CSotD: Butterscotch Schnapps and other delights
Skip to comments
Let this empty frame stand in for all the "after I voted I had to shower" cartoons that don't deserve to be juxtaposed. When I juxtapose — which I'll be doing today — it's to show differing takes, not a collection of no takes at all.
I was in a liquor store once and heard someone ask what the best brand of butterscotch schnapps was. Without a pause, the clerk said, "Well, we sell the most of this one."
It was a brilliant answer, because the people had already decided that butterscotch schnapps was a good thing and the clerk's view on that topic, however educated, was not being solicited.
However, a good political cartoonist is — in my humble opinion — not there simply to politely respond.
My older son, in his years in the Navy and probably still, took a different approach with waiters in foreign restaurants, and, instead of asking what was good and getting a standard house answer, would ask what they ate from the menu.
That's relying on expertise, and that's what editorial cartoonists should be serving up. Or, in Biblical terms, "Because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
Or, in non-Biblical terms: "Lady, either turn on the gas or give me back my feathers. I'm freezing in here!"
And, as I learned in my days in a band, when you start referencing parrot jokes, it's time to move on …
Juxtaposition of the Day #1
These aren't opposing opinions, but differing approaches to the same issue.
Carlson's take is simpler and less confrontational: It simply makes the GOP elephant look foolish for wanting to kill a viable program. He doesn't advance a particular argument but rather stakes out an overall position, and that could be more effective than arguing, in such a polarized electorate.
Morin, however, is correct in disputing the charge that health care premiums have risen as a result of the ACA, though, given the brief nature of a cartoon, his point of view would make more sense if the newspaper were running articles looking into the cost of healthcare over the past two decades or so.
Very few are, which blunts his point because the response to the specific charge may be "Is that so?" rather than "How dare they?" and I think it's unwise to expect readers to then go to Google and verify a claim.
Still, it's good to have the facts out there, and I like his approach. My misgivings are simply because we dwell in an informational desert as far as the rookies in the newsroom go and you can't count on them for back-up anymore.
Juxtaposition #2
Prickly City has been advancing the idea of third-party candidates, but has had to back off a bit as Gary Johnson's campaign imploded. Today, Scott Stantis combines the over-optimism of the whole notion with the sad fact that Johnson is stunningly unqualified to begin with.
Meanwhile, Darrin Bell goes for the takedown on the "Hillary is a criminal" gang, and thereby faces the same barrier Morin did: Appreciation for the cartoon rests on being fairly well-informed, which is hardly a given. The apparent difference is that Bell isn't looking for conversions, simply laughs based on a shared recognition of absurdity.
And I say "apparent" because Morin is, certainly, looking to comfort the afflicted as well as to convert, but I would assume the editorial page is about trying to form opinions in equal measure to reinforcing them, though that balance may shift in the last week of a campaign.
Juxtaposition #3 and #3a
Both of these collections of panels come from the Nib, which is rapidly becoming a must for fans of progressive cartoons.
Ellen T. Crenshaw offers a collection of quotes on the importance of the vote, and, while it would be stronger if more were from history and not from contemporary sources, it offers some good reflections on the importance of voting. Given the importance of turnout for down-ballot purposes like control of the Senate, it's timely and worth a full visit. Go explore.
The Billy Ireland collection of historic cartoons on the topic of women's suffrage repeats a shortcoming I've mentioned before: It would be nice if they would add some commentary to ground these vintage pieces in some sort of context.
Hence the juxtaposition-within-the-juxtaposition: Edwina Dumm offers a strictly feminist viewpoint, and it would be nice to know when the panel ran, because there was an outpouring of gratitude and support particularly for nurses in the wake of the war, when veterans called for a memorial to those ladies. If the panel ran during the war, that appeal would be less publicly acknowledged.
It's also important to note that, while suffragists had muted their demands during the Civil War, the issue was lively during WWI between the young tyros, who picketed the White House, and the old guard, who gathered petitions but largely stood back during the war. Context matters.
It also matters in terms of the Boardman Robinson cartoon, which repeats a charge that was more valid in the years before the Civil War than in the early years of this century, but remained a conflict within the movement, and not between the young, educated Alice Paul wing and the more traditional Carrie Chapman Catt-led group but throughout the membership.
In fact, young, progressive Alice Paul created her own post-ratification dust-up on the topic.
It is too bad the cartoons were put out there without some context, but you should go peruse the collection in any case.
Plenty of Context Here:
The King Features Archivist offers a number of election-year special features from their vault. Fun stuff and discussed at some length. Go have a wander in the files.
(I'll close with one from my own research — from 1920,
post-ratification and therefore self-explanatory
except for a note on the cartoonist.)
Comments
Comments are closed.