You know, some of us are really serious about the future of our country and we think our political leadership is going to have the biggest role in whether things continue to deteriorate or they will begin to get better. We’ve felt this way for a long time. And we actually get mad when the candidates for the presidency are reduced to caricatures and punch lines. Dukakis in a tank? Dan Quayle can’t spell ‘potato’, Al Gore invented the internet, John Kerry windsurfing? These are not disqualifying events. Fodder for comedians? Sure. Funny is funny. But it’s not funny if it distorts the electorate’s decision about who should be president. Bill Carter has an article in the New York Times about how hard it is for comics to make jokes about Barack Obama:
“The thing is, he’s not buffoonish in any way,” said Mike Barry, who started writing political jokes for Johnny Carson’s monologues in the waning days of the Johnson administration and has lambasted every presidential candidate since, most recently for Mr. Letterman. “He’s not a comical figure,” Mr. Barry said.
And we don’t live in comical times. John McCain is not a comical figure, either…unless you consider him comically wrong or comically out of touch. We’re actually fortunate that Barack Obama is hard to pidgin-hole. The right-wing wants to tell us that he’s the most liberal politician in the Senate, but it’s hard when the whole left-wing of the Democratic Party is screaming at him for his sins of ‘centrism’. They want to turn him into the ‘black candidate’ but he was raised by a white mother and white grandparents. And black jokes are no longer well tolerated:
Of course, the question of race is also mentioned as one reason Mr. Obama has proved to be so elusive a target for satire.
“Anything that has even a whiff of being racist, no one is going to laugh,” said Rob Burnett, an executive producer for Mr. Letterman. “The audience is not going to allow anyone to do that.”
And, even Jesse Jackson says Obama is not black enough. Top that!
The New Yorker’s cover cartoon fell flat because it wasn’t funny. It was bad satire. It offended people without making them laugh. No one is laughing at Obama because he is a serious politician talking serious issues in serious times. Maybe Obama’s ears are a little funny, but that’s it.
Bill Maher, who is host of a politically oriented late-night show on HBO, said, “If you can’t do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you do it?”
Maher is bitching about nothing. You obviously can do irony on the cover of The New Yorker. They just did. And we have a right to complain about the stunning lack of quality to that lame attempt at satire. Nazis have the right to get a permit and march down Main Street. We have the right to expose their identities and call their employers to complain that they are hiring Nazis. Nazis aren’t funny. Even Mel Brooks can’t make them funny. You can put a Hitler-mustache on McCain and print it on the cover of Mad magazine and it isn’t going to be funny. It isn’t going to defuse any misconceptions about McCain, either.
Watch Jimmy Kimmel realize that he’s an asshole in mid-thought:
Jimmy Kimmel, the host of the ABC late-night talk show “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” said of Mr. Obama, “There’s a weird reverse racism going on. You can’t joke about him because he’s half-white. It’s silly. I think it’s more a problem because he’s so polished, he doesn’t seem to have any flaws.”
My heart bleeds for these guys. Obama has flaws like any other person. But the only jokes people seem to be able to come up with have to do with perpetuating dangerous myths that he’s a Muslim, or he’s un-American, or he’s a black-first politician. It’s nothing but a repetition of insidious lies. You want a good black joke? Here’s a good black joke:
Mr. Maher said that being sensitive to Mr. Obama was in no way interfering with his commentary, though on HBO he has more freedom about content than other comedians. “There’s been this question about whether he’s black enough,” Mr. Maher said. “I have this joke: What does he have to do? Dunk? He bowled a 37 — to me, that’s black enough.”
He probably can’t ski or wind-surf, either. You want to know how hard out there it is for a Network-pimp?
Mr. Kimmel said, “His ears should be the focus of the jokes.”
Seriously?
Mr. Sweeney said, “We’re hoping he picks an idiot as vice president.”
I remember in 2000 that Don Imus specifically endorsed George W. Bush over Al Gore because he wanted better material for his show. Well, Don Imus is the joke now. We need to be able to spoof our leaders. But we also need to be able tell the difference between a punch-line and a candidate. Is it funny that a lot of people believe the right-wing fabrications about Barack Obama? No? Then that should tell you everything you need to know about why no one laughed at The New Yorker’s cover.
