About that New Yorker Cover...

[Pamela Troy]

Most of us were, at some point in our education, assigned to read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal," an essay that mocks mistreatment of the Irish poor by proposing that Irish children be bred for their meat. It works as satire because cannibalism is a powerful taboo in most societies. Blandly proposing it as a solution to poverty is, therefore, a shocking, obviously tongue-in-cheek indictment of the uncaring and inhumane policies towards the poor that were in place at that time.

Of course, if eating children had seriously been proposed as a solution in 18th century Ireland, "A Modest Proposal" would not have been very effective satire.

This is why I'm annoyed rather than amused by the latest New Yorker cover depicting Obama as a Muslim and his wife as gun-toting black radical. In a society where the likes of Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh were consigned to the fringes of political discourse it might be a nice punchy, obviously over-the-top bit of satire.

Unfortunately, that's not the society we live in. On the contrary, people like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh are invited to air their views on nationally broadcast shows and treated as though they are serious political thinkers. They are, in effect, part of the "mainstream."

And while there are many complacent liberals and moderates trying very, very hard to pretend otherwise, the images in that cartoon are not taken as fact only on the margins of society. They, too, have been mainstreamed. Ergo, they don't embarrass or outrage either that dumb section of the right wing who believe Michelle Obama is a black radical and Barack Obama a secret Muslim, or that smarter section of the right wing who don't believe it but are delighted that other people do.

Let me make it clear that I'm not redfaced with rage, demanding apologies from the cartoonist and threatening to cancel my New Yorker subscription. The smug naivete that cartoon reveals, however, does irritate the Hell out of me. I'm reminded of the dozey moderates who, when confronted with our country's dangerous slide into hateful political rhetoric, declare that "Coulter is just crazy" and "Limbaugh is just an idiot" as if these facts render both Coulter and Limbaugh harmless. Many Americans seem unable to get their heads around the idea that a crazy woman and an idiot could do a tremendous amount of damage given the kind of national coverage enjoyed by both Coulter and Limbaugh. And they also seem unwilling to admit the deep inroads raw hatred and irrationality have already made into the American mainstream, and the effect it is having on our political process. Somehow they missed the Swift Boat veteran attacks on John Kerry.

No doubt being annoyed rather than amused at the cartoon qualifies me as one of those stone-faced liberal dogmatists Gary Kamiya has deounced in Salon. I just don't think political satire can be separated from its context.

In fact, I don't see how political satire can be separated from its context.

[madfloridian]

1. To many low info voters...it is not satiric at all. It is reality in their little minds.

Good post.

[Fire Walk With Me]

12. And that, sadly, is likely the intent of the cartoon, to further divide and conquer.

[calimary]

30. Those are the ones I'm worried about - who just won't get it.

My take on it, if you please:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6511378

[Faygo Kid]

2. Excellent, recommended, best post yet on this subject.

"The smug naivete that cartoon reveals, however, does irritate the Hell out of me. I'm reminded of the dozey moderates who, when confronted with our country's dangerous slide into hateful political rhetoric, declare that "Coulter is just crazy" and "Limbaugh is just an idiot" as if these facts render both Coulter and Limbaugh harmless."

Not sure about "dozey," but otherwise you nail it cold. The same could be said about the PUMA threads here. It mystifies me that this stuff is taken lightly, after two terms of George W. Bush.

Highly recommended.

[Karenina]

6. Molly on satire...

Selected Molly Ivins Quotations

• The first rule of holes: when you're in one, stop digging.

• What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority.

• Think of something to make the ridiculous look ridiculous.

• The thing about democracy, beloveds, is that it is not neat, orderly, or quiet. It requires a certain relish for confusion.

• Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful.

• There are two kinds of humor. One kind that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity -- like what Garrison Keillor does. The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule -- that's what I do. Satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful. I only aim at the powerful. When satire is aimed at the powerless, it is not only cruel -- it's vulgar.

[hendo]

15. but

limbaugh IS an idiot and coulter IS crazy

[Pamela Troy]

19. And your point is...?

[hendo]

40. my point is

if we start lending credence to every idiot out there we are stregnthening thier case. I doubt Limbaugh and Coulter would be all that big if we didn't constantly attack them.

