CSotD: Time to get Nasty
Skip to comments
Paul Ryan's bizarre defense of the President has struck a lot of people as funny, at least in the peculiar sense if not the ha-ha sense, and Kevin Siers makes a nice meld of Ryan's loyal explanation that his party's figurehead is simply incompetent with Trump's delusional sense of self-importance.
It's an example of a style normally the province of the alternative cartoonists that I've dubbed "bland restatement," in which you depict either a particular politician or a partisan figure looking into the camera and — having stripped away the bafflegab and Newspeak — have them put forth their point-of-view in plain terms.
In recent months, I've lost patience with a lot of alternative cartoons because bland restatement didn't feel like it was bringing anything new to the conversation, and, while I've still got plenty of altie comics in my daily mix, I've been skipping over them more and more quickly.
I've felt at least curious, if not guilty, over my growing impatience with them, wondering why I liked them so much a year or so ago and find them so unpersuasive today.
But the combination of Siers' piece and David Horsey's latest cartoon-and-column has flipped the lightswitch.
It wasn't a blinding flash, just a "Now I get it" moment.
You can't blandly restate what was blandly stated in the first place.
That is, the power of bland restatement lies in stripping away all that persiflage and horsehockey, and, when there isn't any, there's no impact. You're simply repeating the same words that, if they were going to inspire outrage, would have done so without your help.
And so, while Ryan didn't use the word "incompetent," he certainly acknowledged the fact, and the move from "he's new to this" to "he doesn't know what he's doing" is such a baby step that there's no revelation, so sense of "Wait — Is that what he meant?"
Yeah, that's what he meant. So … who cares?
In both of these cartoons, good art elevates it a bit: Siers gets extra credit for depicting Trump not just as a would-be king but as a rather prissy-looking, prideful king, while Horsey wins by making the buttoned-up Comey into an actual Boy Scout and showing Trump as a whiner.
But the "who cares?" element remains, because, when there is no attempt to hide the truth, it becomes harder to create outrage.
The challenge for any editorial cartoonist is to decide if you are being persuasive or simply playing to your base, and there has, through history, been a lot more of the latter than the former.
That is, the Gerrymander cartoon not only introduced a term into American politics but highlighted the issue it criticized, bringing a critical interpretation to something people may have only been vaguely aware of.
If they were simply uncomfortable with it, the cartoon may have inspired them to outrage.
By contrast, King Andrew was aimed at Jackson's opponents and, while its more detailed graphics allow a more exhaustive listing of his (alleged) arrogant vetos and resistance, I doubt it was as persuasive as it was reassuring: Yes, you're right, he's a tyrant!
Nast's cartoons fall somewhere in the middle: While, in the days of the partisan press, they appeared only before people who already in large part agreed with them, they were — the pun is unavoidable — nasty enough to provoke outrage.
That is, neither the attack on Elbridge Gerry or Andrew Jackson is polite, but the most persuasive of Nast's cartoons are not simply partisan but harsh and relentless.
Harsh and relentless count for a lot, and that's where I turned the corner on all this, which brings us to our …
Juxtaposition of the Day
Both Sack and Luckovich comment on something that is already happening: The Republicans have managed, without needing to pass any federal laws, to undercut the mandates and funding for the Affordable Care Act in a number of states to such an extent that it might as well be repealed for millions of Americans.
Insurance companies are bailing out at a prodigious rate and so the ACA is likely to become moot throughout a wide swath of the nation.
Both employ comic exaggeration, but, more to the point, both raise a development that is not in the public eye, Sack particularly making a point of that, while Luckovich emphasizes that it is not some kind of inevitable result of anything.
As detailed here, the fatal flaw in Obamacare is that it left itself open to sabotage and the GOP stepped in to exploit that weakness.
Break out the party hats.
By contrast and true juxtaposition, The Nib has four cartoons reflecting on how the cartoonists would be impacted if the ACA is repealed.
They're quite well done, and touching, but — aside from dwelling on the proposed federal repeal rather than the ongoing state-by-state undermining — they are essentially reminders of what we know: We need this legislation, we need this protection.
Personal stories get people off the fence, but they don't necessarily persuade anyone who wasn't already on that fence.
And I say that as someone who was (knock wood) successfully treated for a Stage Four cancer that — as in Lucy Bellwood's case — would not have been detected had I not had good health coverage.
I agree 100% with her: It's not luck. It's coverage.
People will die without good coverage. You can't say it often enough, but you do need to say it loudly enough, con brio.
Specifically, while I appreciate the value of these cartoons in rallying the troops, we need new troops.
That requires not simply repetition but outrage. It requires exaggeration and insults and relentless fury.
It's time to get nast-y.
Too many people don't know that they're already losing coverage, that they've already lost coverage, and that the insurance companies and the GOP are partying on their graves.
And that this is only one piece.
It can't remain bland forever
Comments 4
Comments are closed.