Telling a Book By Its Terrorist Fist Jabs

[bcholmes]

I was catching up on Paul Wells' blog this morning, and this particular bit stuck out to me. It's regarding the New Yorker/Obama cover. Wells writes:

Does anybody actually believe the above cover is the product of a New Yorker vendetta against Barack Obama and his wife? Did anybody actually look at the cover and say, "Wow, hate literature. These folks at this New Yorker publication seem to harbour many grudges against that fine upstanding Barack Obama fellow and, I would go so far as to suspect, against liberals in general and many other decent folk as well"?

Or — and this is crucial, and I see it about a hundred times a week in political circles — did more people tell themselves something that sounded a little more like, "Well, I get it — I see the joke, funny or lame — but I'm quite sure the simple folk, the ordinary voter who is far less sophisticated in these matters than I am… well, they can't be expected to understand a joke! And therefore I am outraged on their behalf, for I am ever steadfast in my solidarity with the ordinary cretin who can't be expected to reason things through for himself!"

Because you get a lot of that around here. Politics is full of people who think they're the only one to get a joke, to see through a fake candidate, to hear the lie in a disingenuous argument, to see the double agenda in a policy stance. I once wrote column about the myth of the "electable candidate" — Wesley Clark, Belinda Stronach, André Boisclair, there’s always another. The gist was that when somebody says "Well, yeah, but he's electable," what they usually mean is that while they see right through a candidate's limitations, they don't expect ordinary people to be nearly as insightful. I strongly suspect the same condescending instinct is at play in this monumentally inflated controversy...

I don't think that I agree with what Wells is saying. But it's a ponder-worthy comment.

Comments

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

So... the only way a joke can be harmful or hurtful is if someone actually believes in it instead of understanding that it's a joke?

[the_axel]

I'd say that Dubya is a perfect example of what the author refers to as an 'electable candidate'.

I wish he were a myth...

[sinboy.livejournal.com]

Because you get a lot of that around here. Politics is full of people who think they're the only one to get a joke, to see through a fake candidate, to hear the lie in a disingenuous argument, to see the double agenda in a policy stance

Given how many people voted for Bush, it's not all that difficult.

And, as a native New Yorker, yeah, the New York times and the New Yorker Magazine sometimes take jabs at Obama for no reason I can figure, other than they wanted Hillary as the candidate, and are pissed she didn't win. Watching the primary coverage was pretty informative.

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

the problem here is that some people really are stupid, or not insightful, or not informed.

and i think it's disingenuous to pretend that everyone is smart and insightful and well informed. people who fit those three categories are the ones who talk in the media, yes. but people who don't get irony and think that the media and advertising don't ever ever ever say anything that isn't true do in fact exist. otherwise nigerian spam scams would disappear.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

Exactly. An awful lot of lower-class people voted for Bush, and it seems unlikely they did it in an ironic way.

[nex0s.livejournal.com]

I'll just add that as a black person, yeah, um... I get the "joke". Joke's not funny. Just like offering me fried chicken and watermelon as a "joke" isn't funny, or calling me an "oreo" isn't funny, or "jokingly" saying that my hair looks like pubes or Brillo pads isn't funny. In fact, I might even go so far as to say such jokes are not only not funny, they are racist.

Of course, I'm expected to say that, right?

N.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Well said, as always.

[suitablyemoname.livejournal.com]

There are people in the world who, come election day, will not vote for Obama because they've been told he's a Muslim. This will be their primary reason for refusing to do so.

Of course, I put it to you that remarkably few of these people subscribe to the New Yorker. All the same, I'm very uncomfortable with people who reduce politics to cynical satire in this fashion: it doesn't exactly motivate those of us who "get" the joke, and it poisons democracy for those of us who don't.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Don't have to buy the magazine to see the cover and draw (stupid) conclusions...

[suitablyemoname.livejournal.com]

Again, though, how many copies of the New Yorker are there flying through North Bumfuck, Nebraska?

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

Also, 'just a joke' implies that a joke is meaningless or random. Jokes are not random; if you tell a joke, especially in the context of political satire, you're doing it to make a point. If you think everyone will appreciate it but they end up offended instead, you misjudged your audience.

The only redeeming possibility is that the artist drew this with the intent of pointing out the absurdity of what people were suggesting -- not only that Obama and his wife are Muslims, but also that Muslims must be connected to terrorism. That's the only way I can believe that it really was just a joke that nobody got.

In contrast, if it was drawn by someone who really did believe that Obama = Muslim = terrorist/sympathiser, it's a poor joke anyways because it's just a drawing of a scenario that someone else came up with months ago. The artist didn't say anything original. Good job, I'll stick it to the fridge with alphabet magnets.

[jodawi.livejournal.com]

I think the author is trying to impose rationality on a world that isn't rational. Just because someone understands that it's a joke doesn't mean that it doesn't affect them. And a huge number of people do believe some of the myths in the picture, which is why the picture exists. People can see the picture and grin and ignore all the text and discussion, happy that some magazine was brave enough to exaggerate things in the direction of the truth.

Blah blah etc.

[wild-irises.livejournal.com]

There was great conversation about that cover at BlogHer (www.blogher.org) this weekend, and I came away with two useful insights.

1) The cover isn't successful as satire (i.e., as a joke) because it doesn't have a twist. It just portrays a fear that many people think is real and others think is absurd. Picture, for example, John and Cindy McCain on that cover--that would be a twist. It might still not be funny, people might find it offensive, but it wouldn't be a simple revisiting of an image already in people's heads.

2) While the cover is certainly offensive to black people, as nex0s wrote above, it is perhaps even more offensive to the people who truly have this fear about Obama. In general, New Yorker covers make fun of the preconceptions and likely positions of New Yorker readers. In this case, the butt of the joke is people who almost certainly don't and wouldn't read the New Yorker and, in my strong opinion, that makes the cover much less defensible.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Thanks. These are some excellent points.

[herbmcsidhe.livejournal.com]

I saw the cover and thought it incredibly inappropriate, satire or not.

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

I don't have a whole lot that's more insightful than what's already been posted. I will say that when I first saw the cover in question, though, I was put in mind of some of the early 20th century advertising for products like Cream of Wheat with a barely literate Rastus. That was the first thing that flashed in my mind; not the characiture of the varying beliefs about Obama, but instead the way that racist advertising was used to dehumanize blacks in this country 100 years ago. Add in all of the different symbols within the picture (the flag burning in the fireplace, the picture of bin Laden over the mantle, the fist bump, Michelle dressed up as a black militant, etc.) and to me it's not just racist, but it's dehumanizing the man who may very well be the next president.

I feel blessed that people in GenX and younger are, by and large, turning out for Obama. I could see the day coming 25 years ago when this would be possible. I wouldn't have guessed it to be this soon; I figured I'd be in my 50s by the time it happened. I'm just glad to see it happening, and hope that this isn't just a novelty situation, but that it will be the beginning of expanded and more equitable opportunities for people of all races in this country.