New Haven Register (New Haven, CT)
Political cartoon debate catches fire
I just finished choosing the editorial cartoon for Friday (one of the fun parts of my job) — it’s on the Opinion page a little farther back in the paper. And, yes, it’s about President Trump again.
This week three of the other five cartoons have been about Trump — his budget, his faux national emergency, his recent tweet barrage from the White House (50 on the weekend! Isn’t there anything else the President of the United States has to do?) The other two cartoons this week poked fun at Democrats’ penchant for investigations and Beto O’Rourke’s animated arm gestures.
Usually, considering balance, I would look for a non-Trump ’toon, but his actions are so outrageous that they beg for parody, and commentary. On Wednesday when he was talking to a military audience at a tank plant in Lima, Ohio, Trump went off script and after Sen. John McCain — who’s been dead since August. Trump charged that the former prisoner of war “didn’t get the job done for our great vets” and whined that he gave McCain “the funeral he wanted, and I didn’t get ‘thank you.’ ”
The speech that was supposed to be about manufacturing jobs.
The sheer pointless obsession and appalling bad taste cannot be ignored.
The political cartoon choice for Friday came down to two versions of the Trump vs McCain topic. (You can see the choices online with this column. Which would you have selected?)
While a decent amount of thought always goes into selecting the cartoon for the next day — Is it timely? Is the message clear? Is it sharply humorous? — I have to admit I’ve been more deliberative lately since hearing from readers.
You may recall that my column last week was about reaction to the cartoon I had chosen the day after the Academy Awards that poked fun at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. It linked the Oscars to the Green New Deal she cosponsored.
To recap briefly: Six women from Greenwich were so outraged by the political cartoon that they wrote a Letter to the Editor, which we published, outlining why they found it racist and sexist. Their perspective made me think; I emailed each of them and met with one, Laura Kostin.
In the column, I explained why I didn’t think the cartoon was blatantly racist, but agreed it was sexist.
The response from readers was prodigious. Truly, in the many years I’ve been writing columns this one drew the most emails, close to 20. The intersection of racism, sexism, political correctness and editorial cartoons touched a nerve.
The debate, more disagreeing than agreeing, is too rich to leave in my email basket. The dialogue should be shared, and continued. Here are snippets from some of them.
How we see things
“I read with some amusement and some concern, that you felt it necessary to be re-educated by the tribe from Greenwich. If I demanded that you meet with me every time I felt angry, hurt, or just plain ticked off while reading the politics of The Stamford Advocate, you’d be having a meal with me 7 days a week, 365 days a year . ... By appeasing the tribe, instead of telling them the virtues of a free press, you now have created a bigger mess,” Pamela McFeely wrote. (Laura had called her group a tribe; they didn’t demand to meet, it was my idea.)
“Did you ask Ms. Kostin if she and her friends would have written the letter if the subject of the cartoon had been Kellyanne Conway or Betsy DeVos or Ivanka Trump or even Melania Trump?” Ben Proto asked. Good question; no, I didn’t ask that.
“Am I to understand that some DEMOCRAT women are upset because a political cartoonist took a logical shot at a political figure, who has labeled herself ‘the boss’ (a reference to her self-assessment that she is the most important politician on the scene at the moment)... Like President Trump, she has made many illogical statements and she is certainly one of the most quoted/viewed politicians on the current scene. She is fair game,” wrote Paul Stuken of the Stamford area.
“When I saw the cartoon, I understood that it was about her. I laughed. And I sighed at the same time. I didn’t think that the cartoon was demeaning to me or to any other woman or to all women. Or to all people of color... To give cover by virtue of group status is what’s truly demeaning, particularly to those who have fought so hard to be seen as individuals rather than poor, fragile members of a group that needs to be protected. I’ve always thought the goal of feminism was to stand on our own, strong and independent, to be seen and appreciated for our own accomplishments. We can’t have it both ways,” wrote Janice Moy of the Danbury area.
“All the cartoon was doing was poking fun at her youthful naïveté. And, because she was the coauthor of ‘The Green Deal,’ it was also suggesting that she was positively biased toward anything ‘green.’ To call this racist would render virtually all satire, political cartooning, and most species of humor, racist and wrong,” wrote Andy Greenfield of the Norwalk area.
“Are we as a society no longer going to be able to poke fun at someone because she is female? A person of color? Inexperienced at politics (as opposed to ‘ignorant or stupid’)? I fear that this would signal the end of comedy. Unless of course we are making fun of white males. Certainly your papers have published many cartoons depicting President Trump unfavorably. Why is doing that to AOC any different? I hope for comedy’s sake you will continue to choose a balance of all cartoons that are witty and relevant to the news of the day. AOC will be a fountain of fodder for comedians and cartoonists for years to come. Just like Trump,” wrote Keith Coley of Trumbull.
“Like Trump, she’s a cartoonist’s dream and brings it on herself. You need not make fun of her, just merely quote her. I read them for what they are. If one doesn’t have a sense of humor change the page... Sorry Jacqueline, but every cartoon can be seen as demeaning to who ever is offended by it. That’s just the way it is. It served one of its purposes. Stay the course,” wrote John O’Leary of Stratford.
“If this represents an example of an editorial cartoon that is too potentially offensive to be published, then it’s probably time for all editorial cartoonists to put away their pens and start looking for other work. The field would be, for all practical purposes, dead,” wrote Mike Morris, a New Haven area reader who describes himself as “a lifelong political liberal, and of mixed-race heritage.”
To Mike and the others, I assure you we will continue to bring you editorial cartoons with wit and zing. They are a form of commentary that needs free rein, particularly when poking government and elected officials. Sometimes, they will offend. However, we will try to not cross the line of perpetuating stereotypes of gender, race or religion.
I’d like for the lingering thought on the cartoon debate to be from Harriet Liss of Stratford.
“The paragraph that begins: ‘We each come from the perspectives of our upbringing’ is one I plan to save and share (especially with my grandchildren). Until now the best way I have explained our differences when viewing the same event or material has been to talk about the color aquamarine: Some will adamantly describe it as blue, others will insist it is green and, the sad part is, each cannot understand how the other could NOT see it the same way. This has never been more true than it is today.”