A Fist-Bump for the New Yorker

I'm a little late to the party, but here is an absurd decorousness in the denunciations -- from the Obama and McCain campaigns and across the liberal blogosphere -- of the current New Yorker cover.

The top-line objection is to accuse the New Yorker of poor taste. In the limited context of campaign discourse this is true. But magazines and other journalistic enterprises would be crazy to buy into the notion that abitrary etiquette of American campaigns (which encourages candidates to lie baldly, and surrogates to spin and smarm and swift-boat, while prohibiting frank talk to a host of issues from race to religion to terror itself), should govern their decisions.

Underneath that are liberals' more practical fears about the cover's impact on Obama's campaign. This line of thinking goes: Obama is so new and different, his image so unformed in the public mind, and U.S. opinion still so anxious on the matter of terrorism, with Democrats perceived as weak -- that the Obama campaign, and we as a nation, just can't handle images like this, because they might be interpreted the wrong way.

Really? No one worries that TNY's readership will take it literally. Fox will show it and chortle, but hey -- it will likely only confuse conservative viewers inclined to think of Obama as a Muslim terrorist dupe. Why are the liberal elites advertising Obama's subversion, mocking it? The image itself is an absurd jumble of terrorist iconography -- Black Power, al Qaeda, flag burning, etc.

Seven years after 9/11, after an onslaught of bad-faith political manipulation over terror, and with the threat of al Qaeda now quite debatable, Americans can certainly handle a little jokey imagery about terrorism and politics. Free expression is a bulwark of American liberalism, part of what makes it what it makes it superior to political philosophies that rigidly enforce what words can be uttered and images can be shown. When liberals start policing the "poor taste" of cartoons so that some people don't get the "wrong idea," it only reinforces the notion that all the fearmongering was effective, and perhaps right -- and also shows how weak and tenuous Democrats fear their position on terrorism remains.

www.johnmcquaid.com/blog

Follow John McQuaid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johnmcquaid

Comments

[loisinthepink]

I am wondering just how many folks would have actually seen this cover if the media had not blown all of this out of portion...not to mention that BO did an OP Ed piece today about his plans to get us out of Iraq. I'd sure like to see people interested in reading that than blowing gas about the New Yorker.

[Joseph A. Palermo - Huffpost Blogger]

I think that you miss the entire point. Fox News will milk this "controversy" and widely distribute the image -- the Republicans will print up millions of them and use them as fliers and put them under every windshield wiper on every car in every white mega-church in America on the Sunday before the November 4 election. It's a disaster. Now racist groups have their image without being charged with racism because the liberals over at the New Yorker, a magazine most American voters never even heard of, came up with it -- it's a disaster for the Obama campaign. The symbolism is too powerful. McCain can never be depicted like that. The GOP will use it -- too bad for Obama. Today is a big news day loss for him because of this "art." The right-wing echo chamber will bat it around, the GOP will suck all of the gooey sweet goodness they can from it. Just wait and see.

[CitizenE]

Ok, so now, do you or anyone you know think Obama is a Muslim as a result of this cover? Do you or anyone you know think that Michelle Obama is a gun toting, bandilero wearing reincarnation of--que horror--Angela Davis from the 1970s. Do you or anyone you know seriously think the Obamas have a portrait of Osama bin Ladin over their family hearth? Do you or anyone you know, as a result of this cover, think that a a fist jab is some sort of terrorist gesture? Worrying that this cover will convince those Americans who are already Islamophobic, racist dittoheads of their already irrational take on Barack Obama, I personally find both puzzling and insulting to the vast majority of the American electorate.
It's as if my fellow Liberals such as yourself Mr. Palermo actually secretly believe this meme about Obama, instead of seeing it as the drawing depicted it--an absolute and complete absurdity that plays on our collective fear of Islam and fiery black women to be held up to public ridicule.

[JimR]

Oh for crying out loud, please calm down. Thankfully, we're not all as doom and gloom as you are, Joe. This is going to blow over.

[acerigger]

good lord!!!!!!!!!! I LIVE IN A PODUNK TOWN,WENT TO A PODUNK HIGH SCHOOL, BUT, EVEN I,, RECOGNIZE SATIRE!!!!!!!!!

[AnAussieSlummingIt]

I live about twelve thousand miles away and even from this incredibly long distance, seen through a pair of dim binoculars, it looks like satire to me.

[Mij13]

The people making this into serious argument are the ones showing their elitism. Even though it's obvious they've never heard of Jonathan Swift, let alone read anything lately but their own posts.

[LizDexic]

Yeah? Well who is it satirizing? Only the Obamas are pictured.

And the main stream media would never be as savage towards Bush OR St. John McCain.

Why haven't we seen images of "Senator Hothead" (as McCain was known to his colleagues).

The alleged "satire" only goes one way.

[mimsnpips]

There are some very stupid non PODUNK's out there. A fat guy can convince them of anything with half his brain tied behind his back.

