To the Editors:

In case you hadn't noticed, the NYer cartoon is a parody of nutwing (often right wing) commentators who have tried to suggest that Obama is a secret Muslim, and that the fist-bump he exchanged with his wife was a terrorist handshake.

In other words, the subject of the parody was not BHO or his wife (or African Americans in general), but those who are delusional in their view of the Obamas (and African Americans in general).

but it could easily be construed as being satire against Obama. Easily. Perhaps had there been an equally satirical picture of one of those white people who think this stuff that's being mocked  in the picture, it would be obvious that the satire is against white ignorance. But this is not obvious from the picture. I understand what lamh31 is saying.

While I respect and agree with lamh31's critique, I'm going to again argue that class, not race, is the higher offense here.

The New Yorker cover is so blatantly and arrogantly classist in its approach to those who *believe* that Obama is a flag-burning Muslim that the editors obviously do not care one whit about mocking them. These ignoramuses, the New Yorker explicitly states, are non-humans. It is politically correct, as always, to mock and humiliate the "other," whether the other is the big-nosed Jew, the fat-lipped Colored, the slant-eyed Jap, or in this case the unseen uncouth uncool Underclass. (The New Yorker may think they can get away with it by using a black man and woman as canaries in their PC coal mine. Hint: They can't.)

The editors may be ignorant of the racist implications of their cover, but at least they know that African Americans exist. But they do not know, at least not more than intellectually, that the "bitter" class exists. They have no visceral knowledge of the undereducated, conservative Americans who live in a reality-based economic fear every day, year after year, that no one on the New Yorker editorial board will experience for more than perhaps a year or two of living dangerously between college and their first white-collar gig. They likely would mock my friend Mona, a secretary with but a high school education who moved from cool San Francisco back to uncool West Virginia, for the totally uncool reason that her parents are elderly and poor and have no one else who can care for them.

As horrible as racism has been, is, and will be in this country, it currently and in the future will not effect the same damage that classism does, in my humble opinion. The New Yorker thinks it's okay to humiliate people who lack the sophistication, education, or understanding to know that the scurrilous rumors surrounding Obama are untrue. They do not care about the backlash from such a cover, because if no one exists, how can they backlash you?

I have had the great honor and good fortune to help three people in recent years become United States citizens: one from Nigeria, one from Mexico, and one from the Philippines. I have no doubt that none of them would "get" the New Yorker cover; it is quite unlikely that any of them will ever see it. They are instead the kind of hard-working, serious, honest lower-class people who may in fact hold political opinions born of ignorance and lack of education--some of them may even think Obama is a Muslim. I will of course strongly object to such an idea if it should ever come up between us, but I will do so respectfully, knowing all the while that it is this group of people in whom I place my hope and confidence for the future of America, rather than the folks at the New Yorker, whose Daddies are rich and whose Mamas are good lookin', and for whom the living is easy, the fish are jumpin' and the cotton is high.

Ah Joe, but if you surf the right wing blogs, they are embracing this "satire" as a visual depiction of their "valid" concerns about an Obama Presidency. In other words, what hipster smart alecky New Yorkers see as "satire", right wingers are seeing as a genuine depiction of their Obama figments.

Just to let you know, I cancelled my New Yorker subscription today. I have always liked the New Yorker but this bout of insane stupidity, which is apparently being used as a validation in right wing circs, is just too much for me. That kind of stupid just doesn't need to be rewarded. I will use that $44 to either extend my tnr subscription - unless they go stupid on me too - or maybe I will re up my moribund Sports Illustrated subscription so I can find out who the hell this Billy Packer guy is...

scire-

You write: "but it could easily be construed as being satire against Obama."

I would argue that only a fool would not see who the true subject of NYer parody is.

On another thread, jzyskind makes a similar point to the one you make here.

jzyskind writes: "Swift, who did have good taste, caricatured the English lords, not the Irish babies."

But in "A Modest Proposal," Swift suggests that Irish babies be eaten, literally. Which does put them squarely at the center of the parody.

If the fools of Swift's time had not seen, as you put it, "the absurdity" of this suggestion, might they not have been influenced in the direction of eating Irish babies?

As I noted on an earlier thread, when the Colbert Report was less than a year old, commentators on the right (most notably at National Review) applauded Colbert--precisely because they could not see the absurdity in his performance, they could not see the irony, they could not see the parody.

By jzyskind's logic, then, Swift would be guilty of bad judgement and (no pun intended) poor taste, simply because some foolish readers might have believed that his proposal to eat the Irish young was in earnest.  

And Colbert would now be guilty of bad judgement, simply because some foolish viewers might believe that he himself is speaking in earnest.

And as the world will never be free of fools, how, then, can one ever launch a parody of any kind? There was, is, and always will be the danger of someone not seeing the absurdity, not seeing the joke, not getting it.

williamyard-

You write: "The New Yorker cover is so blatantly and arrogantly classist in its approach to those who *believe* that Obama is a flag-burning Muslim that the editors obviously do not care one whit about mocking them."

Sorry, yard, but anyone who seriously believes that Obama is a secret Muslim--or that the fist-bump he exchanged with his wife is a terrorist handshake--anyone who believes this deserves to be mocked. And to be mocked without mercy.

