Protection from satire

A sizable number of people in the national political and media elite think that you are an ignorant cretin.

What other conclusion can be drawn from the controversy over The New Yorker’s cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama sharing a “terrorist fist-bump”?

The cartoon of the couple – Barack decked out in conservative Islamic robe and turban, Michelle sporting an AK-47 and fatigue skirt, bumping their fists in the Oval Office before a portrait of Osama bin Laden with an American flag burning in the fireplace – was a classic example of exaggeration for the sake of satire, a practice some scholars claim can be traced back through roughly 4,000 years of human civilization. In this case, the satire was in the service of rebuffing an absurd Internet rumor that the harmless greeting was a subtle sign of solidarity with radical terrorist groups (A rumor whose existence was, itself, exaggerated according to Christopher Beam’s July 14 Slate.com column, “The ‘Terrorist Fist Jab’ and Me.”)

However, instead of having a laugh at the expense of right-wing loonies and the media’s echo chamber, Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton shredded The New Yorker, calling the cartoon “tasteless and offensive.” This was followed by a denunciation from the McCain campaign, then a host of pundits both online and off. What happened?

OK, perhaps the cartoon wasn’t very funny (it’s The New Yorker, after all), but what’s truly offensive is not the drawing, it’s the thinking that lies behind this wave of righteous indignation. Namely, three ideas that seem to be shaping this election:

1. That we, the voters, are idiots who need to be patronized. Much of the furor over this cartoon is from commentators who believe that rather than seeing it as satire, you will take it as confirmation that Obama is indeed a terrorist – presumably just like how you think coyotes strap rockets to their backs to pursue roadrunners. If the political candidates think you’ll believe anything, don’t be surprised when you get nothing.

2. That superficial issues merit more media attention than the candidates’ policies, qualities, histories, etc. We’ve heard a lot about Obama’s not wearing a flag pin and McCain being older than Jesus’ wet nurse, but not nearly enough about what they’d actually do if they got into office. The sound and fury of this campaign’s coverage has signified little indeed. It’s down to you to go beyond the blogs and 24-hour news networks and do your own research.

3. That Obama is a messiah, not a presidential candidate. You’ve read up on Obama’s policies and agree with them? Good. You’ve looked into his background and think he’s well-suited for being president? Then by all means vote for him. But don’t simply assume that he’ll change the world because he’s pretty and popular and makes vague endorsements of “change.” If he wants to be your president, make him earn it.

These ideas exist because the chattering classes think you’re just another fool from flyover country. Are they wrong? Prove it.