My obligatory post on the New Yorker cover

Yes, the New Yorker.

Not the wittiest Barry Blitt cover ever (this one on Mahmoud "There Are No Gays In Iran" Ahmadinejad ranks high) but a natural reductio ad absurdum response to the "terrorist fist jab" line of attack. Conservative reaction is sort of all over the map although there appears to be a universal effort among wingnuts to distance themselves from the cartoon's subject matter. This unintentionally hilarious Townhall poster says with a straight face that the cartoon is "a satirical slap at all the people the New Yorker sees as the legions of bigoted and unsophisticated Americans who are supposedly falling for scurrilous rumors about Barack." The cartoon is, of course, a satirical slap at the conservatives in the media who perpetuate those scurrilous rumors. Like, um, Townhall. It does this without making the image a thought bubble over Rush Limbaugh's head which leads to the reaction of the liberal blogosphere, which is quite unified in its outrage. ("Speechless" is a recurring word.) The argument is, yes, we understand it's satire but a lot of people won't.

All I know is when people start talking about artists (or magazines or anything else) self-censoring for the sake of public responsibility I get uneasy. Far uneasier than I get when I think about voters who take Archie Bunker seriously or think Stephen Colbert is a Republican. Is it irony that people are angry at Barry Blitt for a satirical drawing fueled by anger at the very smears his detractors accuse him of perpetuating? Maybe Alanis Morissette can tell me, but if it is, it's a very sad irony.

The cover is for a New Yorker issue that contains a long article about Obama's Chicago roots. Editor David Remnick has said that the original cover idea was Obama as Jackie Robinson sliding into home plate in a uniform numbered 44. A witty and inspiring image to be sure but Remnick says he discovered it had been done somewhere else so it was back to the drawing board. Blitt, a critic of the modern right and no stranger to satirically representing its p.o.v., sharpened his quill. ("Filled his Rapidograph" doesn't have the same ring to it.)

Will the attention this cover is receiving perpetuate certain untruths in certain people's minds? Perhaps. Will the media spotlight on what is currently America's most famous visual lampoon of right-wing fearmongering make people think about right-wing fearmongering? Maybe. (Even Fox News's report quotes Blitt's statement explaining what the drawing is about.) Does the fact that conservative commentators seem self-conscious about the cartoon mean that they might think twice the next time they consider going down the "His middle name is Hussein!!!" road for fear of appearing...cartoony? Who knows? Will it merely embolden the smear merchants? Only Criswell could predict the future and he's dead.

Are cartoonists allowed to represent the debasement of our political culture without bordering the image in "irony tags"? I vote yes.