As for your argument regarding class, I have never been a fan of the NYer for precisely this reason: it seems to be more like a club (a club to which only certain people should have access)than a magazine of ideas.

I was raised in a blue-collar home in a blue-collar neighborhood on a blue-collar salary, but I think your take on the NYer cover/cartoon is way off here.

You yourself, williamyard, have been wonderfully offensive and mocking and un-PC in your own sweet parodies on these threads, over and over and over again. And thank god for it!

Cookie-

You write: "Ah Joe, but if you surf the right wing blogs, they are embracing this 'satire' [of the New Yorker cartoon] as a visual depiction of their 'valid' concerns about an Obama Presidency."

I think I answered your point here, Cookie, in my response (above) to scire.

I get that lamh has taken offense, but I don't get why.  Lamh's arguments don't help me understand why.  Lamh makes a couple of points that don't strike me as very persuasive:  first, that if this cover appeared on the National Review, we wouldn't buy that it's satire, and, second, that Sambo was satire.

The cover would never appear on the National Review, because it's pro-Obama.  It's obviously making fun of racist and/or ignorant attitudes about Obama.  The National Review has no interest in doing that.  They would be more likely to run a satirical cover ironically protraying Obama as the Messiah, to make fun of Obama's fans.  And no mainstream publication would present the cartoon straight.  It's too extreme to be presented or taken straight.  So, I don't quite get the point here.  Is lamh seriously contesting the view that this is satire?  If so, he's clearly wrong.

Second, he says that Sambo was satire.  But, lamh neglects to take account of what these things are making fun of.  Sambo is making fun of black people.  This is making fun of ignorant people who view Obama as radical and un-American.  If you are for Obama, as I am, this cartoon is on your side!  I get that the campaign may be worried that some people would take it the wrong way.  But that's a far cry from "funny, sad."

William Y: your friends have much more important things to do than even contemplate a cartoon on the cover of an overpriced magazine called "The New Yorker" of all things. They'd probably think we were fools for even thinking of such things, as well they should.

But the target of that cartoon was not your friends My Y, it was the zilionare fatcats on Fox who make money off of sowing ignorance and xenophobia who were the target. They and their cynical games are the ones who are being mocked, no one else.  

They are the classists much more than the New Yorker writers or readers any day.

I once walked by Rush Limbaugh's pad on Park Avenue, it was palatial, baronial even.  I hear O'Reilley was summering in the south of France this year.  I wonder how many millions that fat jackass TNR contributor Goldberg made on his last  hatemonger treastise?  I'd respect him in a weird way if he believed what he wrote, but you know he shovels that garbage just so he can save for HIS pad on Park Avenue, made from money taken from people who mostly can't afford it much anymore but need a target to blame for that fact.  

Leave it to the millionare garbage-shovelers in the right wing media to give it to them, all the while laughing at what suckers their readers are over their $600 bottles of cab.

The New Yorker people blew it by putting politics before humor in this cartoon, the cardinal sin in this enterprise, with predictabel results.  But their intent was not dishonorable and I stand by them, even in their terrible mistake, which is was (Michelle's hair is the ony thing that really offended me).

Bring on the biting political satire and let's remember who the real target is.

William Yard--if you'd heard David Remnick on NPR this afternoon, you'd know just how true your words are.  They just don't get it.  

sorry for all the typos, I'm sitting in the dark next to my three year old trying to make sure he stays asleep and I can barely see.

While this must come as a surprise to many readers of TNR, the purpose of a magazine like The New Yorker is not to act as a public relations arm of the Obama campaign. It is to stimulate, enlighten, and entertain its readers. This is what the cover does. To argue that it is not good for Obama is not a resonable critique of the magazine.

you liberals better watch it with this guilt-tripping, "don't you dare hurt our baby" reproach to the rest of America.  Moderates who might consider voting for Obama hear the obnoxious hectoring of "lamh31" constantly repeated in today's news and commentary, and wonder if electing Obama President means four years of sensitivity training and being accused of racism unless one treats the golden Brother in the White House with kid gloves.  Obnoxious and stupid, stupid, stupid.  

Let's be honest: anyone who could "easily" mistake this depiction as anything other than satire is either a moron or is just joining us on this planet. The representation is so preposterous, so over-the-top and so willfully ridiculous that its true intent could only escape a simpleton.

Is this now a country that can't grasp anything more complex than "American Idol"?

williamyard,

This isn't about ignorance, and it's certainly not about class.  It's not  about the people who don't follow politics and just believe what their smart friend told them; it's about those "smart friends" who are *not* ignorant and choose to spread this crap anyway.  Class doesn't make a damn bit of difference; fabricated, hateful crap can come from the poor, the rich, or anyone in between.  The Swift Boat smears in 2004 were just as worthy of contempt whether they were coming from the Swift Boat Vets themselves or from billionaire T. Boone Pickens.  It's perfectly fine to point out how ridiculously implausible all of these rumors are.

Wow, who knew one comment would warrant a whole post.

After reading the reaction to my comment, feel like I should clear up a few things.