It is like protesting a movie, all that does is make more people interested in seeing the movie.

[Pamela Troy]

44. So no criticism should be voiced of any image or movie?

[Faygo Kid]

27. And the cover WAS harmful and the premise IS crazy.

Fair enough.

[cobalt1999]

3. If "In fact, I don't see how political satire can be separated from its context"

Then there is no real place for Political Satire. If so, give me an example of "acceptable" political satire you've seen associated with Obama.

[Pamela Troy]

5. How does it follow that "there is no real place for Political Satire"

if political satire is dependant on its context?

I liked the recent Jib Jab video on the election, if you want an example of what I consider good political satire.

[cobalt1999]

9. If satire is constrained by worrying about it's context

then all we'll have left is light fluffy crap just like that Jib Jab Video.

Sorry, that's not good satire. Good satire makes you think.

[Pamela Troy]

13. I'm not saying it should be constrained. I'm saying that the

context influences the effectiveness of satire.

And the context of today's America makes that cartoon fairly ineffective as satire.

[cobalt1999]

17. Sorry, I can't see how you can both consider the context of today's America

without at the same time constraining what is published.

The act of considering how some who are "hateful and irrational" could take it, ipso facto is a constraint upon the satire.

Using your Swift example, he shouldn't have published it if he thought some people would take him seriously.

I don't get the whole dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator until it's "safe" for the public attitude.

[Pamela Troy]

20. Do you interpret any criticism of a written piece as a call for censorship?

[cobalt1999]

24. Nope.

However, it's not criticism of one single piece to say ALL political satire needs to consider context.

That's a rule & a filter thus censorship.

If you had said, this particular piece of satire was ineffective, I have no problem with that. Effectiveness is in the eye of the reader (although I thought it was well done).

I do have a issue with the idea that ALL political satire needs to be filtered to appeal to the masses or be designed not to be misinterpreted by the masses.

[Pamela Troy]

45. Nonsense. Political satire is all about context.

Please explain how it could exist without it. And ANY intelligent criticism of ANY form of expression, whether it's a movie, a painting, a novel, etc. takes context into account.

I did not say that "all political satire needs to be filtered to appeal to the masses or be designed not to be misinterpreted by the masses."

I said that in order to be effective, satire has to take context into account. As I observed, if cannibalism had been actually proposed and practiced in 18th century Ireland, Swift's "A Modest Proposal" would not have been very effective satire.

Do you understand why?

[AlbertCat]

34. context influences the effectiveness of satire.

And the context is that it is on The New Yorker. It was excellent satire.

The unintended consequence of the cover was to show Liberals are still allowing right wing wackos to define them and are scared as hell of Limbaugh and Coulter.
A party in pink tutus indeed.

[Pamela Troy]

46. No, I'm sorry but I disagree. Naive satire is not effective satire.

The context of a satirical work does not really have that much to to with where it was published. It has a lot to do with the the political situation beyond the venue where it was published.

You and others here seem absolutely determined to pretend that I'm calling for the withdrawal of the cartoon because I'm afraid of the reaction it will provoke. I'm not. I'm simply saying that I don't think it's very effective satire.

Do you understand the difference being afraid and being annoyed?

[watrwefitinfor]

4. Excellent. Thank you. n/t

[glitch]

7. Very well stated. Maybe this will get through. K & R nt

[madamesilverspurs]

8. Very well said.

Like you, I am not redfaced with rage. Instead, the cover made me sick to my stomach. Okay, not so much the cover itself, but the knowledge that there are disturbingly many people who believe that the "cartoon" merely pictures the truth about the Obamas. I posted the other day that my landlord (who happens to be a multi-millionaire)is one of those people, proving that you don't have to be smart to be rich, or to vote. Sadly, he has lots of company around here; as his wife recently noted with a smile, "All of my ancestors were klan."

Please pass the Tums.

[checks-n-balances]

10. Wish I could recommend this twice...

especially since you state so eloquently what I've tried to say in a few recent posts here myself.

