New Yorker Magazine Nails Right-Wing "Politics of Fear"

Posted By: CLB
Posted on: Jul. 14, 2008 at 9:04 PM

49 Comments

5.0 / 5

Based on 1 ratings.

Email Friend

Add to Favorites Add to del.icio.us

del.icio.us

Digg It!

Slashdot It!

How can we NOT be talking about this? The New Yorker magazine cover "The Politics of Fear"?

And if you're paying attention, "moralist" Bill Bennet and James Carville are already jostling to control the frame!

Bennet is claiming that folks who do not get the satire are reflecting the fact that Americans do not know who Obama is AND that liberal New Yorker magazine is too "smart" (anti-intellectual pandering) for its own good (sub-text: liberals are out of touch ).

Carville on the other hand states flat out (I'm paraphrasing) that the cover is clearly a satire on right-wing fear mongering.

I say the cover is great and Dems should embrace it or as I put it (sitting in for Jeff Farias today during my Too Much or Too Little poll), it may be too little!

Is it Too Much? Is it the wrong picture in a too-sensitive time?

Or Too Little? Just the start in asking the questions about concerns right-wing fear-mongers have spread to undermine a good liberal candidate to keep Americans off the real topics of what he has to offer and obsessed or distracted with rumor-mongering that leasd to voting confusion at the polls?

Click here to view more articles by CLB

Rate This Article | Create Account

Anonymous commenting has been disabled, you must login to comment on articles.

Signup for an account

Comments:

1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Phaedrus

Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:16:42 PM

View Profile

I woulda liked to see the picture do a better job of showing it as how the righties are trying to paint up the Obamas. Either show Rove, or McBush as the artist, something.

Report Abuse

June

Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:25:12 PM

View Profile

Up with the New Yorker! And the ragin' cajun! Satire at its best sheds sunlight into dark, murky places! Oh that this coulda appeared on the cover of Mad magazine with a story inside lampooning all who want to believe this s*** - then it woulda reached the right audience!

Report Abuse

CLB

Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:56:40 PM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by June on Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:25:12 PM]

June
Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:25:12 PM

Up with the New Yorker! And the ragin' cajun! Satire at its into dark, murky places! Oh that this coulda appeared on the cover of Mad magazine with a story inside lampooning all who want to believe this s*** - then it woulda...

View this Comment

Wow, that post didn't publish with some corrections!

Okay, last run-on paragraph SHOULD READ:

"Or Too Little? Just the start in asking the questions about concerns right-wing fear-mongers have spread to undermine a good liberal candidate? To keep Americans off the real topics of what Obama has to offer? To keep voters obsessed or distracted with rumor-mongering that leads to voting confusion at the polls?"

Okay, that's better.

Report Abuse

CLB

Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:57:00 PM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by June on Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:25:12 PM]

I most liked the 'Ragin Cajun when he stuck with Clinton at Clinton's darkest moment. And I don't believe much in 'blind' loyalty. But there was something admirable to me about that...it definitely did NOT help Carville's reputation (did it?) but in my estimation because he was willing to back his man, well, I liked that...

And Phaedrus, that does seem to be a concensus opinion. The title or SOMETHING to focus the point. But again, what is missing if it needed the point focused?

When the same artist created covers lampooning the Bush administration (which can be seen at the lin to HUFPO) who needed to have a title or other explanation to 'get it'? Certainly not liberals. Did Republicans or conservatives? Or did they get it and simply not like the message?

I don't buy (yet) that the artist failed. Editorial cartoonists of the calibre to have New Yorker covers are professionals. I'm still wondering what nerve the cover is hitting that we may not yet be identifying, other then perhaps as I so far suggested, ambivalence-- unease in some folks in the population at large that these accusations might be true?

Defensiveness is usually a facotr of insecurity, no? What is the root of insecurity if not well, secure knowledge that a thing or circumstance is a fact (or 'true')?

Report Abuse

CLB

Jul. 15, 2008 at 07:05:12 AM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by CLB on Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:57:00 PM]

CLB
Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:57:00 PM

I most liked the 'Ragin Cajun when he stuck with Clinton at Clinton's darkest moment. And I don't believe much in 'blind' loyalty. But there was something admirable to me about that...it definitely did NOT help...

View this Comment

Given this morning's media reactions I can see my opinion on this cover is going to be in the minority. Again-- the Queen of the dissenting opinion.

At most I could say the title of the piece "The Politics of Fear" being in the cover art, probably would have made the difference. But that is only if the New Yorker had INTENDED the whole damn nation to read the magazine, and that is not their market! When Harpers or Vanity Fair does a cover they are not expected to consider the reactions of those outside their reading base-- including news stand exposure-- so why is The New Yorker? New Yorker covers have been cryptic FOREVER! It's part of their style.

Nope. No matter how you cut this, I think coming out against this cover is a circular firing squad move.

