For starters, I'm obviously a racist. You can tell it because I used B. Hussein Obama's middle name.
That's pretty much evidence enough in some quarters. But if pronouncing his whole legal name is racist, then what about this image from The New Yorker and cartoonist Barry Blitt?
First, that's a beautiful image. Mr Blitt boiled a whole bunch of impressions, mis-impressions, suspicions, blind Internet rumors, and just all 'round crazy conspiratorial nonsense into one beautifully detailed image. I just love how many layers of meaning come out of this one image; all the ways it was intended vs how it will be purposely or accidentally misinterpreted by others.
To begin, the basic intent of the magazine and cartoonist is fairly obvious and clear, and just as they will explain it if you ask: They are satirizing and mocking right wing and conspiracy nut types for their ridiculous and unfounded harsh opinions about Michelle and Barack Hussein Obama.
That's pretty straightforward. Pretty much everyone seems to get that point, but some good liberals still object, on grounds that maybe the hicks won't get that they're being mocked and take it at face value. In short, we're smart enough to understand, but this image is bad because the hicks might not be hip enough to get it.
Then there's the Obama campaign, which gets to pretend at being hurt. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: "The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
John McCain had to get in on clucking his tongue a bit as well. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said: "We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive." But then, McCain's people have probably the most legitimate excuse for wanting to go out of their way to not be associated with any of this.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
What the hell is 'American exceptionalism'? I don't know, but it sounds like potentially a great deal of trouble.
Just for you, Al - one for the family album...
2 - Andy Marsh
How come the pic of the New Yorker and the ad up there are covering up a bunch of Al's typing?
3 - bliffle
I avoid all modern parody and satire because it has become so humorless. It just isn't any fun. Anyway, the authors are usually so wrought up about making their serious point that the exercise becomes heavy and leaden.
4 - Lee Richards
Al, You're really all over the place with this one, so much so that I can't separate the serious from the satire.
Are you seriously suggesting that believing in the bodily resurrection of Jesus--or in Jesus as Christ--are qualifications or requirements for office in the U.S., and that voters should expect or demand theology as well as political philosophy from candidates?
Sorry if I've missed the point, but if I haven't, I'm even sorrier.
5 - Jordan Richardson
Does he believe in American exceptionalism, as do most people, or what.
This is actually considered a legitimate religious belief? Only in America, obviously...
you know that Dubya really does believe in Jesus
He might believe in Jesus, but to say his Christian values are influencing his presidency is just wrong. Hell, he said Jesus saved him from Jack Daniels, but it's more accurate to say that wifey did and Jesus helped win him the election on empty promises to the American Christians to fight for their causes (yeah, he really helped them overcome gay marriage and abortion issues on a Federal level).
but does Barack really believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
Do you mean literally rose from the dead? Many Christians don't believe that, include several mainline pastors.
I'd be more concerned as to how Obama practices what he believes as opposed to a laundry list of what he believes in. Anyone can simply say they believe in something, but without moral or ethical action, they're just doing lipservice.
Does Barack really believe in Christ, or is he a secular Ivy League multiculturalist who would view Islam as an equally valid and beautiful cultural expression?
Are these two concepts opposed? Wouldn't Christ have been considered a "multiculturalist?" Moreover, would he have subscribed to the Puritanical excesses and theo-manipulation of the dispensationalist doctrine (Rapture, thank you very much Mr. Darby) and this bullshit American exceptionalism (Winthrop's pathetic "City on a Hill" rubbish)? Doubtful to all of the above queries.
So ask the question you really mean to ask: is Obama an American Christian (in that order, too) and does he subscribe to America's concocted and manipulated notions of theocracy and American civic religion?
Also, all of this "I don't know what Obama stands for" crap is just a result of American media bias and unbalanced, convoluted crapball coverage. Of course a vision of Obama is going to be perplexing for those who don't know how to navigate the media fog, but that's a result of voter laziness and media hypnosis more than anything else.
6 - Dan Miller
Al,
Good article.
Just one question: Where is Senator Obama's sense of humor? A president needs one.
The campaign apparently complained that most readers will see [the cartoon] as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.
Had Senator Obama instead shown the cartoon during one of his frequent public appearances, said that he though it was really funny, and stated that he intended to have a framed copy on the wall in the Oval Office, he could have come across as a pretty neat guy. But no, that isn't the way he dealt with it, and what could possibly have helped him may have hurt him.