First of all, yes I am indeed African american (I've actually posted here a few times, before and written that I am indeed an African American woman, not a man)

Secondly, I am actually highly educated, so I am no stranger to satire or to the New Yorker.  Hell, I've even read an article. Still as I said in my original comments, yes if you are a subscriber to the new yorker, then of course you realize that nothing incediary was probably meant by the cartoon. The error that New yorker made was one of taking an "inside joke" that yes most familar with the magazine would "get".  It was really too cute by half.  For me the first rule of satire/parody is that if you have to do slot of explaining to get people to"get it", then it's not good satire.  Aside from that I obvious don't even think it was all that funny

Thirdly, the magazine does not put headlines on the front cover, so if you are not a usual reader of the mag all you see is this cartoon, there is no context by which to view it.  The only saving grace is that it is from a liberal mag, that does not make it any less "tasteless & offensive" as wolf blitzer said on CNN (and believe me I'm sorry that I'm even gonna quote blitzer) if I had not known that it was the new yorker mag, I probably would have assumed it was from some crazy rightwing publication or from some crazy white supremacy organization.

Finally, as an African American the idea that we should not be upset because it was satire just did not sit well with me, because let's admit it, America (particularly white Americans) has had a history of using images like sambo to belittle and degrade African Americans all in the guise of comedy/satire.  So excuse me if we tend to find it hard to give people who publish/create these images the benefit of the doubt.

I look forward to the McCain cover featuring him accepting money from a lobbyist while he pees on his first wife and records anti-American propaganda for the North Vietnamese, All at the same time. In the background will be a book he authored, "Famous Fighter Planes I Have Crashed."

I'm sure everyone telling Obama to chill out will say the same thing to McCain. Easy, dude - it's just a joke!

"To argue that [the cover] is not good for Obama is not a resonable critique of the magazine."

What people are arguing is that the cover reinforces the feelings and beliefs that it's trying to satirize. If people are right about this, then it also happens to be bad for the Obama campaign. But the two points are not exactly the same. And while the magazine doesn't have an obligation to avoid harming the Obama campaign, it does have an obligation to avoid reinforcing ignorance and hate.

I don't know if the cover does reinforce these things. (How would we know if it did?) And I actually admire it when magazines like the NYer are willing to take risks to provoke discussion about important things -- even when the risk involves possibly offending some people.  What I fault the NYer for, then, is not reinforcing ignorance or hate, since that's an open question. I fault them for failing in their attempt at satire. And when the risks you take in your pursuit of satire are higher, it's more important to make sure you succeed. If the image's satirical effect depends on viewers understanding what the political bent of the magazine is, then the image itself is not effective -- and the people who don't get the satire are not necessarily stupid.

sorry for all the grammatical errors, it late, and I was up all night last night after going to a George michael concert, and I'm still a little sleepy, but i wanted to go ahead and respond to some of the questions ya'll posed to me as a result of the original comment.

Actually, I guess I'm gonna have to apologize for the errors in this post too.  Oh well!

Woody:  My mom, who was outraged by this cover, made a similar argument to me.  But I don't think the analogy works.  What is your cover making fun of?  Sounds like it's making fun of McCain to me.  The New Yorker cover isn't making fun of Obama; it's making fun of hatred and ignorance directed toward Obama.  The Obama joke works as a joke, and yours doesn't, because the Obama joke has a shared point of reference -- the false rumors and ignorant attitudes about him.  The McCain cover doesn't have a similar shared point of reference.  I don't think your cover depicts an exggerated form of vitriolic and false views about McCain that have a real presence out there.  So your cover, especially if it appeared on a liberal magazine, would plainly be about McCain rather than about his critics and would properly be regarded as crude and offensive.

Hemlock:  But what defines "failure" at satire.  That some people don't get it?  That a lot of people don't get it?  That some people don't think it's funny?  That a lot of people don't think it's funny?  I thought it was pretty unmistakable as satire, and you don't need to know the political bent of the magazine.  All you need to know, I think, is that it's a mainstream publication.  No such publication would present this wildly exaggerated image without irony.  It reminds me of the Daily Show's segment "Baracknophobia" about "the irrational fear of hope."  In one such segment, Stewart promised a forthcoming special, "Barack Obama's Vagina:  The October Surprise in His Pants."  The New Yorker cover is that outrageous.  This cover is plainly hooking into the "terrorist fist jab" moment in our popular culture.  The New Yorker routinely features ironic, satirical covers.  Is The New Yorker really obligated to speak to those outside its audience who don't know that, who don't understand the magazine's language and tone and spirit?  Is Stephen Colbert?  If so, why?

Let me give you another example:  I'm a big fan of the comedian Sarah Silverman.  She tells ironic racist jokes, ironic jokes about the holocaust, ironic jokes about 9/11, and so on.  I think she's a brilliant comedian, although I know that she's not to everyone's taste and a lot of people wouldn't get the irony or think she's funny.  (She has expressed some concern that some people don't get the irony and still think she's funny!)  Is she a failure because some people don't get that she's a good liberal making fun of ignorance?  I don't think so.  Artists and commentators and entertainers are not obligated to avoid saying anything that might be misunderstood or taken out of context, any more than they are obligated to only produce material suitable for children.  As an avid consumer of relatively low-percentage irony and satire, I would find our culture pretty bland and tedious if the creators felt compelled to stay silent out of fear of giving offense.  I don't say that to pat myself on the back for getting a low-percentage joke, or to demean those who don't.  I don't imagine myself to be a superior human being because I like that sort of humor.  I just think it should be available for those who do like it, and that it's not too much to ask our society to differentiate between true expressions of hatred and ignorance, which should be condemned, and expressions that are lampooning such hatred and ignorance, which should not.

jhildner wrote:

"The cover would never appear on the National Review, because it's pro-Obama.  It's obviously making fun of racist and/or ignorant attitudes about Obama.  The National Review has no interest in doing that.  They would be more likely to run a satirical cover ironically protraying Obama as the Messiah, to make fun of Obama's fans.  And no mainstream publication would present the cartoon straight.  It's too extreme to be presented or taken straight."