Even though there are so many dire subjects to discuss here on DU, it's also important to be realistic about the direction in which our culture has been moving, especially for the past 8 years. As you described, these RW talking heads have insinuated themselves and their propaganda into the middle of our culture in lots of insidious ways. There's so much of it now, and much of it has gradual enough to be taken for granted. It's sick and a pretty big chunk of our overall population has been indoctrinated and manipulated by their hate- and fear-laden messages and attitudes. It seems that a lot of the rest of us are either apathetic, in denial, or have been conditioned to accept it.

IMHO, the average citizen's ability to engage in critical thinking is at an all-time low and our country (including our once-enlightened culture) has been stolen from us. To witness otherwise well-educated people react to what's happening with complacency is also very disturbing.

[trof]

39. Happy to do it for you. Excellent piece, I agree.

K&R

[elizfeelinggreat]

11. bears repeating

"I'm reminded of the dozey moderates who, when confronted with our country's dangerous slide into hateful political rhetoric, declare that "Coulter is just crazy" and "Limbaugh is just an idiot" as if these facts render both Coulter and Limbaugh harmless. Many Americans seem unable to get their heads around the idea that a crazy woman and an idiot could do a tremendous amount of damage given the kind of national coverage enjoyed by both Coulter and Limbaugh. And they also seem unwilling to admit the deep inroads raw hatred and irrationality have already made into the American mainstream, and the effect it is having on our political process."

AMEN to that.

Saying these people shouldn't be listened to has never worked. They are listened to and they are paid for what they do.

They should be publicly shamed and humiliated and held accountable. They will not stop the lying on their own.

[McCamy Taylor]

14. Well written. This topic should be used for a contest. It has inspired a lot of creative thinking.

[ZombieHorde]

16. Why did you make a new thread for this subject?

I am posting in this thread because I want to know why people make repeat threads.

[Vickers]

37. To get under your skin.

Oops!

To the OP...very thought-provoking, thanks for an eloquent look at the other side of the issue.

[TahitiNut]

18. Well said. Count me among the annoyed as well. Disgusted might be more apt.

Those with the temerity to compare Swift's "A Modest Proposal" to that piece of commercial tripe on the cover of The New Yorker seem to be possessed of very little breadth or discrimination in their atrophied sense of satire, apparently developed solely to posture and condescend. Parker, Thurber, and Benchley would hopefully be embarrassed to be associated with such crass and ham-fisted crap.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Satire doesn't play well to the brainless. But, satirists don't write for the brainless.

Or, draw cartoons for the uninformed.

If they're too stupid to get it, they're too stupid for facts.

i.e. Obama has already said that he's not a Muslim and they don't believe him. A cartoon, or absence of a cartoon isn't going to change their minds..such as they are.

[Pamela Troy]

22. I think you've missed my point.

[EFerrari]

23. I think you miss the point. It's not art's place to pander to partisans

or to dumb itself down for the illiterate.

[glitch]

29. You are better than this. nt

[EFerrari]

59. I am apparently not.

The two main arguments are, 1) The piece attacks or impedes Obama, which it cleary doesn't and 2) The right wing won't get the satire, when they are clearly not the audience for this piece.

I don't want to live in a society that censors its art because the fearful can't handle it. Honestly, I don't.

Art is not an "extra" but one of the muscles of democracy.

[glitch]

65. Neither art nor disagreement about what is art should be censored.

I don't mind cordially disagreeing with you on this subject, especially since usually I agree with your posted opinions on other issues.

I also don't think criticism is automatically a call for censorship. Granted, we're all pretty sensitive about our culture after all the years of assault on it by the right, but I don't think we should make assumptions about what we are saying when we disagree.

Agreed Art is one of the muscles of Democracy, I would go further and say that muscle is The Heart.

