CSotD: Best of Show
Skip to comments
No surprise that political cartoonists are commenting on yesterday's Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act. There are roughly a kazillion panels at Daryl Cagle's site if you want to sort through them. (And, yes, they are still there even if you don't want to sort through them.)
About half of them appear to have been done by RJ Matson. Oddly enough, the one of his that I most liked isn't on Cagle's site at this moment, though it may pop up later in the day.
I don't think the stacked up books with the label was necessary and I'd give him higher marks if he had just shown Obama signing something. We'd know what it was.
But I think it's important to make the point that this was not just some wild concept that Obama came up with, or an extension of Hilary Clinton's attempt at the start of her husband's administration.
Several pundits, including some cartoonists, have derisively referred to it as "Romneycare" to make the point that Romney was not only for it before he was against it, but had done it before he vowed to undo it. In a world where logic and history have their place, this would be an important point.
But Taylor Jones notes another way in which yesterday's decision is simply part of a long, continuing process.
This, by the way, is another cartoon that wasn't in that collection when I checked it but which may eventually find its way there.
Jones picked up on a wider aspect of the confrontation. He wasn't alone in doing this, but his cartoon has that more metaphorical appeal we usually see only in international cartoons, which dwells less on the moment than on the overall approach.
By contrast, Kirk Walters goes for the specific response:
It seems like an empty boast and his metaphor declares it one, but the real question is, will supporters of health care see this as a threat in November and turn out to make sure to prevent it, or will they take the decision as an overall affirmation of their world view and stay home in the belief that the Republican revolution is over?
Turnout is certainly going to be the decisive factor in the elections, both presidential and congressional, and so Drew Sheneman's take raises a more lively question, which is, will the issue be framed in a way that will induce independents to turn out on behalf of continuing the process?
I have long since given up on the TV pundits, because I don't need the aggravation of listening to True Believers on either side spin the news to fit their world view, given that the majority of their arguments don't hold water and they certainly aren't bringing any surprises to the table.
But listening to heads explode on Facebook, it's clear that the issue is going to remain alive and that it will be spun.
Some were simply elated, but others were convinced that the nation will be totally destroyed, that we can't afford to care for our sick and that "nobody" wants this.
I don't know that the same people who say we can't afford it are the ones who advocate a third war against Iran, or that they are the same people who can't distinguish macro- from microeconomics. Nor do I (or you) know the exact price tag on this thing.
The "nobody wants this" approach is, however, simply the howl of defeat, echoed in a cartoon or two, but without any particular foundation, a variation of the Yogi-ism, "Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded."
Before the decision, there were indications that people who actually knew what is in the law were more likely to support it, but you don't have to understand things in order to allowed to vote. If people can be sold on the idea that Bush ordered the destruction of the World Trade Center and that Obama was born in Kenya, it's not surprising they can be sold a bill of partisan goods regarding this law.
And the one semi-rational complaint falls apart upon examination: That Obama denied the mandate amounted to a tax, and yet the law prevailed in the court because it is.
It was certainly not his tactic or his intent, and it was quite clear in arguments that the administration relied mainly on the commerce clause, and only used the "it's a tax" argument as its third and last line of defense.
Which brings up two points:
1. Sometimes the deep safety makes the game-winning tackle. If the ball isn't in the end zone when the game ends, it really doesn't matter if the runner was thrown for a loss or ran 98 yards, or whether the defensive plan included last minute heroics or that deep safeties are not expected to tackle runners.
2. If you ask a biologist whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, you will be told that it's a fruit. This will in no way change the public perception of a tomato, the taste of the tomato or the way a cook is likely to use a tomato. This also does not mean that the biologist is wrong or that somebody has "lied" about tomatoes. It means you have to be bright enough to distinguish technical definitions from casual usages and to know which matters at a given moment.
Mike Peterson has posted his "Comic Strip of the Day" column every day since 2010. His opinions are his own, but we welcome comments either agreeing or in opposition.
Comments 13
Comments are closed.