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  For one thing, Jonah Goldberg, over at the National Review Online, notes, "What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it's almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review."

But don't just take his word for it.  Take a look at this cover from May 2004: www.powerlineblog.com/.../eljohn.jpg I somehow doubt that the National Review folks were satirically mocking their own party's tropes about Kerry as a lefty extremist.

Williamyard: you almost had me.  As usual, your post is insightful and poetic.  And I totally agree with the jist of your class argument.  But doggonit, I'm sorry but the cartoon is funny.  Not only that, anyone who would seriously entertain the idea that a U.S. senator and candidate for president - just because he's black - is in fact a secret flag-burning black panther who hates America, deserves to be mocked, no matter what thier income or level of schooling.  

That said, race is the stickiest of all subjects, and I'm sympathetic to lamh's viewpoint too.  I wonder how folks would have responded to a cartoon portraying a giant-beaked Joe Lieberman eating a baby's heart in the White House - even if the intent was clearly to mock anti-semites.  

"I would argue that only a fool would not see who the true subject of NYer parody is." - josephCuomo

"Let's be honest: anyone who could "easily" mistake this depiction as anything other than satire is either a moron or is just joining us on this planet. The representation is so preposterous, so over-the-top and so willfully ridiculous that its true intent could only escape a simpleton."  - BHLnyc

In a perfect world, the above statements would be true. But that's not the world we live in. 15% of the nation, according to polls, still believe that Obama is a Muslim. A significant % say that they will not vote for him b/c of race.

My problems with the cover:

1) All most people will see of this issue of the New Yorker is the cover. They will see it on the internet, on TV or as they walk by the magazine aisle in the bookstore. They aren't going to read the article or even buy the magazine. So people will believe what they want to about what the cover is trying to say. They will bring their own biases into that decision. Because the cover is without words, the artists' intent is totally up to us to decide. I admit I'm a Obama supporter and I took it the way the editor intended, as satire. But you see what you want to see.

2) Now inside the magazine, you learn that the title of the cartoon is "The Politics of Fear." This makes it very clear that this is showing the ridiculous nature of the attacks on Obama. While I understand that the magazine generally runs its covers without words, this might have been a good time to make an exception. If they just include the title on the cover, it takes away most of the sting of the critics. Now there is NO doubt as to the meaning of the cartoon. Yes, people should be able to realize how it was intended, but that doesn't mean they do. Most political cartoons have a caption or a title. Why? So we know the intent.

3) Don't think that conservatives won't use this photo as proof of what they knew to be true. Again, if the title was on the front, it would be harder to use.

The Colbert report doesn't strike me as a fair argument that the cover was okay as it was. A) It's on COMEDY CENTRAL. The New Yorker is a magazine that doesn't have a clear agenda. B) The point that Republicans thought Colbert was one of them is exactly the point. There are a lot of people out there with short attention spans that do not always understand what is really being said. People watch a few minutes of Colbert - "Oh, he's a conservative. Right on." People walk by the cover, stop and look for a moment - "See, I told you he's a Muslim."

I really think adding the title - "The Politics of Fear." would have solved the issue. But I also understand that "that's not what they do." Tough call.

I'm gonna have to back lamh on this one across the board.

As for the parody:

"anyone who would seriously entertain the idea ... deserves to be mocked... "

and I agree completely!

The major problem with the satire is that it is a dead-ringer for every dirty little lie that has been spewed thus far. This means that the satire becomes an inside joke, only funny to those who are familiar with the New Yorker and share an appreciation of dead-pan satire. Basically, the cover failed in its role as a satire because it accurately portrays the thing it is intended to mock.

I think they could have gotten a lot more mileage if they'd worked the art into a larger piece portraying some GOP talking head/candidate who was drawing that picture to his constituents during a news broadcast or stump speech.

As it is, it seems the artwork is appreciable, but the real value is lost on everyone who isn't part of the New Yorker circle.

jhildner, I got the joke, and who it was aimed at, and I think everyone who reads TNR got it, and everyone who reads the New Yorker. Just not everyone who sees the cover of the New Yorker at a newsstand or at the grocery store. For a lot of people - some of them TNR readers, who DO know what the New Yorker means by it but still freak out over Bill Ayers, blah blah blah, go to the Stump and you will see them - that image is a perfect caricature of the Obamas, and yes, it's an exaggeration, but it hits the truth to them - that's what caricatures do.

