Obama Accused of Treason: My Letter to the New Yorker

[Laelth]

For what it's worth, I thought I would share the letter I sent to [e-mail] regarding their 07-21-08 cover featuring Michelle and Barack Obama.

To Whom It May Concern (and it concerns us all):

Your 07-21-08 cover accuses Michelle and Barack Obama of treason, the most serious offense in American jurisprudence and the only crime defined by the Constitution. While I admire your periodical and appreciate good political satire, I can not recall seeing any previous cover of The New Yorker that accuses a candidate for the highest office in the land of such a serious crime. Publishing that image shows a colossal failure of editorial judgment.

-Laelth

And here's their spam reply:

Thank you for writing. We appreciate your comments and, if you have a question, we’ll do our best to respond. However, owing to the volume of correspondence, we cannot reply to every e-mail individually.

About this week’s issue: Our cover, “The Politics of Fear,” combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are. The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall— all of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and
the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover. In this same issue you will also see that there are two very serious articles on Barack Obama inside—Hendrik Hertzberg's Comment, (http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/07/21/080721taco_talk_hertzberg) and Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word reporting piece on the candidate's political education and rise in Chicago (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza).

Somehow, that doesn't make me feel any better. When they start accusing Republicans of treason (satirically or not), I might cut them a break. Rest assured, I won't hold my breath. What irks me most is that they (and many others) fail to grasp the seriousness of this particular accusation. I stand by my assertion that publishing this image demonstrates a colossal failure of editorial judgment.



-Laelth

[AZBlue]

1. WOW - you got a response?

They ignored me completely.

Good letter - thanks for writing! :thumbsup:

[Laelth]

22. You were probably an early responder.

Most likely, they didn't have their spam response ready when you wrote them.

Thanks for the kind words, and it was your thread that prompted me to write.

:patriot:

-Laelth

[Ron Green]

2. I happen to agree with their response, and I disagree that they accused the Obamas of treason,

or of anything else, really.

[onenote]

3. it was a stupid cover but suggesting that they "accused" Obama of treason is way over the top

[Laelth]

7. To be very precise ...

The New Yorker is right, of course, to point out that the RW noise machine accuses Obama (and Democrats, generally) of treason on a regular basis. But this cover doesn't get that point across very well, does it? Again, I say publishing it was ill advised.

-Laelth

[JoFerret]

29. What a load of precious nonsense.all this outrage is

We all should be writing to thank the New Yorker for all their exposes of the crimes of the bush Cheney crowd. they have down an outstanding job these last seven plus years.

[MrMonk]

4. "Treason"

I think there's an attorney who needs to get over himself.

[Laelth]

LOL. It's late cut me some slack.

Or, if you prefer, I could respond with snark.

But we're on the same team, aren't we?

-Laelth

[bunnies]

5. A Spam response... aka...

they've gotten SO many eMails about this that they cant answer them all. Interesting.

[Laelth]

25. Exactly.

We are living the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

[JoFerret]

28. Lol. n/t

[northzax]

6. dude, chill

it's the freaking new yorker.

[Laelth]

21. Here's why I am having trouble "chilling."

I don't believe for a second that The New Yorker intentionally accused Obama of treason. But that picture does, and it is foolish for us not to recognize it. I truly believe that the picture's intent was satirical. I firmly believe that The New Yorker intended to show that the RW noise machine regularly paints Obama and Democrats, generally, as traitors. Nevertheless, I am concerned because we Democrats have become so accustomed to being called traitors that we fail to respond appropriately when the accusation is made. We should be angry and insulted. We should respond forcefully, and not make John Kerry's mistake (refusing to respond). Silence can be (and often is) interpreted as an admission.

The picture in question depicts the Obamas as enemies of the state. It depicts them as traitors. The subtle point that The New Yorker was trying to make is not apparent from the picture, itself. I feel it is unwise to dismiss an accusation of this magnitude. I hope that Obama will recognize it for what it is and respond appropriately.

-Laelth


Parts of this post are reposted from another DU thread.

[RichardRay]

8. My email to David Remnick got a response, too.

I wrote:

It’s hilarious. Some of my fellow Obama partisans are a bit silly; ignore them, please.