[EFerrari]

66. If I'm addled, glitch, I apologize. n/t

[glitch]

67. I knew it!

You are better.. this ain't art but :hug:

[LiberalLovinLug]

33. Another way to point out the point

America is sliding into a dark period where fascist mouthpieces like Coulter and Limbaugh are considered mainstream. So consider another dark period in the south where slavery is the norm.
What if an anti-slavery liberal magazine of the day decided to run with a 'satirical' drawing on the front of a slave 'boy' with exaggerated features with a demeanor that suggests he is stupid and will take anything that is dished out at him and a few white upper class businessmen are making a joke at his expense. The satirist might say that he is making an exaggeration of the climate of slavery, and it was done over-the-top in order to shame those rotten slave owners - and besides it was done mainly for their own liberal readers who would 'get it'.

Wouldn't there be a danger that a whole segment of society would view that 'satire' as simply the way things should be and remain? And by putting it in mass publication makes it even more mainstream and acceptable to think. For those people, of whom there is a large number, might it just solidify that mindset by putting into pictures what they already believe?





Excellent OP BTW. You have put into words what I have been thinking.

[Pamela Troy]

47. Where have I advocated "pandering to partisans?"

[EFerrari]

60. "Unfortunately, that's not the society we live in. "

Without getting into yet another pie fight, Pamela, I put it to you that the society we live in is in part built by the art it produces, not the other way around.

[fascisthunter]

52. thank you

[Vanje]

41. If a "joke" fails miserably, its because the recipients are "brainless"

Great.

If readers dont "get" the "satire", its not that the "satire" stinks, its because we are" too stupid to get it".

Rest easy New Yorker. You're just exemplifying your superior cognitive brainiferousness. You are so smart! So informed!
Your satire is TOO good! You are TOO funny for most of us.
We are not worthy of getting your joke.


PS. I might put a satire smiley here, but those informed readers with sufficient braininess will already recognize my AWESOME satire.
The rest of you are uninformed, lack braininess, are too stupid to get it, and you can suck it.

[Pamela Troy]

48. Oh, I get exactly what the artist thought he was doing.

And no, my point is not that the satire is "too good." On the contrary, I don't think it's good enough.

Did you actually read my piece? Can you you respond substantively to any of the points it made?

[Vanje]

68. ....Pay attention

Did you actually read MY post?

Hmmmm????

I was responding to another post. Not yours


Yes I read your post. Its very well written.
Your post ,I agreed with totally.


But I was on a different subthread.responding to a post you did not make.

[EFerrari]

63. Jokes and satire are not the same thing.

Jokes go for reactions. Satire goes for reflection.

A joke can make you laugh out of embarrassment because you don't know what else to do with your mouth.

Satire is a different form; it's literary and has a long tradition.

The more acquainted with that tradition you are, the more you tend to enjoy it, I guess.

Railing against a satirist because you don't know the tradition won't help you enjoy it more.

[Vanje]

69. Both 'joke' and 'satire' are subsets of 'humor'

...at least so I recall from Philosophy 201: Aesthetics, from decades ago.
Have they changed it since then?

I like satire. At least I've always thought I did.
If I'm not mistaken, satire is what I read in The Onion.

Maybe not because it can make me laugh.
Its not because my mouth is embarrassed.
Maybe if I had more grounding in the" tradition", I wouldnt laugh.

[Bette Noir]

25. Well said.

[farmbo]

26. It was also an act of brazen literary cowardice

Had they ran a cartoon of McCain in a comfy suite in his North Vietnamese prison with his arm around a shapely mama-son, smoking cigars and toasting his collaborating captor with a brandy snifter (as some former POWs have alleged), they could not have endured the rightwing backlash. Hundreds of death threats would have cascaded in by all forms of communication within the first 24 hours. Rush, Laura and Hannity would have dedicated entire broadcasts to the detailed character assassination of everyone on the New Yorker staff from the editorial suite down to the mailroom. And the Very Serious Pundit Class would wax eloquent--stifling their justifiable outrage-- on the Great Falling Off of the magazine. The mere displaying of the offending cover at a news rack would be justifiable grounds to vandalize...err... enforce standards of decency against the offending merchants.

Why not just take a cheap shot at the Obamas and hide behind the First Amendment? The liberal chattering classes would, quite predictably, navel gaze about it for a few days, give them a tisk, tisk, then move on to "the issues", as the picture creeped anonymously around the internet-- and the magazine sold like hotcakes.