I just saw the Colbert Report, back from vacation. There is really no not knowing where he stands, because he undermines his "argument" at every turn, be it through the captions on "The Word" or by the insane use of hyperbole. Because some conservatives took him seriously [like the No Quarter people taking the FireDogLake post lampooning them seriously by agreeing with it!], which is hilarious in itself, I wouldn't want to tell him to stop what he does [particularly if that mistake led him to be invited to be the act at the White House Press dinner], and if this picture were inside the mag instead of on the cover I wouldn't care at all. But this thing, standing alone, on the cover, could easily be perceived as a biting caricature of the Obamas, and the exaggeration doesn't save it at all, because that's how caricature works.

Wow. this happens all the time. I go and submit a comment, then in the time that I did that, people say it much better than I did. I'm on the west coast and I'm up late. I don't know where you guys are but dang.

Anyone able to recognize Obama on the cover would also be aware of the reputation of/stereotypes about New York, so the juxtoposition between "The New Yorker" and a clearly non-New Yorker perspective on Obama would be enough to reveal the joke.  If there were a magazine called "The American" and its cover was a picture of Chirac astride a white stallion with the world in his palm then it would obviously be an ironic joke of some kind.

As for classicism: it's a sad fact that the lower classes are more vulnerable to ignorance, but that doesn't somehow make jokes about ignorance off-limits.  The wealthy may be inclined to boorishness but I don't see anyone shedding crocodile tears about the hurt they suffer from jokes about boors.

I can understand coming to the aid of the powerless when the battle lines are drawn and actual class warfare looms but somehow that chivalry rings hollow when it's just for class slapfighting or class namecalling

jhildner: Great posts.

What defines failure at satire? I'd say the same kinds of things that define failure for other types of art. This means there's lots of room for reasonable disagreement about whether a piece of satire works or fails; but the judgment isn't purely arbitrary either. We can describe the elements of a movie, say, or a novel, that make it flawed. Same with a piece of satire. If the elements are really weaknesses, then chances are good that other people will agree with us. So while the number of people who "get it" is not what determines a satire's success, there probably is *some* relation between this number and its successfulness.

You suggested, in your post, that the fact that the NYer image was "wildly exaggerated" was enough to indicate its satirical intent. ("No [mainstream] publication would present this wildly exaggerated image without irony.") That might be true; but I think exaggeration is part of any satire and its mere presence doesn't specify what the *butt* of the satire is. It's perfectly conceivable that a conservative magazine would print this image if its writers/readers believed that the qualities depicted in the image had an *element* of truth to them. (E.g. it's not so far-fetched to imagine readers/writers of a conservative publication who believe that the Obamas have at least a small degree of sympathy for Afrocentric racial politics, or that his family connections to Islam might indicate a deeper affinity for the religion, or that his tolerance of and friendship with people who have expressed radical critiques of America and its foreign policy indicates a weak patriotism on his part.) If they set out to satirize these qualities that they project onto him, along with their political implications, they'd start by looking for ways to exaggerate these characteristics. The NYer image does just that.

The problem with the image is that it doesn't contain a clear enough indication that its intended target is not Obama himself but rather the people who believe these things about him. The only thing I can see that suggests the image is not a straight-up satirical exaggeration of (mis-)perceived qualities in *him* is the depiction of the fist-bump. That's something that viewers will recognize as being out of whack with the rest of the portrait, since they know that it's a playful gesture that's in no way associated with radicalism, terrorism, anti-Americanism, etc. (And since they may remember the outrageous Fox description of it as a "terrorist fist-jab.") In my opinion, this isn't enough. It might be enough of a cue for some readers (especially if they also know about the NYer itself.) But for many, this playful element may be overwhelmed by the biting nature of all the other things in the image (the gun, the bin Laden portrait, the burning flag, etc.)

When I first saw the cover, I recognized right away that it was a satire on those who spread and believe the rumours about Obama. But I'm familiar with the NYer. Plus, I originally mistook the fatigues Michelle is wearing for a flowered flowy pair of pants, with a fitted stylish sweater on top (!!) Interestingly, I think this misperception may have actually helped me recognize the intended butt of the satire more quickly, since it added an extra element of dissonance between the qualities being wildly exaggerated in the image and the qualities of the real Michelle (who is feminine and stylish.)

In  other words, to be successful, I think the image needs to contain one or two visual clues about its intended target beyond just the fist bump. (Just my stab at an explanation...)

Yard,

I love your contributions here generally, but I actually found this particular post of yours kind of upsetting, as I have some of your other recent posts where we've clashed a little bit that seem to me to be dripping in ugly reverse snobbery.  Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, even as I accuse others of hyper-sensitivity to The New Yorker cover.  If so, you can set me straight.

The New Yorker cartoon isn't making fun of working-class people in any way -- implicitly or "explicitly" as you say -- and is certainly not saying that working-class people are "less than human."  This strikes me as ridiculous.  I have run into many people who share at least some of the ignorance that is lampooned in the cartoon, and several of those people are wealthy.  Some members of my family have demonstrated such ignorance.  The false rumors are not spread exclusively among the working class or people of modest means and are not exclusively believed by such people.  So I find your whole premise faulty.

Anyway, the real target, as others have said above, isn't truly innocent ignorance.  It's malevolent ignorance, reckless ignorance, mean-spirited ignorance.  AlanSP says that that's not really "ignorance."  Fair enough.  The point is that people who ought to know better or do know better are spreading false smears about Obama.  The cartoon is meant to lambaste those smears as stupid and wrong.  That's a good thing.  They should be depicted in that way, and people should think, as a result, that maybe, just maybe, they're stupid to believe such things, because nobody, thankfully, wants to be stupid.

