the major faults in this failed satire, and being a white man, that's kudos to you. The militant, afro,AK47, black woman ALONE, was enough to scream foul to the editor, yet as though that wasn't bad enough, we also get muslim stereotyping, terrorist tyrant glorifying, flag desecration and mockery of the nation's highest office, all neatly packaged and nicely drawn, then.......? **crickets**.............Oooooooh noooow I "get it", this is what those ignorant right wingers are saaaying, hahahahaha, those bigoted bastaads, we're on to them. Thank goodness for progressives like Remnick and Blitt, presenting it in a brilliantly executed drawing, now we won't have to watch FNC anymore to find out what those fools think of Obama. Haahahaha.

Ok, I got carried away.

[eden4barack08]

cont'd from top

Anyway, another point ; the New Yorker has about 1 million subscribers, 200,000+- of those being in NY, with the average household income of a subscriber being $90,000. Add to that, those who buy from newstands.
So, either Remnick only thinks of his Hampton vacationing crowd as "The New Yorker readers", or he's deliberately leaving out the largest percentage part that makes up those other million "readers".
I suggest those few readers, along with Remnick, need to stop telling the other majority of readers that they're not sophisticated enough, and David should take note of that large readership thanks to whom the magazine is alive. I live in midtown east (sutton place), and my getting it, didn't change the fact that it was racially offensive.

Thanks Frank.

[UCLAdy04]

Thank you to Frank Schaeffer for GETTING IT! It doesn't surprise me that people who don't have to walk into a room and disprove the dozens of offensive stereotypes about their race or combat the negative images that are constantly being disseminated in the media wouldn't understand why that cover was so incredibly vile and offensive. Black folks, regardless of how much education or money you have don't have the luxury of a clean slate when we walk into a room and Obama is living proof of that. To suggest that the cover is merely a "funny cartoon" is beyond arrogant and totally naive of the very real discrimination and prejudgements that someone like Obama has to face everyday.

Obama is an alternative image of Blackness...not a gold chain wearing, 40 ounce sipping, basketball playing, thug caricature that is being constantly shoved down our throats and that is something to be exceedingly proud about. People cannot understand how vicious and mean-spirited it is for that image to be smeared and attacked at every angle. It's nice to see that Frank gets the much broader implications of this "cartoon" and a few others get it as well.

For those that don't get why it is so offensive, be grateful that you are aforrded such a blissfully ignorant position.

[JohnPaulJones]

I think you want it both ways here: either New York and its "provincialism" don't matter or they matter too much and will negatively affect things. I've lived in NYC for a long while and I admit it's not the great place it once was pre-September 11th, it's still amazing. I admit, New Yorkers can and are a provincial bunch, but it's hard not to be when you live in a city filled with so many museums, restaurants, bars, people, parks, etc...

[Doofus]

People, NYC might be a lot of things, but
'provincial' it is NOT. 'Provincial' means
'out in the provinces', as in, 'outside the
City That Never Sleeps', like Boston or
Poughkeepsie, anyplace outside NYC,
generally. Y'know, where they roll the
streets up at night.

[eden4barack08]

The 'provincial', is not applied to NYC, but rather to the editors of the NYer, who probably think all of NYer readers are uppity 'Manhatteners' like them.

[Michale32086]

@strifeknot

}}}}}}}}}}
Really? A cartoon is going to convince someone of being a terrorist? There are a lot of stupid people, but come on. Those who are going to see this cover as a confirmation of their worst fears aren't going to be those who would've voted for Obama anyway.
}}}}}}}}}}

I think you are correct, but so is munkeyfuk (nice nick, by the bi..)

Weaker minded individuals tend to look for things that confirm their own beliefs and refuse to even CONSIDER facts that would call into question those same beliefs. We saw that aplenty with the previous HR6304 fiasco..

But in this case, those weaker-minded ones are on the Right and they will look at that picture and rally behind it as confirmation of their beliefs and, even worse, they will hysterically shrill;

"SEE!!! Even a 'liberal rag' (their words, not mine) like the New Yorker confirms that Obama is a terrorist!!"

The New Yorker did a grave disservice to Senator Obama. I think their intent was to weaken Obama as part of the PUMA campaign to derail Obama's campaign..

Michale.....

[bgregs]

Thanks for calling me stupid! Of course, from what *I* remember of the H.R. 6304 debate, I was willing to give more ground to you than the other way around, since you were using the same arguments again and again!

Having gotten that out of my system, yes, those who were already going to vote against Obama will find that this reinforces their beliefs. And those who were already going to vote FOR Obama will find that this strengthens their resolve. But to say that only the weak minded are affected by stuff like this (in spite of all the evidence that EVERYBODY votes their guts, and not their brains) means that you think MANY smart people are in fact stupid!

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}(in spite of all the evidence that EVERYBODY
}}}}}}votes their guts, and not their brains

What evidence would that be??

Michale.....

[ouroborous]

I agree with much of what you say (although not, obviously, your take on H.R. 6304).

However, your implication that only the stupid and weak-minded fall prey to the confirmation bias ("...tend to look for things that confirm their own beliefs...") is false and dangerous. Numerous researchers have shown that the confirmation bias is an INNATE human tendency, and we ALL have to be on guard for it.

In fact, it's our own conviction that we, unlike lesser mortals, could never fall for THAT, that makes us so at risk for human blind spots like the confirmation bias. For a wonderful case-in-point, see the surveys of MENSA members on their views on whether or not extraterrestrials have visited earth, and on superstition and religion; overwhelmingly, the supposed geniuses were more gullible and more prone to believe in these counter-factual superstitious beliefs. When questioned, most of them cited their own intelligence as grounds for why they would never make such foolish beliefs in thinking.

At root: we all think we're cleverer than others, we all think we're cleverer than we are, and we all think that OUR thinking, unlike the OTHER guy's thinking, is unclouded and unbiased.

And we're all wrong.