Oh well, no great loss.
Dan
7 - Al Barger
Lee [comment 4]: Somedays I'm not sure myself when I'm serious vs satirical. However, I'm not suggesting that belief in Jesus is necessarily a plus as a qualification for president. But it certainly IS relevant to know what a potential POTUS really believes about the world in his heart, as best we can make such things out.
In some crisis with Iran, is the deeply religious president gonna go all Strangelove on us, like Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone? The missles are flying, praise Jesus! Is he really basically an atheist with few or no moral bearings? Bill Clinton comes to mind there. What about an Objectivist, with a non and indeed anti-theistic but very strict set of moral principles?
That level of peering into a candidate's heart is perhaps not all that important in picking city councilmen or a county clerk, but they're quite significant in figuring out to whom we want to hand keys to our nukes.
8 - Lee Richards
Thanks, Al.
It is relevant to know what a candidate thinks about the world, yes, but theology ought to be his own business, so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, break laws, or endanger the country.
We've had some candidates fitting their faith to the segment of the electorate they're wooing.
Personally, I don't have any problem with an Objectivist, anti-theist with a strict sense of ethics and moral principles, who doesn't want to be my Preacher-In-Chief.
9 - Al Barger
Dr Dreadful, good opening question on American exceptionalism. From Wikipedia,
I suppose my beliefs tend to be interpretable as supporting some idea of American exceptionalism. Not that we're perfect and can do no wrong, but America seems to me to be not just quantitatively bigger and stronger, but qualitatively different in our outlook and place in the world. We're in a historically unique - and I think on the whole very positive - leadership position in the worldThat idea of exceptionalism could cut a lot of different ways, good and bad. It could be that some religious schmuck thinks God means for the great America to smite the wicked. Or it could be a secularist liberal thinking that we should be responsible for perfecting humanity - which might be even worse. Or a belief in American exceptionalism might come out in a thousand other ways.
Brother Richardson, I wouldn't say that American exceptionalism is a religious belief per se, but it does strongly reflect religious beliefs in some of its manifestations.
Plus, you're right that being a Christian could mean a lot of different things, depending on how you take it. As a liberal, one could take Christianity to be a very good thing if the candidate takes it basically as an invocation to feed the poor and hand out more welfare. Or you could take Christianity as very bad, if the candidate believes in more of hardass Yahweh vision of God, per Ann Coulter.
10 - Clavos
"It is relevant to know what a candidate thinks about the world, yes, but theology ought to be his own business, so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, break laws, or endanger the country."
It has relevance if his personal theology informs his worldview and influences his decision making; therefore, it's relevant for the voters to know a candidate's stance and depth on the issue.
11 - Al Barger
If a candidate really does have serious religious belief, it will certainly be a critical influence in his thinking and actions as POTUS. That might not necessarily be in pushing a crude religious agenda, ie pushing for prayer in public schools. But what God wants you to do will tend to trump a lot of other considerations - if you're at all serious about your beliefs.
12 - Dr Dreadful
It could be that some religious schmuck thinks God means for the great America to smite the wicked. Or it could be a secularist liberal thinking that we should be responsible for perfecting humanity
Ah, so it's plain old ethnocentrism all dressed up in a new suit and with its hair brushed.
Of course, it's quite natural for people to believe that their particular group is superior to all others - although it's odd that none of them ever stop to wonder at just how lucky and entirely unlikely it is that they just happened to be born into that group.
It's a harmless enough belief as long as it's taken with a pinch of salt. Unfortunately, most of Europe, the Pacific Rim, and the countries that used to be colored pink on old globes have relatively fresh memories of what happens to that belief when it is unseasoned...
13 - Dan Miller
Thomas Jefferson, whom I regard as one of our best founding fathers and presidents*,
However, he was either a deist or a Unitarian (depending on whose views one accepts), neither of which by any definition which seems accurate is a Christian -- one who believes in the Trinity.Query, could a known deist, a Unitarian or, Zeus forbid, an agnostic or atheist, successfully run for President these days? Tentative answer, Probably not; which seems a shame.
* My youthful association with the University of Virginia compells me to say this, but I would anyway.
Dan
14 - Lee Richards
#13:
It is a shame, Dan, because it's evidence that our "exceptionalism" still permits/encourages theistic boundaries in politics that can limit our freedoms and enforce conformity.
