A considerable number of man-hours have been spent–wasted, I think–debating whether or not to condemn the New Yorker’s recent cover, which represents Barack Obama as a Muslim terrorist “fist-jabbing” Michelle Obama (who is herself represented as a stereotypical militantly left-wing “Black Power” type with a huge afro). The American flag burns in the fireplace of the Oval Office and a portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs on the back wall. The New Yorker says of this cover: it is meant as a satire of right-wing myths about Obama, exposing these stereotypes in all their stupidity by aping the position of someone stupid enough to take them. Critics say: whatever the New Yorker’s stated intent, this image reinforces Republican talking points by repeating them. Others say: Obama has only made matters worse by seeming not to “have a sense of humor” about the image.
I say: that the cover itself is trivial but also that the New Yorker should be strongly condemned for running it. Why? Not, as is often claimed because the cover reinforces Republican frames and right-wing radio talking points. I see zero chance that this cover will reinforce anyone’s mistaken impressions about Obama. That small percentage of Americans who mistakenly think that Obama is a crypto-Muslim (as if there was something wrong with being a Muslim) or that he hates America or that he secretly worships Osama bin Laden will stay roughly constant. No, what the New Yorker should be condemned for is the total stupidity and banality of this cover as political satire.
As a would-be writer of political satire, I take great offence. I poo-poo you, New Yorker! Is this what America needs by way of satire? This is a time when torture is regularly used by the state, when the rule of law lies in tatters (for those in power; those at the bottom of the ladder still have to follow the law), when oil companies basically write our energy policy (and multinational corporations are given free reign to “regulate” themselves), when we are in the fifth year of a seemingly endless military occupation of a foreign country (the result of a war that should never have been fought), when habeas corpus applies to everyone except those who are deemed enemy combatants by our Great Leader. And what does the New Yorker do? It takes a courageous stance–draws a bold, deep line in the sand–against false rumors that afflict the hideously-well-funded deeply-centrist mainstream American-as-apple-pie Democratic frontrunner presidential candidate (Barack Obama) by mocking that loony right-wing fringe that believes absolutely ridiculous things about said frontrunner.
How very brave and groundbreaking of the New Yorker to take the following courageous/controversial political stances: (a) No, America, Obama is not a Muslim! (b) No, America, Obama does not want to burn the American flag! (c) No, America, Michelle Obama is not ’60s-style political left-wing radical who carries a machine gun! How witty! How urbane! Congratulations, New Yorker, you’ve taught the dirty grimy proles to recognize their own foolishness. And with a magazine cover! Who would have thought it possible? Next, you should take a courageous political stance critiquing Barack Obama on his sudden love of flag-pins. That’s a flip-flop worth lambasting him about, a serious political issue worthy of your attention.
At the risk of sounding like folks who lambasted Stephen Colbert for not being funny at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, I’ve got to say: this cover just isn’t funny. That’s not to say that satire has to be funny–either funny ha-ha or smirk funny–but since, as you correctly point out, this cover also doesn’t function properly as political satire, I’m not sure I get the point. This cover doesn’t make me uncomfortable, it doesn’t provoke me to think about the ideas/misconceptions it purports to represent, and it doesn’t seem to reflect on much of anything but the New Yorker’s desperate attempt to get some press (mission accomplished! Anyone taking bets as to whether this is their highest selling issue this year?). I’m not sure what satirizing an uninformed and prejudiced minority really accomplishes, other than giving various press outlets the opportunity to wring their hands over said minority and thereby create the perception that the minority is larger and more powerful than it is. This cover simultaneously trivializes the “Politics of Fear” and inflates its importance, if that makes any sense. Shoddy satire, indeed.
A note on your posts: I think I’m mostly following who is posting (hi Lee!), but signing off on each one might be helpful for outside readers.
J
Comment by Jenna — July 16, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Thanks for the response. I added my name at the bottom but am still a bit unsure how to make Wordpress do it for me automatically… working.
I totally agree with your reply. The difference between this cover and what Colbert did was that Colbert was in the presence of the President, mocking substantive positions he had taken.
I think it’s safe to say that the New Yorker’s ambitions are almost purely cynical. In achieving those ambitions, they’ve succeeded.
Comment by Lee — July 16, 2008 @ 4:07 pm