Jul 19 2008
The art of satire.
There have been so many misconceptions about the recent cover of The New Yorker that I felt compelled to address a few of them:
- It’s funny. I know there are people out there who think it isn’t, but they’re clearly wrong. It’s so patently ridiculous, it can’t help but bring a smile.
- The Obamas are not the subject of the satire in this image. I actually heard someone on our NPR affiliate say so this week. Even in our postmodern times, when the viewer is expected to be responsible for creating at least a portion of the artist’s message, that interpretation is just incorrect. Jonathan Swift was not satarizing the Irish when he said they should sell their children to be food for the rich – he was satarizing people with nutty ideas about those in poverty. This cartoon is clearly satarizing people who think any of the nutty stuff going on in this cartoon is true.
- Left-wing boycotts are worse than right-wing boycotts. C’mon, we expect right-wing wackos to try to rid the world of “dangerous ideas” in any way possible — but we expect better from those on the left. A leftist’s answer to disagreeable speech should more speech, not an attempt to stifle speech. (I’m looking at you, Political Correctness.) That’s like some Idaho survivalist being in favor of gun control. You know such a person has to exist, but that doesn’t mean it makes any sense.
I’m hoping that this isn’t a precedent for the kind of distractions we can expect over the next few months, but I’ve got a feeling it is. There seems to be this crazy idea being floated around that The Surge actually worked, and another crazy idea that the nation’s economic woes aren’t really woes at all but merely the whining of low-pain-threshold idiots. We could be shining the media light of truth on those notions instead of concentrating on stuff like this cover, which will be of zero consequence on election day.