15 - Al Barger
No Doc Dreadful, American exceptionalism would not necessarily be ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism is merely chauvinistic and emotionally placing your tribe above others. American exceptionalism COULD sometimes be that. That's obviously something to be on guard against.
Or it could be that someone has good reasons for thinking that in some ways America is superior to other countries. I certainly do, and I don't think I'm chauvinistic. I'm happy to acknowledge and criticize our weak points - but right proud to proclaim our virtues as well - which seems to me to leave US pretty high in the plus column overall.
Brother Richards, perhaps you could explain this elusive jumble of words our "exceptionalism" still permits/encourages theistic boundaries in politics that can limit our freedoms and enforce conformity
16 - Baronius
I've heard a lot more from the Left about how the Right will react to Obama's candidacy than I've heard from the Right. This magazine cover just reinforces the caricature of, not Obama, but of the yokel's opinion of Obama.
Democrats have a recent history of manufacturing reasons why their candidates lose. More accurately, variations on the one reason they think they lose: that the people aren't smart enough to have voted for the Democratic candidate. This election, Dems expect to win the presidency, but I think they're instinctively creating the narrative for why Obama might fail. It's got to be the dumb racist voters.
Republicans blame their candidates when they lose. They hate their candidates when they lose!
17 - Jon Sobel
One point about the cover that hasn't been mentioned much, here or elsewhere: there are, in fact, people who believe Obama is a Muslim, and hold other absurd and idiotic beliefs. However, they were not the target of the satire. The target was those on the Right who deliberately foment such beliefs.
Obama's religiosity is, in fact, one of the few things I dislike about him. I always got the sense that Hillary's professed Christianity was pandering - that deep down, she holds what is (to me) a sensible, naturalistic worldview. I believe Obama really is a religious believer, though. Not a good thing in a leader, as our founding fathers understood.
18 - Dr Dreadful
there are, in fact, people who believe Obama is a Muslim, and hold other absurd and idiotic beliefs. However, they were not the target of the satire. The target was those on the Right who deliberately foment such beliefs.
Oh, indeed. My wife regularly gets e-mails from her aunt perpetuating such bullshit. We take great delight in responding to her (and CCing everyone else she sent it to!) with a helpful link to the relevant page on Snopes or TruthorFiction.com.
I haven't quite decided whether said aunt is an example of those who weren't the target of the cartoon or of those who were.
19 - Al Barger
Still, I'd be curious to have a medical exam to determine if Barack has "666" on the back of his skull. Perhaps Dreadful's aunt could tell us the scoop on this.
20 - Clavos
"there are, in fact, people who believe Obama is a Muslim, and hold other absurd and idiotic beliefs."
Few (if any) of whom are likely to be New Yorker readers, however.
21 - Clavos
This whole brouhaha is so absurd, so quintessentially American.
When the epitaph of this country is written, one thing it will say will be:
"They made mountains out of molehills"
22 - Dr Dreadful
I'd be curious to have a medical exam to determine if Barack has "666" on the back of his skull.
Well, he's not exactly Shaggy, is he, Al?
So it should be easy enough to discern under a strong enough light - say, at the upcoming Democratic Convention...
23 - Andy Marsh
WE need satelite shots of the top of his head. Then we'll get some CIA and NSA analysts to check it out and see if we can find any WMD up there along with the 666! They'll tell us it's there, but when we go to check later, we won't be able to find any of it.
24 - bliffle
Political people shouldn't be allowed to attempt satire, they almost always fail at it. Satire requires a delicate touch with just a fine line of blood drawn with a scalpel, but political types always make a big mess with clumsy blood-covered machetes of verbiage. Witness the first paragraph of the article, which is so complicated in it's self-referential implications that one cannot follow the logic or even perceive the authors viewpoint. Where's the beef?
Same thing with #23, above. One's natural response is "huh?". I suppose that were one suitably pre-equipped with a clear understanding of the authors actual political viewpoint and linguistic proclivities one might be able, eventually, to perceive both the satiric intent of the author and the joke within. But, more likely, one just shakes his head and moves on, neither enlightened nor amused.
25 - troll
...odd to evaluate an opinion piece about a satirical work based on the quality of its satire
hermano Al - imo you're on the money with your point about 'inoculation' and if you bring this shit up again you will only be exposing your moonshine soaked religio-racist delusions