CSotD: About the Prime Directive
Skip to comments
I probably cite the work of David Horsey and Clay Jones here more often than I should.
Having directed readers to their work, I could simply sit back and assume people are going there and seeing what I'm seeing.
There are several other cartoonists whose work I like, but they tend to have hot and cold periods, so that they may pop up here several times and then disappear for awhile. That's not a criticism: I know there are periods when I'm sharper than at others. Whether Jones and Horsey are remarkably consistent or simply happen to mirror my own mood for better or worse I couldn't tell you.
But they have done so in the wake of the Alexandria shootings.
And before I go further, let's set the scene a bit:
The purpose of this blog is not to profit from other people's work and I certainly keep to that: While my Amazon link does pay for the hosting it doesn't even begin to pay for the time.
Rather, it began as a response to a couple of blogs that mock cartoons and encourage a mean-spirited, snarky kind of criticism that doesn't offer a serious counterpoint to anything but simply searches for chances to be petty and mean-spirited, a form of on-line bullying.
Moreover, if I'm guilty of praising the same cartoonists over and over, the snark merchants show even more tunnel vision, repeatedly singling out a handful of comics for the same junior-high insults, and getting an appallingly high number of hits from an appallingly cruel on-line community.
Hence the Prime Directive, as seen in the right margin.
However, I don't have to single out anyone when such a large number of cartoonists choose to produce commentary that demonstrates, rather than criticizing, the horrifying partisan hostility of our times, nor is my intention unconstructive snark.
I have about 50 political cartoonists in my daily bookmarks, besides those that show up on aggregator sites. I don't bother with those at either end of the fringe who are so predictably, unfairly partisan that their commentary is never interesting, though some that I do follow are partisan enough that, when they make a valid, constructive point, it comes as a pleasant surprise.
That said, I have seen a flood in the last 24 hours of cartoons that cast blame entirely on one side for the hostile, violent rhetoric that has so polarized our politics, and I would estimate without counting that 80 percent are rightwingers who insist that it is the liberals who are to blame.
A small number blame only the conservatives. They're wrong, too, though an argument can be made that the President of the United States bears a greater responsibility in this regard than a semi-obscure comedian most people couldn't have identified two weeks ago.
Jones and Horsey each have columns that come with their cartoons and they've both covered the topic.
From left to right, American politics has become toxic and it cannot be simplistically blamed on Trump. He is a mere manifestation of a national inclination to demonize and demean anyone with whom we disagree, an inclination that has been growing for years, fed by partisan media outlets and lies spread on the Internet. Sure, it is appalling that Trump’s simplistic demagoguery won him election to the White House, but Democrats and progressives cannot let alarm and anger overwhelm the better angels of their nature. And the same goes for Republicans and conservatives.
And Jones concedes that good editorial cartoons are necessarily rough:
I will continue to insert negativity into our political discourse because I practice a negative art form. Political cartooning, at its very best exposes our very worst. I think I’m pretty good at it. The shooter posted several political cartoons and quite honesty, I’m lucky one of them wasn’t mine. Being critical is not an endorsement or encouragement to violence. Some people obviously don’t get that.
I would encourage you to read the rest of their thoughts, with which I generally agree.
Now then.
I tend towards the French proverb that "to understand all is to forgive all," and to have compassion for people whose life experience has left them bitter and hostile, though I prefer they not be in a position where that bitter hostility creates policies the rest of us are forced to live with.
(And a curious aside: Rep. Scalise has been front and center in both embarrassment over his support of a white supremacist group and controversy over his leadership in opposing LGBTQ-positive legislation. His life was saved by a black, married lesbian. Obviously, she has a different view of "public service.")
But I don't have to "single out" any particular cartoon when there are a good number — I've seen half a dozen or more from major cartoonists — that firmly insist the division and abuse is all from one side, with the vast, vast majority of those claiming it comes from the left.
Normally, I blame laziness for cartoonists who always take the Rush Limbaugh/Fox and Friends view of legislation or various controversies, and I wish they would check with more mainstream sources before simply illustrating those biased, inaccurate talking points. (Ditto with the other side but it comes up far less often.)
However, in this case, it is impossible to blame laziness or inattention or an overwhelming love of Rushbo for the claim that only anti-Trump people voice hostile, violent commentary.
And if you were truly stupid enough to honestly, sincerely believe what you draw, you wouldn't know which end of the pencil makes marks on the paper.
Shame on you. You are not simply voicing an opinion. You are deliberately lying, deliberately poisoning our nation with your hate.
Meanwhile, Clay Bennett answers all those puke-worthy, inauthentic cartoons in which tearful Democrats and Republicans come together:
I wish I thought he were wrong, but on Monday we'll be back at it again.
And you thought the Internet created this?
Comments 2
Comments are closed.