Covers and Beholders [Jonah Goldberg]
What I find interesting about the New Yorker cover is that it’s almost exactly the sort of cover you could expect to find on the front of National Review. Roman Genn could do wonders with that concept. Of course, if we ran the exact same art, the consensus from the liberal establishment could be summarized in words like “Swiftboating!” and, duh, “racist.” It’s a trite point, but nonetheless true that who says something often matters more than what is said — and, obviously, that satire is in the eye of the beholder.
The fact that people like Jonah Goldberg support the literal interpretation of The New Yorker cover explains perfectly why it failed as satire.
I dunno, there are sometimes when McCain just makes me laugh at the absurdity of his whole campaign, specific absurdities that have satirical opportunity written all over it. Not knowing how to watch the internet, admitting economic ignorance, completely fucking up on just plain facts repeatedly. He is one big fat juicy peach of a target in a bowl of cottage cheese for satire, parody and downright ridicule by the comedy milieu, IMO.
I do agree with the one fella, that Obama is hard to poke fun at. Although that one fella from Saturday Night Live I think is funny with his impression. First time I saw him (I watch SNL like once every three years) I laughed my ass off.
Just my opinions…
Booman, do I detect a slight flip-flop?
I didn’t think it was exceptionally funny. But it is well drawn. As to failure of satire, anything that draws this much flak has in fact succeeded. Satire can be, not funny. The argument that all magazine covers are equal in the magazine racks as opposed to the New Yorker readership being not average is not really relevant. The fact that it is not a right wing tome is.
Having said that, their week to week coverage of the campaign has been pretty much middle of the road, what you would not be surprised in contrast to the MSM.
I haven’t seen anybody seriously take issue with the daily show or better cobert report which trade on the same material, in the same way. That is the stuff spewed by the right in and of themselves without further explanation and footnoting are ridiculous. Sometimes simple amplification by non-protagonists are enough to expose them as crock. It is probably easier to attribute to the cartoon bad intentions or careless intentions as the effect of something in print is longer than a video/audio bite that disappears. Never the less it is no different.
In fact, no, it’s not well drawn. Visually the whole is as unfocused and muddy as the message. May the New Yorker have the intelligence—their offices are full of that stuff—to explain the intention of the cover. You see, I’m a hick. And they’re suave. Believe me, they really are. Or were? Reputations are not always merited, repuations fray.
On the execution of the cartoon: It was done in the style of 19th century political cartoons. Effectively.
Here’s what I just sent some people at The New Yorker:
I must be out of touch but;
That was not satire, and it was not even an attempt at satire. They were trying to do exactly what they DID do….. get attention. The person who drew it was probably making the point he claims, but the publisher and all those who made the decision to put it on the cover did not laugh, they went “this will get us talked about!”
The ONLY people laughing are right wingers, and the publishers knew that would happen when they first saw it.
nalbar
It’s a New Yorker cover. Thus, it’s a wry observation by The New Yorker on our times, directed at New Yorker readers. To me, as a New Yorker subscriber, it works as a cover. The New Yorker is a commercial publication, thus it is about keeping its readers interested, not about other things, such as saving American democracy.
Saving American democracy is more the duty of our politicians, and Obama has made it perfectly clear that he has no interest in such things, given his remark that he is happy to flush the Fourth Amendment down the toilet to “protect Americans”. The New Yorker owes Obama nothing.
And yes, Nazis can be funny. Haven’t you ever seen Hogan’s Heroes? It kept a whole generation entertained.
It looks like Obama morphing into Kerry redux has made you lose both your sense of perspective and your sense of humor.
Kerry redux? Obama has been totally consistent…as was Kerry. But in fact, Obama was always coming from hear the middle while Kerry was farther left. Those who think he’s changed were not listening to begin with.
Actually, Obama did flip-flop on FISA.
