New Yorker Cover Outrage Syndrome
July 16th, 2008 Posted in Obama, PoliticsThe New Yorker cover: There’s one thing to be outraged about — and it’s the level of mass hysteria and stupidity evidenced in the general outrage, in the demand that something be so taboo as not even to bear indirect discourse. I’m reminded of the Life of Brian scene in which the magistrate is stoned to death for saying “Jehovah” as he is describing the crime of the prisoner condemned to stoning because he said “Jehovah.”
Being outraged by deft satire of some pig-ignorant view, because it requires reiterating that view, implies that there is something powerful or plausible about that view – that it is not as completely absurd as the satirist thinks it is. It is a anxious call for a comprehensive moral taboo. The imposition of these kinds of taboos is incredibly damaging to public discourse, and it’s one of the ways the Left has alienated large swaths of voters. So it’s incredibly damaging to everything the Left cares about, including racism.
These alienated voters are the very ones who The Outraged claim will be so confused by the cover as to see it as evidence of the validity of Obama smears. But other than pundits who must feign their commiseration with the what they suspect will be the prevailing wisdom of common folks, and but for their coverage, those who are both a) aware of the New Yorker cover and b) take it as evidence of the validity of Obama smears are suggestible idiots anyway. Just like the outraged pundits. Further, most people who read the New Yorker are subscribers who are capable of getting the cover — and incidentally, they get the cartoons inside as well, and they’re actually literate enough to read the articles. Speaking of which, even the right-wing is so excited by the climate of outrage that they’re eagerly peddling their own panties-in-a-wad outrage.
It bears reiterating the premises of New Yorker Cover Outrage Syndrome:
- There is something plausible and powerful about the view it satirizes — it is not completely as absurd as the satirist thinks
- Because the electorate is generally moronic and suggestible, our public discourse must constitute one large, taboo-ridden re-education camp for these poor souls, and reductionist political calculation must always trump nuance
As for Obama himself, the following is wrong, but at least reasonably stated:
I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead,” he said. “But, you know, that was their editorial judgment. And as I said, ultimately, it’s a cartoon, it’s not where the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about.
At least he gets, unlike legions of outrage-peddling pundits (who themselves have done more than anyone to propagate Obama Myths for the sake of ratings), that the object of the taunt is those who adhere to such misconceptions. And, thankfully, so does Katrina vanden Heuvel and, as usual the only intelligent news show on television, The Daily Show.