[roody]

28. It would not have been done to a white candidate.

I don't read the New Yorker. To me it is racist.

[Batgirl]

31. What gets me is the insistence on how daring and "out there" the cover was.

It was merely a literal illustration of memes that have been to some extent successfully advanced in the mainstream media regarding the Obamas.

In order for it to perform its alleged function of holding up a mirror in any kind of revelatory way, it would have to go beyond the literal reality of what is already being openly promoted by our nice, friendly cable tv talking heads

The New Yorker in all its smugness lacked the guts to actually go beyond that literal reality, to used exaggeration for comic effect and as a way of revealing the underlying Truth. If what is being lampooned are the people who promote and buy into these notions about the Obamas, then those notions have to be amplified beyond a literal representation.

Next time The New Yorker feeling frisky and edgy maybe they should bring the Rude Pundit in as a consultant. I'm sure he could have come up with a scenario that would have gone way beyond what was drawn, to the point where it would have been clear not only who was being lampooned, but that it would have made anyone embarrassed to admit they actually were ignorant enough to have ever believed the preposterous lies about the Obamas being secret radical terrorist sympathizers.

[Riktor]

32. Right...

... and Marilyn Manson is to blame for Columbine. Video games are responsible for the Virginia Tech massacre. Gays and the ACLU are responsible for the September 11th attacks.

The only people who will look at this cover and think of the Obamas as a bunch of terrorists are those who already had that in their minds to begin with.

[aikoaiko]

35. The NYer's cover was fine.

because it is "nice punchy, obviously over-the-top bit of satire."

Just because some people (even DUers) don't get it doesn't change that.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. yup

[Pamela Troy]

49. It's not a matter of not "getting it." I know exactly what the artist

was trying to do.

The problem is that the images the artist was "satirizing" are already too mainstreamed for the satire to be effective.

[EFerrari]

64. Lampooning the mainstream is satire's gig.

Where are all the images of Michele as a Black Panther?

Where are all the images of Barack as a mullah? There's one of him in "muslim" garb that I know of.

No, there is no problem here besides the fact that America doesn't do satire very well. Their / our thinking is too concrete and we're too defensive and we tend to think of art, especially art figuring our intolerance, as sacrilege.

Too bad for us.

[kskiska]

36. New edition

[flamingdem]

38. This is funny but the Obama Muslim Cover was not!

I agree that cover was annoying. Also right wingers and worse are using it on forums around the web to criticize liberals, democrats, Obama, and pile on more lies, so its destructive power has gone viral.

[Pamela Troy]

50. Did you actually read the piece that prompted this thread?

I see no sign here that you did.

[mina_seward]

43. much ado about nothing

The kind of people swayed by a cartoon wouldn't vote for Obama in the first place.

I loved the satire. It exposes most Americans for what they are, white-supremacist ignorant bigots.

[Pamela Troy]

51. What a profoundly simple minded take.

[mina_seward]

53. every genius is simple

like every good satire.

[Pamela Troy]

54. No. Sorry. Subtlety is a sign of intelligence.

Simple-mindedness is not.

[mina_seward]

56. you're mistaking

pretentious verborrhea with sublety.

Verborrhea, if you're not aware, is an non-stop, useless cascade of words that flow off the keyboard into the toilet.

[Pamela Troy]

57. And simple-mindedness involves the kind of sweeping

and venomous generalizations you used in your earlier message.

Sorry, but labelling Americans in general as racists is not very intelligent.

[mina_seward]

58. not Americans in general

I said most Americans, which could be 51%. Do you have a scientific study to rebuke me?

[EFerrari]

61. With the elegance that only simplicity can muster. n/t

[LanternWaste]

55. Try Voltaire. Esp. his play, 'Nanine'

"In fact, I don't see how political satire can be separated from its context."

Try Voltaire. The specific play, 'Nanine' is wonderfully illustrative of how this can be achieved...

[EFerrari]

62. The separation argument is silly on its face.

The venue, the form and the content are as wedded to satire as you can be unless you marry a first cousin.

/argh ->it's, its