He replied:

Dear Mr. Ray,

Bless you.

Yours, David Remnick

I like mine better...

[Laelth]

9. Bless you, indeed.

Thanks for the reply.

-Laelth

[emilyg]

13. Ha! So do I.

[Sheri]

10. "treason" from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason

this is what the Constitution says:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

looks like barack and michelle are celebrating the victory of our enemies. i'd call that "adhering to" our enemies. i'd call that treason.

nice letter, btw. :)

[Laelth]

12. Thanks for the reply.

It seems that many Democrats have become so accustomed to being called traitors by the RW noise machine that their natural inclination, now, is to just laugh it off when it happens. I admit to being mystified by this behavior. An accusation of treason is a serious matter.

-Laelth

[onenote]

15. you may think that "celebrating the victory" of our enemies is treason, but you'd be wrong

The treason clause of the Constitution, which was intentionally written to be exceedingly narrow in scope, doesn't say "adhering to their enemies or giving them aid or comfort," it says, "adhering to their enemies, givng them aid AND comfort' In other words, to "adhere" to our enemies one has to have given them actual aid and comfort as demonstrated by an overt act, witnessed by two individuals. Just sympathizing with enemies doesn't cut it.

So, no, the NYer cover doesn't "accuse" Barack and Michelle of "treason." It does, stupidly and offensively, in misguided effort at satire, show them as a radical muslim (in the case of Barack) and an anti-American black nationalist (in the case of Michelle).

Dumb yes. An accusation of 'treason' -- not by any defintion of treason that applies in this country (notwithstanding the efforts of some to apply that label all too loosely, as was the case after 9/11 when folks like Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were accused of "treason".

[Sheri]

20. wow. now that's what i call splitting hairs.

nice job! ;)

do you seriously think the average american is going to make that kind of distinction? i don't. i think they'll say something like "see, i told you so, bubba. obama's workin for the other side. he ain't no real american."

i hope you're right, though.

[onenote]

26. I wasn't responding to what an average american was calling it.

I was responding to a DUer saying he/she thought it amounted to treason.

[eleny]

11. Here is my email (thanks for posting the address)

Subject: Will you be doing a satirical cover about John McCain?

Please do let me know since that will mean that hell froze over and global warming won't a problem. I miss driving the big truck.

And I so look forward to your automatic reply. Those always make me feel warm, fuzzy and important.

my name
my town

[Laelth]

14. My pleasure.

:patriot:

-Laelth

[verges]

16. But how do you

satirize McCain? He's ridiculous and way over the top in real life. How the hell do you satirize a living, walking satire? Any attempt at satire of McCain would appear too real!

[eleny]

17. Well, I realized that I did make one mistake

I ought to have spelled it "satyrical". That would have given them a hint for direction.

[World Citizen]

19. true

its like trying to satirize the National Enquirer... it just can't be done.

[cliffordu]

18. My note - vituperative and hateful as it was, didn't get answered. I wonder why?

[Laelth]

31. Like AZBlue, above, you were probably an early poster.

I bet you spoke up before the spam response was prepared.

Just a guess. Not like I got a real response, either.

-Laelth

[JoFerret]

33. Maybe they ignore hate mail?

.

[Breeze54]

23. You're soooo "outraged" that you post the front page picture?

Yeah, that's the way to "control the message"

Way to go!! :eyes:

I agree with their response. It is satire.

But make sure you keep reposting that picture and help them out!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Laelth]

24. I actually thought about whether I should link to it or not.

I decided, in the end, to post it to give context for those who hadn't seen it yet. I fear it's way too late to limit access. It's all over the internet by now.

Thanks for the reply.

-Laelth

[JoFerret]

27. Bush and Cheney and company

- now they did commit treason.

And one of the reasons we know that is because of the New Yorker.

Have you thanked them?

[Laelth]

30. I haven't. Have you?

As I said in the OP, I admire The New Yorker. I also think they made a serious error in judgment by publishing that picture.

-Laelth

[JoFerret]

32. It keeps me subscribing

But - this particular cover would not, in itself, do that.