I say The New Yorker as a business does not owe Obama an explanation, an apology, nothing--zip-- NADA. And the Obama camp needs to lighten up. It is not all about them, all the time. ESPECIALLY now. The camp to me just looks overly sensitive (and insensitive to liberals, Muslims, and intellectuals who DO get it, as well as businesses that what-- now have to cow-tow to over-sensitized politicians?)-- AND this could backfire (probably has in some camps) as Obama's "PC" problem.

Report Abuse

Phaedrus

Jul. 15, 2008 at 07:15:28 AM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by CLB on Jul. 14, 2008 at 11:57:00 PM]

Yeah, I don't know. The New Yorker covers usually are attacking people that New York libruls want attacked, and the irony and satire are better sharp and sanguine. It may be that us eeleetist libruls are just hurt.

Report Abuse

postman

Jul. 15, 2008 at 07:32:10 AM

View Profile

Dialy Kook opines

I woulda liked to see the picture do a better job of showing it as how the righties are trying to paint up the Obamas. Either show Rove, or McBush as the artist, something.

Almost word for word what was said by a panelist on MSDNC. Good job ....bet you read it on the Kos to get your opinion.......as usual.

Lets see........shall we.......

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

Jul. 15, 2008 at 07:44:44 AM

View Profile

This what I said in response to postman's question yesterday:

Why outrage for this . . . . . . . . . .. . . .but not this?

I'm not too bothered by either image. What bothers me -- based on some of the comments I have read here during the last five months -- is that many people will not see the first picture as satire, but as a reaffirmation of their fears. The New Yorker was too smart for its own good this time.

Now here are some headlines I like:


Bush Urges Expanded Drilling Of Alaskan Wildlife
WASHINGTON, DC—The president reminded Congress Tuesday of the estimated 9.3 billion barrels of drillable bear, elk, and musk ox "right here on American soil."


Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others
WASHINGTON, DC—A study released Monday by the American Public Transportation Association reveals that 98 percent of Americans support the use of mass transit by others.


Cheney Celebrates Earth Day By Breathing Oxygen
WASHINGTON, DC—At a special Earth Day event Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney inhaled his first-ever breath of oxygen. "I am…proud to stand before you today and…breathe in the same gas used by…millions of Americans," said a wheezing and gasping Cheney, whose body is accustomed to compounds of chlorine and sulfur dioxide. "One breath, however, is enough for me. I'm glad the stuff will be out of the atmosphere forever in a few decades." Cheney then left the press conference to attend a cardiac health awareness dinner, where he feasted on human hearts.
__________________________________

I would also point out another a small distinction. Lampooning Bush for things that he has actually said or done, or taking an event from McCain's history and substituting today's threats for yesterday's threat, is a far cry from parodying Obama and his wife for things they have never done or said. The Obama cartoon is actually not a send up of the Obamas at all, but is a poke at the eye of people who believe all the fabricated stereotypes heaped into the image.

Unfortunately that sutle jab, although certainly recognized by the majority of New Yorker readers, will probably be lost on most of the people -- non-subscribers to the New Yorker -- hearing the MSM coverage of this controversial cover. It will get disseminated in sleaze-mail anti-Obama campaigns as the absolute truth, verified by the liberal New Yorker. That's why I say the New Yorker has been far too clever for their own good. This cartoon backfired. It's best to denounce it in passing, as Obama did, and then just walk away. The more we spend time explaining this bad pun, the more we bring attention to a non-issue.

Report Abuse

adam

Jul. 15, 2008 at 07:55:34 AM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by www.MoronInCharge.com on Jul. 15, 2008 at 07:44:44 AM]

www.MoronInCharge.com
Jul. 15, 2008 at 07:44:44 AM

This what I said in response to postman's question yesterday:
Why outrage for this . . . . . . . . . .. . . .but not this?
I'm not too bothered by either image. What bothers me -- based on some of the comments I have read here...

View this Comment

Your right Moron,

It would have been much more fitting if it had been the Bill of Rights burning in the fireplace,
Jesse Jackson standing next to him, and Rev Wright over the mantle...

All of them wearing boots with big straps they used to pull themselves up....

but that would have not been so satirical would it....

For the purpose of the magazine, it should have been presented as a painting with Limpboys sig on the lower corner to fulfill the satrical effect of how the Red TEAM is portraying them...

Report Abuse

www.MoronInCharge.com

Jul. 15, 2008 at 08:46:58 AM

View Profile

[This is a reply to comment by adam on Jul. 15, 2008 at 07:55:34 AM]

adam
Jul. 15, 2008 at 07:55:34 AM

Your right Moron,
It would have been much more fitting if it had been the Bill of Rights burning in the fireplace,
Jesse Jackson standing next to him, and Rev Wright over the mantle...
All of them wearing boots with big straps they used to pull...

View this Comment

Too bad you can't limit your immature tantrums to the 20 page thread where they started. Are you going to pull a William or Tom Carter, and let them metastasize to the rest of the site? Don't bother answering on my account -- I have a pretty good idea what you are going to do.

Oh, and STFU.

Report Abuse

1 2 3 4 5 Next »