ANOTHER CARTOON CONTROVERSY? THE PROBLEM: SOME PEOPLE CANNOT RECOGNIZE, LET ALONE APPRECIATE, GOOD SATIRE
ANOTHER CARTOON CONTROVERSY? THE PROBLEM: SOME PEOPLE CANNOT RECOGNIZE, LET ALONE APPRECIATE, GOOD SATIRE
The cover of the July 21st issue of the New Yorker magazine, an acknowledged left-wing journal, has created a bit of a brouhaha. The picture shows Obama in Muslim attire, his wife with a machine gun (and thus a terrorist), the American flag burning in the fire place of the Oval Office, and a picture of Osama bin Laden above the fire place’s mantle. It is clearly a satirical effort (at least for those familiar with the magazine’s political orientation). Obama’s people are up in arms over what they perceive as, at best, a tasteless gesture and, at worst, an attack on the candidate and his somewhat hostile spouse. Actually, the cover is an effort to belittle or make light of those on the right who seek to portray the Obamas in this light, and in no way was it intended to be an effort to undermine Obama — the magazine is clearly in his corner; a reading of the articles contained in that very issue makes it quite clear that the New Yorker supports Obama.
The New Yorker assumed that, since its readers are sophisticated members of our elite, they would understand this harmless effort at humor. This is a failing of the left; it assumes that any one who doesn’t get it is just not with it — a rube from the country’s heartland. However, it would appear that, with this bit of humor, they have been hoisted with their own petard. How funny; how delightful.
In any event, because of the reaction of Obama and his supporters, what seemed to be a fairly innocuous gesture, all things considered, appears to have had legs — both in print and on the air, it has become very much the topic de jour. Obama himself, trying to make light of the situation, merely observed that, while an effort at humor, it does portray him in a manner similar to that suggested by some of his critics (thereby giving unnecessary fuel to the fire). The New Yorker, in turn, hastened to emphasize that this was satire and an effort to belittle Obama’s critics on the right.
For the New Yorker it has been a somewhat strange mixed blessing. Sales of the issue were, from what I can make out, well above those of its normal issue. I went to acquire a copy on the Tuesday following the disputed issue’s release, and both Borders and Barnes & Noble were sold out. Now I may be wrong, but I would wager that an issue of the New Yorker’s being sold out, is an exception and not the rule -particularly in California’s less sophisticated centers. On the other hand, there was some mention in the media that the cover could well damage the magazine among its advertisers (and this is really where magazines look for their money; magazine sales are a secondary source).
Some in the Obama camp urged their supporters not to purchase the magazine — acourse of action that was certainly open to them, although, as mentioned, the articles containted in the disputed issue were, for the most part, complimentary.
While no one can underestimate the damage that a cartoon can do — witness the outrageous response to the cartoons of Islam in a Danish publication — they are a staple in American politics, and, in general, they serve to provide a touch of humor to what otherwise is a dull and dreary undertaking — particularly in the current political season which, hopefully, will draw to an end some time before we all die of fatigue for having had to go through it. I mention the Danish cartoons for it is wise to remember that in Muslim circles, humor can prove deadly. You may recall that the consequence in that situation — when a bunch of homicidal Imams stirred their barbarian flocks to murder and mayhem - over one hundred people died in that disgraceful tragedy. Apparently, Islam does not take kindly to satire.
On the positive side, I guess we are fortunate for unlike the Danish situation, ours was just a case of bruised feelings on the part of a political adolescent. Thank God for America where such things can be put in perspective, and, where no matter the nature of the slight (short of defamation, of course) the consequences are fairly harmless.We live in a society where people have emerged from the dark ages when it comes to dealing with such slights (or even far more serious matters). But, again, it is important to bear the Danish cartoon controversy in mind because it conjures up a picture of where a world wide Islamic Caliphate would take us. In this regard, and not wishing to let the matter be a total loss Obama endeavored to salvage some bit of political capital; he made a pitch for the Muslim vote by suggesting that the satirical cover was demeaning to Muslims. Whatever.
Finally, regarding the humor to be found in satire, it is worth recalling that old bromide about jest, i.e. many a true word is to be found therein. And here, while Michelle Obama is not a terrorist, she is clearly an angry woman whose hostility toward this country has been made clear by some of her rather thoughtless (and brainless) comments. And, while Obama may not be a Muslim (although both his father and stepfather apparently were — at least at various times during their respective lives) his connection to the Nation of Islam (you know, the one Hillary Clinton pressed him to disclaim) is very troublesome in view of his Pastor’s profound attachment to Louis Farrakhan.
Summing up, the cartoon controversy will probably soon sink below the waves without leaving too many ripples, but not without leaving us with a few laughs.