Besides, even if it is making fun of relatively innocent ignorance, I have trouble understanding why that's so offensive.  You speak about working-class people as though they're mentally retarded and it's profoundly crass and nasty to make fun of their disability.  As I said once before, you exhibit the soft bigotry of low expectations when it comes to the working class.  We're not talking about calculus or French literature here.  We are thoroughly in the realm of common sense on these issues, well within the grasp of most adults.  Regular folks can be expected not to jump to the conclusion that Barack Obama is a radical, un-American Muslim.  I have very little sympathy with or patience for such ignorance, and if our society more commonly expressed my attitude, rather than yours, my guess is that such ignorance would sharply decrease and that would be a good thing.  The notion of the free market of ideas depends for its success -- that is, true and good ideas emerging triumphant -- on false and bad ideas being sharply and clearly knocked down.  Satire is a potent tool for that purpose.  The fear of giving offense can get in the way.  (Not always, and it's generally wise to avoid giving offense, even or especially at the expense of truth, in personal interactions and certain social situations where you're reasonably expected to try to get along avoid conflict.  But we're not talking about personal interactions.  We're talking about social and political commentary on important issues -- national conversations.)

To make your point, you engage in relentless stereotyping of the sort of person you imagine works at The New Yorker which frankly makes you sound like a crackpot.  Now, I don't mind a little ribbing of The New Yorker.  In an episode of Family Guy, Brian gets invited onto the staff, goes to the bathroom, finds no toilets, and is informed that nobody who works for The New Yorker has an asshole.  Good stuff.  But you seriously attribute to people you don't know and with whom you have had, I'm assuming, zero interaction, an extreme and nasty attitude of class-based superiority based on no evidence whatsoever.  I have no idea how much money the cartoonist who drew this cover makes, but I have no reason to suspect that his daddy is rich or his mom is good-looking, just as I doubt that many of the contributors to The New Yorker, who have chosen to try to make a living writing and reporting -- a tough job that is a true meritocracy and doesn't pay very well -- are rich snobs.  Our good friend Ryan Lizza has a piece in this very same issue of The New Yorker about Obama.  I assume he has an asshole.  The idea that New Yorker people go around mocking your honest, good-hearted friend is an absurd figment of your imagination.

Meanwhile, you deride people who will tell jokes in the face of genuine suffering.  This is really pompous of you.  My guess is that those associated with The New Yorker tend to be pretty liberal and tend generally to sincerely support policies and priorities meant to alleviate just the sort of economic insecurity you describe, and may even tend to view some measure of basic security as an incident of human dignity which people have a right to expect.  You suggest that if they have such views, they only do so on an intellectual level, and that they don't have working-class people in their hearts.  The first response is, how do you know that?  The second is, who cares?

Your typical group of intellectual, arugula-eating liberals who have never faced a day of hardship in their lives is more likely to honestly and seriously support policies that benefit, say, struggling Appalachians than, I'm guessing, your typical group of struggling Appalachians.  You may say that that's condescending.  But if it's true, I don't care.  Why should you?  Isn't the question about what's to be done too important to be swallowed up by fear of insulting delicate feelings?

Your main mistake is to misconstrue an impatience with ignorance as an identity-based insult, as though lampooning ignorance is deriding a central feature of what makes a person who that person is.  In doing so, you make the bigger insult.  Out of excessive deference, you make ignorance a facet of working-class identity, and implicitly deride members of that group as fundamentally stupid.  I have greater hopes and expectations.  So who's more condescending?

It seems that you want those arugula-eaters not merely to advocate on behalf of working-class interests (and, incidentally, against their own narrow self-interest) but to *like* working-class people too, no matter how ignorant they may be or ugly or wrong their attitudes may be.  You're asking too much.  Confession time:  I tend not to *like* my fellow Americans, as a group.  And my fellow Americans, as a group, don't really like me.  I despise most popular culture.  I despise religion.  I despise moronic flag-waving.  There are very few places in our land where I can expect to run into like-minded people.  I'm more intellectual than the vast majority of my fellow Americans, and pompous smarty-pants turn me off.  I enjoy classical music, and I dislike classical-music lovers.  I'm a fucking lawyer for Christ's sake.  And I don't really like yuppies.  Or arugula.  Or Asian food other than Americanized Chinese of course.  I'm ornery and irritable, and I find most people I run into just a little hard to take.  That includes working-class and/or "uneducated" people, whom I have found frequently offer up weird, unsolicited racist commentary as though their minds are trained to go there just to make conversation.  I ran into that when I painted houses.  I ran into that when the daughter of the head of a family-owned company, where the family, though wealthy, was Sopranos-esque class-wise, starting going on to me about black people.  (She was cute too, and an heiress, so that was a shame.)  I ran into it just recently at the airport, where I struck up a conversation with a perfectly nice woman of relatively modest means, who, apropos of nothing, started offering up an elaborate racialist analysis of the world.  How dare anyone make fun of racism!  These are just ordinary folks who don't know any better, and expecting more is blatant class-ism!  Bullshit.

