I have mentioned several times on this blog my deep affection for the New Yorker. My mom started subscribing to it when she came to this country in 1946 and it has always been in her home. On my iPod I have several New Yorker podcasts, both fiction and non-fiction and they are truly inspiring. I love reading the magazine, and I whole-heartedly agree with publisher Si Newhouse’s reverential reference to it as “The Only.” So I was quite taken aback by all the controversy surrounding the Obama cartoon..
I find this cartoon pretty amusing and not the least bit tasteless, but I would be the first to admit my tastes are not quite conventional. What I do find totally tasteless is the controversy surrounding it. Since I originally wrote this piece the controversy got even more out of hand, so I have substantially updated it.
First and foremost, I have to give credit to Obama. While his handlers called the cartoon “offensive and tasteless,” he himself had a far more nuanced and intelligent response. You can see him here on Larry King live. He basically shrugs off the whole thing and points out that this is just a cartoon and we have far more important things to discuss. Even better, he uses the opportunity to raise the most critical issue of all regarding the smear campaigns against him (something I have brought up previously): what is truly offensive about the attacks on Obama is the inherent belief that the mere fact he is a Muslim disqualifies him from running for office. Hat’s off to him for having the courage to state that publicly, and to acknowledge he hasn’t said it often enough.
Second, as is often the case, the funniest and most intelligent response to the attack on the New Yorker comes from Jon Stewart.
Third, for those of you who missed it in all the controversy, the article that accompanies the cartoon is well worth reading. One of my concerns about Obama is he is a bit naive. The article dispels any fears I might have on that score. Also worth a read is Q&A with the author. This quote from Obama is particularly encouraging: “What I am constantly trying to do is balance a hard head with a big heart.” If indeed Obama has both those qualities (and the hard and highly intelligent head is definitely there), then he will be a worthy President.
Turning to those pundits in the various media and Obama’s more fanatical supporters who made such a huge deal of this cover. These comprise a group I’ll call the Offended. To them I say “Hypocrisy!” Where were all the people whose panties are now in a twist, when the New Yorker put out this cover by the same author? In the context of fundamentalist Muslim culture, the Ahmadinejad cartoon is far, far, far more incendiary (and also a lot funnier). Of course, now if they are asked, the Offended will all say that cartoon is tasteless too (tasteless, perhaps, but it is also hilarious). However, imagine if at the time the Iranian mullahs had put out a fatwah on Barry Blitt (certainly conceivable). Certainly the Obama supporters among the Offended see themselves as “progressives,” so surely they would have come to Blitt’s defense, citing “free speech” and artistic liberty. As Jon Stewart points out, obviously Barack Obama can’t be a Muslim extremist, because it’s Muslim extremist who get offended by cartoons! Well, Muslim extremists and the Offended.
As for the pragmatic argument put forth by the Offended, viz. that this cartoon is somehow “dangerous,” the idea that this cartoon might actually sway the “unwashed masses” into supporting McCain is so arrogant it almost leaves me speechless. The Offended seem to believe that only Obama supporters are smart enough to understand irony or satire. The rest of Americans are obviously so stupid that they will take it at face value and run into McCain’s sclerotic arms. The proof they cite is that Bush got elected twice. However, looking at the results of the last two elections, I would counter and say the really stupid people were the natural supporters of the Democratic candidate who stayed home and didn’t vote. If enough of them had voted, Bush would have lost both times. Victory for Obama in this election will not come by swaying people to whom calling Obama a Muslim resonates as an insult. They will believe that (and oppose Obama) with or without any cartoon. The key lies with getting the lazy ass “progressive” young people who say aye to the pollsters to get out and vote on election day! Also, do Obama supporters seriously believe that calling people stupid is a good way to get them to vote for their candidate?
Moreover, focusing so much attention on this cartoon was a huge tactical mistake by Obama supporters. On the same day, Obama had an articulate piece in the NY Times op-ed, presenting a relatively intelligent analysis of Iraq and Afghanistan. Even if I don’t agree with everything he says, it’s still worthy of a serious Presidential candidate, and underscores what a light weight McCain is by contrast. By wasting all this energy on the New Yorker cartoon, Obama supporters distracted media attention from this piece.
As for those (such as Wolf Blitzer) who compare this cartoon to Nazi propaganda, all I can say is they obviously haven’t looked very carefully at caricatures from Der Sturmer. (You can view a full collection here.)
Going into the controversy, while I strongly feel it is essential that McCain lose, I was not so thrilled with Obama winning. He seemed a bit too much in the center and a bit too naive, not someone who has either the interest or capability to truly take the U.S. in a different direction. But after reading the Lizza article along with this commentary by Hendrick Hertzberg, and listening to Obama himself, my respect for him has greatly increased. I leave the last word to Hertzberg:
“Obama, it turns out, is a politician. In this respect, he resembles the forty-three Presidents he hopes to succeed, from the Father of His Country to the wayward son, Alpha George to Omega George. Winning a Presidential election doesn’t require being all things to all of the people all of the time, but it does require being some things to most of the people some of the time. It doesn’t require saying one thing and also saying its opposite, but it does require saying more or less the same thing in ways that are understood in different ways. They’re all politicians, yes—very much including Obama, as Ryan Lizza shows elsewhere in this issue. But that doesn’t mean they’re all the same.”
Tags: Media, US Politics