[nonconformist2]

But do you like in West Virginia? They won't.

[EAM]

Dude!!! Dude. John. Where do you live. Because I am out here in Middle America and I have news for you. This country is chock-full of mental-midgets who enjoy exercising their right to vote. Give the American People credit when it is not an election year, and every 4 years, assume they are aaaall 10-year-old children. Please.

[FiveFortyOne]

Good God, outside of impact on voters, don't you understand that this is offensive on a personable level to the Obamas and their supporters?! It's just like the Mike Huckabee gun joke. Of course you are free to say what you please, but in the context of a situation where there is widespread and deep fear for someone's life it's just mean. You don't think Sen.Obama is sensitive about the fact that his name sounds like Osama? Read Audacity of Hope. He talks about it. It brings tears to my eyes imagining what he must have felt seeing that illustration for the first time. And what really upsets me is that it's so undeserved. Usually a parody is intended to dig at someone for bad or silly behavior. What has the Obama family done to deserve this?

[DLeeA]

It doesn't matter if it's offensive. If you're in politics you'd better be prepared to be offended and have your feelings hurt.

What's at issue is the substantive effect the image will have on the election - and, thus, the fate of our country and many parts of the world. This isn't about hurt feelings.

[shep1900]

......What has the Obama family done to deserve this?.....

Nobody _forced_ him to run for President--and no one who runs for President is putting his or her family first. No one forced him to exploit his children on Access Hollywood, either. But, in America, we have freedom of choice--unless you're a woman and Senator Obama doesn't approve of how you decide to exercise said choice.

High-stakes politics get ugly and messy. If he can't stand the heat (and a little cartoon scarcely counts as "heat"), he should never have run in the first place.

[larmarch5]

This cover is all about making fun of the rethug's viral emails. Those dumb and bigoted enough to think it's not satire would never ever vote for Obama anyway. Come on folks, relax and laugh it up a little. Check out some of the other New Yorker covers.

[soundfury]

The viral emails orignally came from H's camp. Thank you H, your are what you are.

[JimR]

See, that was not made clear AT ALL, that they were targeting the rethug's viral e-mails. Therein lies the problem. It was just a matter of very poor execution on their part, atypical for the New Yorker.

[drricklippin]

I just don't understand how the NEW YORKER could make such colossal blunder?

To me it demonstrates that the editors of the NEW YORKER actually believe that the world begins and ends with its very elite and limited readership.

This is an extreme degree of hubris and "intellectual isolationism" leading to a gross error in editorial judgement?

An apology at least if not firings are in order.

Dr.Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

[DLeeA]

It is clearly that. Just watch the interviews that the chief editor has given on the subject. He is smug and condescending in the extreme.

[oneview]

You're absolutely correct and you have identified the core problem with the New York press-----oooh aren't we special and don't we have just the right answer for all of you? The world begins and ends with us. Give us a break--the joke is on them.

[nonconformist2]

I agree. I think this snobbish elitism which doesn't care about the unwashed masses. The problem is that O needs at least some of those unwashed masses to win the presidency. Being elected as the first African American president against almost insurmountable odds is hard enough, without "liberal" publications making it worse in the guise of "satire".

[youknow]

Correct. The New Yorker's deliberations had to be "controversy", since their readership does not extend to those who actually believe that Obama is a Muslim etc. therefore "Satire" could not have been the motive and if indeed it was they were sadly mistaken. Freedom of the Press is great but this kind of thinking certainly will leave a bad taste in the mouth of the New Yorker's Readers (after all THEY are ostensibly smarter)

[Sioen]

Satire is satire. This is no different than the cover of Bush, lampooning the left-wing smears about him not really being in charge. It's not some huge hit piece that will sink Obama's candidacy. Racists might do that -- but they aren't going to be convinced one way or another by a friggin New Yorker cover.

Breathe, people. And stop giving legs to this stupid non-story.

[DLeeA]

"This is no different than the cover of Bush, lampooning the left-wing smears about him not really being in charge."

The Bush covers weren't lampooning the left-wingers; the artist and editors were on their side. The Bush images were meant to lampoon Bush, not his critics. In that regard this image is completely different. (And do you actually think it a far-fetched left-wing "smear" to suggest that Cheney has more real power than Bush? Or at least a much greater share of power relative to the president than any VP in history? If so you're an even bigger fool than I thought)

No one's saying it will "sink Obama's candidacy". But I think it's obvious it won't help with the sizable number of Americans who believe he is a Muslim who attended madrasas. If you think all those people are "racists" who would never vote for him anyway, think again. Obama is an unknown quantity to many Americans. For a liberal magazine the timing on this is idiotic in the extreme.

[bubbaroy]

Poll results from the World Daily News:

The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family 59% (1479)

Funny, because there's some truth in it 12% (313)

It will do what it's designed to do: sell magazines 7% (176)

Hilarious, it's perfect satire 7% (170)

Enough said.