Beyond one's conception of human rights, of the minimum standard for decent treatment of people in society -- and mine is pretty generous -- respect and admiration is earned, and I reserve the right not to like everyone, just as society doesn't especially value what I'm all about, except insofar as it's willing, though not particularly happy, to pay for my legal services.

You suggest that it's okay to make fun of people of modest means.  I don't see that at all.  On the contrary, I perceive a tremendous wall of politically correct feces erected around "ordinary Americans" who, unlike the rest of us apparently, work hard for a living, toiling for an honest day's pay and who, confirming their unassailable virtue, neither understand nor appreciate irony of any sort, thank you very much.  For they, you see, are "serious."  While those of us in the professional class are apparently frivolous, despite those long hours we work.  Well, to be honest, many of those hours are taken up with the cackling mockery of immigrant janitors and others below our station.

It's an old story.  Those familiar with the history of antisemitism and of the Holocaust may recognize this story, where "ordinary Americans" were the German Volk and the irony-prone professionals were the Jews.  (I'm aware that I've now violated the Don't-Bring-Up-Hitler-rule of blog posting -- deal with it!)  Those familiar with Richard Hofstadter's classic "Anti-Intellectualism in American Life" will recognize it as a story Americans have been particularly good at telling themselves.  Those who have paid any attention to politics lately, or, perhaps, own and use a television, should recognize it.  So, I'm sorry, I reject the notion that members of the working-class are cultural outcasts.  They are culturally privileged, the object of rhapsodic romanticization.  So, why do they get fucked?  Because, the people who want to fuck them over have gotten better at pretending to like them than the people who want to help them, who, if I'm any indication, don't particularly like them.  That does not go for Barack Obama, thankfully, whom I admire even though I don't share his sincere optimism, Christianity, good will, and generous spirit!

Wow jhildner, terrific stuff - as always.

I always feel that once I start holding people to a different standard of behavior for reasons based on identity (class and place of origin included), I become a patronizing enabler - which seems much worse, less honest, than being and out and out snob.  At least a snob owns it.

"Anyway, the real target, as others have said above, isn't truly innocent ignorance.  It's malevolent ignorance, reckless ignorance, mean-spirited ignorance.  AlanSP says that that's not really "ignorance."  Fair enough.  The point is that people who ought to know better or do know better are spreading false smears about Obama.  The cartoon is meant to lambaste those smears as stupid and wrong.  That's a good thing.  They should be depicted in that way, and people should think, as a result, that maybe, just maybe, they're stupid to believe such things, because nobody, thankfully, wants to be stupid."

Anyone here every taken Psych 101?  People will defend wrong viewpoints vehemently even when proven completely wrong.  It may feel great to think that stupid, ignorant people should be mocked and somehow they will magically understand and change their ways but that is not how reality plays out.  People look for ANY evidence to VALIDATE their own viewpoint, whether from a friend who "heard" that BHO is actually a Muslim or from seeing a cover of the New Yorker that confirms their fears and doubts.

The problem we have in the US is that we have millions of ignorant voters who actually vote and the hope is that the ignorance is reasonably balanced so it does not sway elections one way or the other.

Instead of the MSM lamenting that we have 15% of our population that believes a known falsehood and US citizens being embarrassed about this fact we argue about whether the cartoon is actually satire or not.

PS The ignorant masses do not like New Yorkers and East coast elites to start, let alone when they are condescending and try to satirize their ignorance, not a good strategy.

With all due respect to those who took offense, I cannot see the basis for a complaint of racism in this cartoon.  Whether the cartoon is funny at all is open to debate - I think the humor behind the typical New Yorker cover is always a bit wry anyway, and this cover is in keeping with that approach to humor.  

In any case, what this debate reveals is that it is almost as risky to present a caricature of Obama as it would be to present the image of the prophet Mohammed.

I love the New Yorker more than I love Obama - and I send the guy money every month, wear an Obama ballcap, have an Obama poster by my computer, and have two Obama t-shirts in my closet (my kids think I have lost my mind).  If I have to choose between supporting the New Yorker on this one, or crying foul alongside my fellow Obama supporters, count me with Mr Remnick.

Neil

jhildner -- very honest, very eloquent, straight to the point.  This is what I love about TNR -- the great writing and reporting aside, often the comments are better than the posts.

lamh, not to get clintonian on you, but I feel your pain.  I was just thinking back to when I lived in Mexico -- I went to the store once and found bottles of cooking oil called "La Negrita" with little Sambo images all over them.  When I tried to explain to Mexicans that this was racist, all I got were blank stares -- didn't I get the joke?  All of us on this board, and most thinking Americans, know the noxious history of racism against blacks in this country -- but it's one thing to know it and quite another to feel it in your bones.  This magazine cover stirred a visceral, genuine reaction in you.  But I think gurdjeff, if he'd phrased it a little better, carries the larger point:  for the next few months and at least for the next four years, Obama will be the most prominent black American in the country, and he will take his knocks.  If every time he does so you see a racist attack, you will quickly become the girl crying wolf.

Will Obama have his detractors? Yes.  Will some of them be racist detractors?  Unquestionably.  But one of the things I like most about Obama as a candidate (and I'm no too-kool-aid-for-schooler) is his ability to present himself as someone who's matured beyond all that.  Nationally, if he's to be successful, it's my feeling that we'll have to do the same.

