The politics of outrage
A presumptive presidential nominee, dressed up as a terrorist? It’s no surprise Barack Obama was offended.
The New Yorker, a US newspaper renowned for its too-liberal-by-half attitudes, showed all its best qualities on the front cover of its July 21st issue.
But unsurprisingly using a cartoon entitled The Politics of Fear, showing the Democrat presidential challenger Mr Obama dressed as a Muslim and his wife wearing combat slacks and holding a gun, might have just worked out negatively for its subject.
Just to make sure the meaning is entirely clear the cartoon shows a portrait of Osama bin Laden hanging above the fireplace, in which the US flag lies burning. Outrage followed, but the New Yorker remained defiant.
It explains the “fantastical images” portrayed “echo one attack or another” made against the Democrat favourite.
“Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover.”
The Obama campaign was not impressed. Appearing on The Larry King Show, Mr Obama himself sought to shrug his shoulders over the issue.
“I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirise something, they probably fuelled some misconceptions about me instead,” he said.
“But, you know, that was their editorial judgment. And, as I said, ultimately, it’s a cartoon, it’s not where the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about.”
His subsequent statement that the cartoon was an “insult to Muslim Americans” ensured otherwise. The cartoon’s newsworthiness has gathered momentum and is now a talking point across the States. But was Mr Obama right to lash out against the cartoon?
 |
A poll carried out by HCD Research suggests not. It found a majority of both Republicans and independents felt the cover was not offensive, compared to 31 per cent of Democrats. Over half of all respondents viewed the cartoon as sincere satire, while 47 per cent of Dems think the illustration will hurt the Obama campaign. Among those not so convinced is Stanley Grossman of Democrats Abroad. He believes the New Yorker’s reputation might be damaged, but that Mr Obama’s prospects have not been dented in the least. “The people who read the New Yorker are not going to be persuaded either way. Most. have a brain and so will not be voting for a Republican anyway,” he explained. |
“They were trying to be clever. It was clever satire but they lost touch with good taste and common sense.”
Mr Grossman believes that, as Mr Obama’s Republican rival John McCain has disavowed it, much of its political sting has been defused. A bigger danger may lie elsewhere.
“There are things going on in the blogosphere, saying he was a closet Muslim, and they were parodying it. The stuff that’s being blogged about is offensive and damaging to Obama but there’s nothing anybody can do about it. The hope is that relatively few people will believe it.”
Perhaps the suspicions levelled at Mr Obama pose a real threat. Just as those reading The New Yorker will not be swayed, it is also true that those liable to read the rubbish written on the internet (excluding this magnificent website, my editor points out) are unlikely to be impressed by libertarian first amendment arguments about satire.
Instead the real damage may come from those in the middle – the crucial ‘undecided’ category who will decide whether Mr Obama will beat Mr McCain on November 4th. There are likely to be many far more important vote winners or losers between now and the autumn, but the issue of Mr Obama’s background will be a permanent fixture. Could the Democrats lose votes because outrage from the Obama camp fails to match up with public opinion? That disparity certainly won’t help.
Alex Stevenson
