Holy Crap!

I have been trying to work through my reaction to the New Yorker cover and Dave's question from the last post. I don't know whether it's crap or not crap, but here's what I have been thinking about:

1. I am more and more convinced that satire just doesn't work -- at least not as a political tool. And believe me, as someone with a deep and abiding love of the ironic, satiric, and parodic, it pains me to say that. Am I being overly pessimistic? That people "don't get it" is only part of the problem. (But just as an aside, jeebus! Is it not shocking how many people seemingly lack the capacity to detect and decode satire?) The larger issue, to my mind, is that so many people willfully disregard the intended message. And there's nothing you can do about that; you toss your images or words out there to the masses and they do with then what they will. Wasn't this what Dave Chapelle eventually ran up against? At a certain point, you have to ask some hard questions about why people are laughing. The answer sometimes will make you uncomfortable.

Is it even worth bringing this up? Could this be any more predictable? Do you even need to click on over to Media Matters to confirm your suspicion that the majority of wingnuts who responded to this poll believe the cover image is "funny, because there's some truth in it?" The New Yorker's stated message and intention is irrelevant. It will resonate with a few folks (who were already on board with the intended message anyway) and those whose views are being (cleverly or ineffectively--decide for yourself) skewered with the image will, at best, come out with their minds unchanged and, at worst, appropriate the image for their own purposes. That said,

2. This is yet more evidence that I am just hopelessly out of touch with most mainstream thinking generally and a lot of liberal/progressive orthodoxy in particular. Because I can accept that the image "doesn't work" for a lot of people for a lot of reasons. And yes, obviously, it's a racist depiction...since that was, after all, exactly the point the artist was trying to make about the underlying ideology he was satirizing. But I just can't quite get to "By god, the New Yorker must be denounced!" For example, the folks over at Feministing present a fairly mild rebuke: they frame it as a case where "satire fails" (with, of course, the requisite New Yorker contact info so you can call or e-mail to give the editors a piece of your mind.) Fair enough, I guess. But they link to posts at, among other places, Racialicious and Michelle Obama Watch (go there via the Feministing post; I'm not really interested in inviting all the fired-up readers of those two blogs over here to hound us [read: me] when this shows up in their trackbacks. Yes, that's right -- I am a coward). The former argues that the cover art is an example of "hipster racism," which the author defines as "ideas, speech, and action meant to denigrate another’s person race or ethnicity under the guise of being urbane, witty (meaning 'ironic' nowadays), educated, liberal, and/or trendy." It's not just that the image draws from racist and sexist stereotypes to make its point, but rather that the artist -- and indeed, the magazine staff as a whole -- are sexist and racist. MOW similarly characterizes this as an example of liberals "making excuses to engage in racist depictions of Black people because they have a really good point to make." Really? I'm all about folks on the left confronting our racism, but I'm just having a hard time seeing the relevance of that critique as applied to this image. I must just be missing something, because I have so far resisted the urge to write a letter of complaint to TNY or cancel our subscription. I'm not trying to be flippant here. I want to understand this interpretation and take it seriously, but I really don't see it.

But what I have mostly taken away from this is that:

3. Continuing to allow the right control the public discourse is the real problem. To me this is a perfect case in point. The BHO as closet anti-American Muslim terrorist sympathizer and Michelle as Angry Black Woman rhetoric is a creation of the right. I have really reached the point where I believe that there is no effective way to intervene in this conversation. Addressing the (non) issue head on with well-reasoned counter-arguments does next to nothing. You're still stuck within the confines of "is he or is he not a Muslim/anti-American/terrorist?" First of all, is this really the conversation that Obama supporters most want to be having with the voting public? Even if he and his surrogates "win" any given argument, the best message you take away from that battle is "Barack Obama: He's NOT a terrorist." Wow, some victory. Could I get that on a bumper sticker? Obama - terrorist is still the idea that is structuring the discourse. Best case scenario you add a question mark (Obama - terrorist?). For the wingnuts, it's just even more reinforcement. Why would everyone be talking about whether or not he's a terrorist if there wasn't something to it???

And this magazine cover debacle suggests that a "humorous" intervention (what Tom Tomorrow characterizes as the “pretending-crazy-right-wing-shit-is-true-in-order-to-show-how-fucked-up-it-is” gag) doesn't seem to work a whole hell of lot better. As many folks have noticed (usually before screeching something about the sky falling), this image crystallizes all the scare tactics and misinformation into one powerful image. The same thing that makes it effective satire makes it an effective tool of right wing propaganda. The wingnuts can point to this and say (disingenuously for political gain or because they actually believe it) "yes, that's exactly what we've been fretting about all along!"

I've actually got no fucking idea what the answer is, but I feel like it has to have something to do with finding a way to reframe the discourse on our own terms. Because what we're doing right now ain't working. I have not completely thought this through, but I think this is why I had such a negative reaction to Obama's speech on patriotism. Why go there? People said he "had to" engage. What the fuck do I know, but I just don't agree. If he has to "respond," why can't it be with outlining his own value and beliefs. (Yes, yes, I know his people will say that WAS what he was doing in the speech. But he still let the right set the terms and -- surprise! -- somehow in the course of playing this game he managed to alienate a lot of supporters on the left by explaining how he is patriotic and they are not. Whose interests does that ultimately serve? It. Is. A. Trap.)

Anyway, this is just my very scattered initial contribution to this conversation. Sorry Dave, I know I didn't exactly answer the question you originally posed. I'll be curious to hear what the rest of you think...