I always knew that Obama is a corporate lackey. I couldn’t understand why some progressives thought differently, just because, apparently, his skin is a little darker than that of the other Democrats who ran for president this time, and because he is younger.
The reason Obama is Kerry redux is that we desperately wanted a candidate to take us out of our national nightmare, but Obama is basically running the same campaign Kerry did, talking about “change” in the abstract but, in the concrete, saying he will just implement Bush’s policies better. Like Kerry, he is Republican Lite.
He even wants to increase our involvement in the war in Afghanistan, for Christ’s sake!
Don’t forget how stupid and idealistic the American public is, regardless of political affiliation. Americans are so insulated, isolated, non-historic and LAZY that they’ll throw their idealism behind anyone who makes it easy to do so. “Hope for Change” What a bunch of baloney!! How dumb do you get? Obama is a centrist.
I completely agree with you regarding Obama’s motives and allegiances. He’s just another version of Hillary Clinton.
Frankly, I think that people are focusing on Obama’s snapshot positions rather than his methods. He’s totally different than Clinton in method; she works independently, he believes very strongly in collaboration.
He did not do a flip on FISA, unfortunately. (I would never have supported it.) But his METHOD is negotiation and collaboration, to get things done. He had one bottom line criterion for the revised bill, FISA court exclusivity, and when that was achieved he voted for the compromise. He changed because the bill changed.
And whether or not I agree with his position (I don’t) he WAS consistent. He wants a government that works through negotiation and compromise, not future veto bravado.
I don’t understand why the gloves are supposed to be off for Obama. I’m not shocked by the cover, in fact it is a haunting memorable cover not soon to be forgotten. What would you have thought had the daughters been running around Mom & Dad? Get used to it he has to play with some rough customers now.
that they totally missed the boat on this one? I see them as true elitists, sitting around in a room saying “They’ll see the cover then they’ll read the article…” not ever considering the fact that tens of thousands of times more people will see the cover than ever read their prose.
If that cartoon had appeared on the inside, adjacent to a headline saying: “Fighting the rumors…” or “The attempts to make him into something he’s not…” it MIGHT have been justified. But as it is, there is no justification in any way for it.
I’m amazed we are even trying to do so, rather than emphazing to their advertisers how offended we are.
FYI–covers on the New Yorker are not tied to articles contained within the magazine.
That’s funny, the editor said “Just read the article and you’ll understand the cover!”
Yeah – it should have been like those games in kid’s magazines – how many errors can you find in this picture?
But no. It was presented as a serious ‘cartoon’ and it was not funny.
Satire done wrong can perpetuate and enhance stereotypes. If you can take the “satire” and use it as a direct attack bit, you have failed as a satirist, and gone into the slander business.
That’s what this is: slander and the perpetuation and enhancement of vicious racist stereotypes. Is this the “New Yorker” or is it the “American Spectator”? This could be taken and put on the front cover of “American Spectator” without changing a single item on the cover. This could the cover of “National Review” immediately.
I think it was on CNN yesterday, they said that most people who called the station about the New Yorker cover were complaining about the American flag being burned in the fireplace.
I’m sure Huey Newton would be a senator by now if he hadn’t been gunned down. C’mon d. Be serious.
I don’t think a black panther would become President, but I also don’t the that the Panthers somehow equate with evil or bin Laden..
By claiming the image was a an exaggeration of mis-conceptions about the Obamas, the artist implied that those exaggerated characteristics were BAD. Here are the rediculous BAD things people are saying about them. I think a lot of folks could rightfully be offended by the list of BAD things because from a certain perspective several of the BAD things are actually part of a patriotic history essential to American progress in the 20th century.
The assassination of black leaders does in no way imply that they deserved it or that they and their movements should forever be thought of as BAD. All we ever get taught in school about the Panthers was that they were scary. There was a LOT more to it and a lot of folks who know that should not accept the execution of the satire, even if they can get with the general premise.
And this is the primary place I think this cartoon fails in it’s message: it’s insensitivity to the fact that the Panthers are still heroes to a lot of people.