Satire is dead. Long live satire.

Well, the original concept of The New Yorker was that it's not for the little old lady in Dubuque (or was it Peoria?)

Jhildner - great post, very thoughtful and articulate. Looking forward to Yard's response.

Or better still, for your comment to be posted as Comment of the Day as counterpoint to lamh31's.

(Though I do agree with Lamh that both TNR and the NY desperately need a more diverse set of voices - representing a wider variety of cultural backgrounds - among their authors, and hopefully as a consequence, among their readers too. But I think that's a separate subject - I just dont see a persuasive link with the matter at hand here.)

I still have not made up my mind about the NYer cover - I understand the point Lam makes, but I confess that I did have a chuckle (precisely because of what Bill objects to) when I saw the cover.  But then, in many ways, I am the target audience of the NYer, so of course I would chuckle. ...

What I am worried about is that this is too distracting; the discussion about a cover of a magazine is distracting from McCain's awful performance.  I think the correct response would have been, "Well, I guess they were trying to be funny.  But we should not be distracted by the real issue here: a Presidential candidate, John McCain, who acknowledges he knows nothing about the economy in the midst of a difficult period for millions of Americans; a candidate, John McCain, who admits to not knowing anything about computer and the internet, in the Information Age; a candidate, John McCain, to continues to make flippant comments about death and war, without any notion that he is not in Montreal's comedy fest, but is running for the highest office in the most power country in the world."

And that, is all I have to say about the subject.

"In any case, what this debate reveals is that it is almost as risky to present a caricature of Obama as it would be to present the image of the prophet Mohammed."

Neil:   I honestly think that if they'd satirized Obama for other reasons no one would have batted an eye. (They could have mercilessly lampooned him as a flip-flopper on Iraq, or a traitor on FISA, or a hypocrite on the whole "changing politics" theme and that would be unremarkable.) It's just these particular things -- racism, patriotism, and terrorism -- that are touchy.  And if they'd found a more effective way to satirize the rumours about these things, then that wouldn't have generated all the heat either.

jhildner -- another great post!

jhildner,

Thank you for your eloquent and thoughtful response to my post.

I have to admit that, after re-reading my original post and reading your rebuttal, I'm inclined to agree with most of what you said. As for the remainder, I think we actually agree but I was guilty of a failure in my argumentation. No excuses, although I often find it hard to give these little text boxes the attention they deserve, in that I'm sneaking my posts in at work when I'm supposed to be, uh, working. Also, for some reason, the New Yorker cover really disturbed me. It made me quite sad, actually. My response was driven by my emotions--not always a good thing.

Looking back, I am ashamed to have insulted the folks at the New Yorker and others like them. In trying to see things from the point of view of the 12% of Americans who believe that Obama took his Senate oath of office with his hand on the Koran, I have unjustly and uncharitably demonized many who don't believe that rumor. There is no excuse for such intemperance on my part.

I don't wish you to think that I condone ignorance. I feel that the best strategy is to "love the sinner, hate the sin." I try to do this (when I'm being mindful) by listening and by asking questions (and by not flying off the handle as I did yesterday).

I have a long-standing fear, bordering on paranoia, that race is used, consciously or unconsciously, to avoid discussions of class. Should Obama be elected, I do not want people to think that the job is complete. I think that the hard work will remain.

I assure you I had no intention of "speaking of working-class people as though they're mentally retarded." That is the opposite of my intent. I have to be more careful with my words.

Probably enough out of me on this issue. I am more comfortable blabbing on the less-serious issues and often feel in over my head when the talk turns serious--in large part because my own level of ignorance is pretty high compared to most of the folks around here. Every day that I hit the Plank or elsewhere on TNR I'm quickly reminded what a privilege it is for me to be allowed to express myself among such a broad assortment of bright and articulate and, especially, good-hearted people (among whom you are at or near the top). Again, I apologize for what you have rightly pointed out were my ill-thought, poorly expressed and sometimes hurtful opinions.

Barry Blitt knows satire, and he has given us at least one brilliant example of the form. On January 17, 2000, Blitt put the viewer in the back seat of a cab, which an African American is trying to hail. In the rearview mirror, the white cabby’s furrowed brow face betrays his reluctance to pick up this fare. The would-be passenger: Martin Luther King, Jr.

The cartoon registers as satire—rather than caricature—because King clearly is not the punch line; he delivers it. But the cartoon is brilliant because the (white) viewer, sitting in the cab too, is implicitly complicit in the cabby’s racism.

With the Obama cover, Blitt keeps the observer—and any other third-party target—out of the picture. The viewer is peering in on this scene undetected—and implicit in such voyeurism is that one is seeing the Obamas as they really are when they think no one is looking—à la another Blitt cover, which depicts an apron-wearing George W. Bush scowling at the mess Dick Cheney has made of the Oval Office with cigars and beer cans. Are we to reconsider that cover as well, and revise our silly misconceived notions about the division of labor at the White House?

Scant Americans likely ever considered the rapport between the president and vice president in desperate housewife terms before Blitt suggested it. But far too many of us did and do fear Afros and turbans and brown skin. Bigots are not the butt of this joke—they are subscribers to it. And so the New Yorker has become their bitch.  

Yard, thanks so much for your too kind and gracious response.  Cheers!