[CitizenE]

And these folks, were they considering voting for Obama before they saw this cover? And you bubaroy, do you find yourself thinking that it isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family now that you have seen the New Yourker cover? Just wondering.

[nellie]

What I notice in particular is that the target of the cover’s mockery—the American people? The neo cons? The media?—is missing from the image. So who exactly is being satirized? And please. This is not a free speech issue. It’s a bad taste, double standards, and tone deaf issue. No one is saying the New Yorker can’t print this. Their rights are not being challenged. But their motives are. And their judgment.

[nonconformist2]

Well said.

[CitizenE]

The concept--the completely ridiculous, absurd notion that any of it is in the least little bit accurate--is the target of the mockery. That so many progressives and liberals don't get it says something scary to me about what lurks in their own imagination about the Obamas.

[Deschanel]

There's a cartoonist at the Murdoch -owned NY Post, who regularly depicts gay people as perverted leathermen prancing with poodles, depicting hamster cages as well, as in that horrible Richard Gere rumor. His name is Sean Delonas, and his constant, mocking and dehumanizing cartoons of gay people run in the Post ALL THE TIME.

I am a subscriber and admirer of The New Yorker. But this cartoon/cover illustration would fit quite neatly into Sean Delonas's frankly bigoted slot in the Post without any changes. I do find it the height of cluelessness on the part of Remnick that such an image might to most people not be "ironic" or arch or amusing. I find it very close to libel- what has Michele obama ever done to deserve this? A burning flag, a pic of Bin Laden on the wall?

This is a seriously defamatory Illustration, and I think the excuse that it's tweedy, knowing, high-toned irony for the elite set of NYer readers is a tissue-thin excuse. At such a crucial point in the election process, I just think it is horrible judgement.

New Yorker covers are meant to be charming and whimsical, this is incendiary and obnoxious. I went to art school, a very good one, and if you have to explain yourself, and your meaning, to such an exhaustive extent, you've failed, miscalculated. It's like a joke you have to explain, it sort of kills whatever amusement you sought to inspire.

[Mij13]

Think Jonathan Swift's comments about the starving people in eighteenth century Ireland was considered tasteful? "They can eat their young." It wasn't. The best satire is not tasteful. The New Yorker made a national joke about something the Bush-McSames are praying we think about with the utmost seriousness. Some of us didn't need an explaination. And we didn't all go to good art schools like you either.

[bluerider]

So they taught you this in your art school? that art should be obvious, simplistic and easy to understand? What art school is this?

Ever heard of satire? complexity? ambiguity? negative capability?

[auntiecairo]

Sometimes jokes fall flat - this happens to be one of them - it's not that it's too hard to understand - pretty obvious. But it reinforces a negative stereotype that out there and I don't think the crazies need any more help than they are getting. Yes it's ridiculous people believe those things about Obama - unfortunately some of them might be capable of acting on their maliciousness and that's what's disturbing. . .

[bascombe]

I agree

[supersenior]

In a perfect world we would be able to see the cartoon for what it was intended to be, but this is not a perfcet world. There remain somewhere around 13% of this nation who are so STUPID that they continue to believe that Obama is a Muslim. This will become their poster. They love this cover, it proves that everything they believe is true. I don't see how the New Yorker would not realize what the fallout would be. For God's sake at least they could have put a caption on it for all the people who don't automatically know it is a joke. Very few people actually read the New Yorker, but by the end of the day almost everyone in America will have seen this cover. They have badly damaged Obama and I hope it is not permanant damage.

[howdouno]

Perhaps other people, even some conservatives, are smarter than you imagine. It's even possible that satire is healthy for a democratic society.

Or do you dream of another Soviet Union, Communist China, or some other distorted coercive utopian vision?

Democrats should believe in democracy. Freedom of speech means "freedom of speech."

Stop trying to censor, manipulate, and control every other intellectuals' choice of words, images, and beliefs!!!

[LittleSanityLeft]

Great, more white folks talking about the legitimacy of the the hate fest that is the New Yorker cover. I received my full dose of that on Morning Joe. Three white men and a white woman discussing the legitimacy of the hate filled cover. No blacks, no Arabs. You folks afraid of getting a dose of truth from the ones really effected by the issue?

Maybe we can get members of World Wrestling Entertainment to blog about gay adoption on HuffPo.

[DLeeA]

The color of your skin has nothing to do with your ability to think critically about politics and the electorate. This story isn't about how much Obama or other minorities might be offended, it's about the impact it might have on the campaign. Why would they call in minorities to talk about a subject that they are already well-versed in, indeed already paid to talk about? The race of the pundits has no bearing here, you are obviously just biased against whites.

[nonconformist2]

I am in total agreement. African Americans have been caricatured in racist cartoons during the long dark history of this country. The white editors did not take into account this history and why it makes it particularly hurtful. The fact that it is satire and they didn't "intend" to hurt O, just shows how tone deaf they really are. They need to get out more.