It might be hoho funny to white elites (Elites to self: “OBVIOUSLY she is not as BAD as a Panther is! She’s so well assimilated.”), but not so much to folks who appreciate the Panthers (to self: ‘I WISH she was able to be as forceful as they were.’). To me the Panthers are as apple pie as the Minute Men. I realize most other don’t agree. Yet.
Kind of like saying ‘She’s as horrid as that rogue Patrick Henry’! The Americans and Brits of post-Revolution 18th century would get very different things from that.
Personally, I find no offense to myself and totally get the point of it. But, I definitely have spoken with a few folks that were offended precisely for the reason I state above. If they had green skin in the cartoon to further exaggerate their BADness, how would Martians feel about it?
it’s bad politically. I don’t care if you think burning flags and put Usama on your mantle are great and groovy things to do. It doesn’t matter if you think Islam is the world’s best religion. What matters is that people don’t vote for people that hold those views.
That’s a kind of exclusive analysis, no? People DO vote because of a candidate’s relationship to their religion (a crusader against your faith is less attractive than someone mistaken for an adherent), their relationship to our freedoms (flag burning), to their culture (robes, fist bumps). Basically it was white satire that is only funny from the dominant culture’s elites’ perspective (one that presumes assimilation is ‘good’) and that’s why it sucks, IMO.
or serve on a charity committee with a Distinguished Professor, without someone on Righty talk radio digging up his past. Give me a break.
I disagree. I think it’s pretty funny. I like The Editors’ take on it.
I think that the New Yorker could take a page from Mad Magazine here. If it doesn’t get its point across immediately to most folks, it hasn’t succeeded.
like this?
from the seattle post-intelligencer:
click to enlarge h/t to Drew J Jones at ET
another tempest in a teapot…the reichwing wurlitzur plays the tune, and the PC left is all too happy to sing the lyrics.
bah!
Well, excuse me, but I thought it was funny and genuinely edgy. It put all the sly imlications from the Right into the glare of full daylight and made them forever ridiculous. Thanks to this cartoon and the national furor it evoked, nobody will dare hint that Obama is a Muslim or hates America or that his wife is a black militant, for fear of being laughed off the stage. It cleared the air of a miasma that’s been polluting it from the very beginning of Obama’s candidacy. It made it possible to laugh both at Obama and at the wingnut crazies who obsessively hate and fear his “exotic” threat. Well, he ain’t exotic any more. He’s been plunked right down into the mainstream. He’s just another politician now, and will have to be judged on the quality of his character and the merit of his policies instead of the airy symbols beloved by both his adulators and his enemies.
The cartoon did do some collateral damage, though: it provoked a reaction that reminded everybody of why they hate liberals. The predictable posturing, humorlessness, whining, hysteria, and instant resort to authoritarian fantasy revealed a puke-inducing face on way too much of the American liberal constituency. On the bright side, it also offered a lesson on why liberals always lose: they are just so damn boring and obtuse. If the cartoon did any damage to Dem chances at all — which I doubt — it will be because it showed that liberals are just one step away from living up to every mean cliche that the Oreillys and Coulters and Limbaughs and fuxies can spew. It’s just lucky for us that there’s hardly anybody else in America that’s a grownup, either. And that at least sometimes we’re capable of learning. Now would be a good time to do that.
I have nothing to add. Brilliant comment.
Bravo Booman,excellent post and commentary. After 8yrs of some serious political undermining of the American democracy, along comes a candidate who, in all seriousness KNOWING how ‘seriously’ the left (but also the right, they just don’t know it other than the Libertarians) feels about a change, a most needed change domestically AND internationally, there is nothing to joke about anymore. The last 8yrs have been great for political satirists and stand up comics, but how can you make this needed change funny? Definitely not by making fun of the messenger who’s tapped into a great majority who’s riled up against the GOP, left and right alike.
Funny you should write a post about this because I was just remembering Lewis Black’s great ‘red white and screwed’ show here in Austin TX…I cannot imagine him feeling the need to make fun of Obama.
I wonder though..WWLBT??
Ingrid