Rod Dreher is spot on about the cover of the new New Yorker. The New Yorker is Nuts. But it may be even worse than he says. By the way, Steven Waldman’s observation about the Obamas needing thicker skin, misses the real problem presented by this cover.
The cover is not only outrageous; it is potentially dangerous and certainly demeaning. I must admit that the caricature of Michelle Obama is less disturbing than the one of her husband, and it’s funnier too (maybe). But more on that below.
The portrayals of the Senator and Mrs. Obama should not be treated equally. Whether we see the cover as a harmless expression of satire and irony, or we see it as grotesque and mean-spirited mockery, we need to distinguish between how each image works. If we don’t, we risk falling into overly-facile defense of something quite offensive on the one hand, or remaining tone deaf to the real challenges that the Obamas as first couple present for many Americans.
The image of Senator Obama draws its supposed humor from a series of lies about his lineage and current religious affiliation which are kept in play only because of a deep current of hatred for Muslims that exists in parts of our population. There is no thread of truth about Obama that makes it funny to see him dressed up as an Osama look alike, unless one assumes that not only is he Muslim, but that all Muslims are terrorists. And it should be clear that with a potential army of over one billion, if that were the case we would have all been killed long ago.
In fact, it is conservatives who should be most outraged by this cover because it mocks what they see (not without some justification) as a genuine conflict between civilizations. If people can laugh at Obama being Osama, then they really must not see the real challenges that exist between many elements of the Muslim world and the majority of the so-called West.
If you are on the right, you should be raising the loudest protest against this kind of humor which makes light of a real struggle that costs lives on a daily basis. If you think that everything for which Obama stands on matters of foreign policy is wrong, you should be offended by the New Yorker turning a very serious issue into a laughing matter.
But if you are on the left, you probably need to accept that the cartoon of Michele hits a bit closer to home as it echoes more Black Panthers and Angela Davis that Taliban. Her comments about the country, her once professed lack of pride in it, and longer defense of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, all reflect a level of ambivalence about the country and its dominant culture that her husband does not seem to share.
So even if you think she is right on these issues, you must admit that she has opened herself up to this kind of mockery. Like any spoof, there has to be some element of truth which makes the joke work. And in this case, my guess is that for many people, that is the case. The image of Michelle does not spread hate and it’s certainly why I found it less troubling, if not funnier, than the image of the Senator.
So the real issue with this cover is not the cover at all. It’s us. On what conceptions, misconceptions, hates and fears does the humor base itself? When we know the answer to that, we will know how best to respond.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
posted July 15, 2008 at 10:21 am
The stated rationale for the cover was to satirize the rumors swirling around the Obamas. Rather than mocking these rumors, the cover instead seems to add credibility to them. The real problem that I see is that rather than being offensive to Obama’s base, the allegations seem to be points of view they support. The greatest enemies of this country are home-grown and are not necessarily Moslems.
posted July 15, 2008 at 10:24 am
This cover is not politically correct. Boo hoo. Get over it. First of all, it’s a satire. Satires are not to be taken seriously. Second, maybe there are people who believe this way. Should we brush that under the rug & pretend that doesn’t exist just because it’s unpleasant? How would that make a difference?
I thank goodness that I live in a place where there is freedom of the press. People can actually publish these kinds of things without being killed for it. We don’t always have to agree with what is being said, but at least it is thought provoking. Isn’t that what the press is supposed to do?
posted July 15, 2008 at 10:53 am
Lighten up, it’s satire. And yes, you have a point, the Michelle caricature makes fun both of her detractors and of her; the Barrack caricature makes fun of just his detractors. But I don’t agree that “[i]f people can laugh at Obama being Osama, then they really must not see the real challenges that exist between many elements of the Muslim world and the majority of the so-called West.” We are laughing at the facile lies and stereotypes that are slung at Obama. One can certainly laugh at that while still appreciating the genuine challenges of our time.
The minute we stop laughing at cartoons we will have lost an important battle in the supposed clash of civilizations.
posted July 15, 2008 at 2:14 pm
The cartoon is titled “The Politics of Fear.” You miss the mark when you say that Conservatives should be offended. First of all, many liberals are deeply concerned with the threat of Fundamentalist Islam, and believe that the discussion of how to relate to a civilization that is unfamiliar to us needs to be nuanced and mature. They too need to grapple with how to make clear that the enemy is religion run amuck, not the religion per se. Second, the cartoon does strike a nerve by putting out into the open the lies and deceptions that go into the portrayal of the Obamas by many that oppose them. That is the job of good political cartoonists, to render the ridiculous at the heart of a political discussion in a non verbal way. Third, it is inaccurate to say that the conservatives have real issues that need to be taken into account. That is true, but this cartoon is not about them either. It’s about the facile way that some in the media like to frame discussions. That attitude, as you point out often, comes from both sides. This is a cartoon about how it happens on the right. The New Yorker makes no bones about being a liberal magazine.
posted July 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm
You know, back in Mark Twain’s time, the majority of the reading population would have recognized this for what it is – satire – and they would have had a good laugh about it. Hwo come nobody is raising the point about how disturbing it is that the American populace has become so ignorant and – I’ll go right out and say it – stupid – that they can’t even recognize this basic concept of humor and journalism?
posted July 17, 2008 at 7:31 am
The New Yorker isn’t nuts. They wanted something edgy and provocative to promote their brand and it worked. The righteous indignation may rebound positively to the Obama campaign by getting the truth out to dispute the cover and creating some sympathy for him. Meanwhile, the world moves on. See Huffington Post for a satire of a satire, turning the Muslim/militant cartoon into Baruch Obama, with Hassidic garb and takeout from Zabars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-hendra/emnew-yorkerem-unveils-ne_b_113193.html
posted July 17, 2008 at 1:15 pm
To the person who said “boo hoo”…imagine if the cover depicted the Pope with a little boy on his knee being a bit too friendly, would the Church just say “ahh, it’s a joke” No there would be cries of horror and calls for censorship of this magazine. Unfortunately, there is a lot of prejudice and ignorance addressed towards Muslims. So stop being such a hypocrite.
posted July 19, 2008 at 12:26 am
I agree. The cover IS horrible.
But kudos to David Kuo in his recent article in the USA Today!!
I knew he would come around to Senator Obama—I knew it!
Why? McCain is not a religious man and quite frankly, caters to what he refers to as “Bush’s base” for political purposes ONLY.
To see you say that Senator Obama has the real ‘street cred’ did my heart good!
That New Yorker cover was pathetic. But David’s newest article rocks-
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/07/our-view-on-rel.html
posted July 21, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I see no harm in this cartoon, I just laughed about it, and went on my way. I do resent the story from one of the comments made about the Pope, I’m Catholic, and I don’t think religion should be part of this cartoon. I don’t see how Obama, or whatever you want to call him, ever got this far in our politics. He’s an unknown snd ignorant about our national security. I could say more, but I’ll stop while I’m ahead.
posted July 22, 2008 at 5:21 pm
James:
I think our Pope, who is encouraging poor nations to not use birth control, is pretty ignorant, and I don’t know how he got so far in our Catholic history. So yeah, great idea, stop while you’re ahead, please, and open your eyes.