Obamas On the Cover of the New Yorker Magazine

During my Independence Day sojourn to the nation’s heartland, I visited the Abraham Lincoln museum in Springfield, Illinois. I highly recommend this as a place of learning. One entire gallery of the spectacular museum is devoted to the political cartoons of the day that were published to attack Lincoln during his presidency, and they are unparalleled for their tastelessness, viciousness, and outright absurdity. The only lasting effect of these cartoons, lampoons, and caricatures was to make their creators and publishers look like idiots in the light of history.

I see a lesson in all this that might apply to the current uproar over the newest cover of the New Yorker magazine lampooning Barack and Michelle Obama as Muslim terrorists. The lasting effect will be to remind readers that the New Yorker editorial staff is delusional, and the magazine cartoonist is no Thomas Nast, but the whole affair should not cost Obama any votes. It’s true that there are people roaming around American streets whose peculiar religiosity has them convinced that Obama is the Antichrist. And there are many American patriots who actually believe that the United States Government keeps them safe, and for these folks, avuncular old John McCain is the iconic embodiment of that fantasy. And finally, there have always been the redneck goobers who listen to Rush Limbaugh three hours every day and think this makes them smart. None of these folks will ever vote for Obama, but not because of the cartoon magazine cover, because a New Yorker magazine is the last thing in the world that they are likely to read.

The New Yorker editors assured us that the whole thing was a parody. I believe this. But a parody is a lie, even though it’s humorous and very subtle. American elections for the last 50 years have always been fought with lies, with the best liar winning the contest. I fault the New Yorker staff for thinking that the average American can spot a subtle parody and realize it’s not the truth.

Management and "Happy Talk" Is Benching the Eagle

Just another day. Nine U.S. soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. Budweiser was sold to InBev, a European beer maker. NYC’s Chrysler Building is now totally owned by Arabs in Abu Dabi, and 20% of the NASDAQ is owned by Arabs in Dubai. Twenty years ago, news like this would have been a cause for an outright revolt against the government, but today such news hardly rates attention. I am firmly convinced that if the U.S.A. were somehow pushed back into the Stone Age, 30% of Americans would still proudly display a patriotic American flag on the wall of their cave and continue to bitch about the opposing political party.

I don’t think that the 2008 election will make any difference whatsoever in the state of the country. No matter who becomes the next president, eight years from now gas will be $7 dollars per gallon, sea level will be two feet higher, and U.S. troops will still be cannon fodder in Middle East garrisons. And American public education, healthcare coverage, and airline travel will still be the worst in the industrialized world, just like it is now.

To support my thesis about the irrelevance of the 2008 election, I offer one simple proof. Just look closely at all the political TV advertisements, and listen closely to what all the candidates are saying. All of them, including McCain and Obama, see themselves as a manager rather than a leader. They talk about their “plans” (what a joke) to solve the nation’s problems, but never ask for the shared sacrifice that will be needed to endure the unsolved problems once the plans fail. Lincoln didn’t try to manage his way through the American Civil War. He worked instead to prepare his people for the worst possible outcome, even as he hoped for the best. FDR, when faced with the Great Depression and World War II, did quite a lot of managing, but still found time to warn the American people that the road out of the quagmire would be difficult and fraught with peril. Neither Lincoln nor FDR relied exclusively on “happy talk.” But then, nobody ever accused any modern politician of being another Abraham Lincoln.