Obama not happy with satirical magazine cover
I usually don’t like to dive into the political arena with this blog as there are plenty of other blogs out there dedicated just that subject. However, when one writes a blog on literature/writing, and deals with subjects like free speech, sometimes it’s hard to avoid brushing on a few political topics every now and then.
I’m sure many of you have already seen the news about The New Yorker magazine’s new front cover. For those of you who haven’t seen or heard, here’s a brief description from this New York Times article:
The cover of the magazine depicts Mr. Obama wearing a turban, while he offers a fist bump to his gun-toting wife. An American flag singes behind them in the fireplace.
The link to that article will also give you a glimpse of the controversial cover. Obviously, on the surface, the way Obama is depicted can be considered offensive. It’s meant to stir up feelings of hatred, fear and maybe even a little patriotism. But the picture is not meant to be looked at "just on the surface". It’s satire.
If you’re not sure what satire is, you can get the skinny on it in this Wikipedia article. So just what is satirical about the magazine’s cover? Well, according to the magazine’s editor, David Remnick, is it is a reflection of stereotypes and prejudices about Obama:
I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama’s — both Obamas’ — past, and their politics.
I can’t speak for anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama’s supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.
Basically, Remnick is saying that the cover is meant to show the shallow prejudices and fear that a few right-wing conservative would want the rest of us to believe. Thankfully, for Obama and this country, that sort of fear-mongering hasn’t really taken root among the mainstream and remains mostly on the fringes.
But the cover also brings up a larger issue, one often associated with the right, is the politics of fear. How often does John McCain bring up terrorism and national security? Quite a lot, from what I’ve been hearing. In fact, one McCain adviser, Charlie Black, kind of spilled the beans about a secret belief on the right: If another terrorist attack were to occur on US soil, it would probably benefit McCain. If that’s not fear-mongering at its worst, then I don’t know what is. Charlie Black and others should be careful what they wish for, though, just look at Spain. That country suffered from a terrorist attack shortly before their own elections and the people threw out the conservatives and brought in the liberals.
In that context, the magazine cover makes perfect sense. It is only a caricature of how some in this country continue to view Obama. The New Yorker itself is a liberal magazine, and from what I have heard in various news reports, has published many articles that are very favorable to Obama.
There is one group of people I do feel for, because they are always getting caught up in stuff like this: American Muslims. Anytime someone, or some publication, thinks it necessary to try to get us to believe that Obama is a Muslim, they turn that into a bad thing. There’s nothing wrong with being Muslim. I have many very good Muslim friends who are some of the nicest people you’d ever meet.
On a side note: Both candidates should be courting American Muslims – it could make a big difference come November. The largest Muslim population in the US is in Michigan, which also happens to be a swing state. Just a thought.
Should that drawing have been published? The answer to that question lies at what you think the drawing is about. If you think it’s a direct attack on Obama with hateful and racist overtones, then the answer is no, it should not have been published. If you think the drawing is an attack on right-wingers and their constant fear-mongering, then yes, there’s nothing wrong with the drawing (especially given that The New Yorker is a left-leaning magazine).
What do I think? I think the satire might have gone a little too far, and there are probably better ways to make the same point. But while I cringe every time I see the cover, I would not stop The New Yorker from publishing it. That would be a far worse crime.
