THE OBAMA NEW YORKER COVER. YES, THE NEW YORKER

OK.  What do we think about this?  I can tell you one thing.  It hurts to look at it, even though I guess I understand what the artist, Barry Blitt, says he was trying to do.  Rachel Sklar's Huffington Post interview with the magazine's gifted editor David Remnick explains further.

Obviously I wouldn't have run a cover just to get attention — I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's — both Obamas' — past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.

The free speech and marketplace of ideas concepts that I've treasured all my life clash with my reaction to all of this; I know that.  The Constitutional protection of freedom of speech exists to guarantee the right both to speak and to hear not only popular, but also unpopular ideas.  We don't need to protect the popular ones; it's the ideas that enrage people that need the protection.  And I'm all for that.

But for a responsible and respected publication like The New Yorker to abuse that freedom by offering such blatant stereotypes to make its point, particularly when the subjects are the first African American Presidential (Columbia and Harvard-educated) candidate and his (Princeton and Harvard-educated) wife, an accomplished attorney -- each of whose life trajectory suggests two stars who did everything expected of them to grow into exciting, productive citizens -- seems to me abusive and dangerous.  In an effort to make a point about the hate that's being distributed concerning these two, they're feeding it. 

It will be interesting to see how many right wing websites and publications make use of this image.  There's been plenty of reaction so far and most of it is far more sophisticated than I could dream of being.  I'm having too much trouble with my emotional, gut sense of right and wrong to be very thoughtful; this just feels wrong - perhaps even more so because of who printed it.   I've been a New Yorker groupie since I was a high school kid in Pittsburgh wishing I was in Greenwich Village living the life of Susie Rotolo.  Like this -  walking through the Village with Bob Dylan.   

So it's particularly disturbing to me that something so terribly offensive was pubished by this beloved icon.

The stereotypes don't fit the Obamas, obviously.  That's what the New Yorker is trying to demonstrate by feeding these stereotypes out there in such a naked way.   But even if they did, how many of us who ever cared about anything is willing to stand by every position we adopted in our younger days?

Congressman Bobby Rush was a Black Panther.  Now he's chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection,  serves on the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and is a co-chairman of the Congressional Biotech Caucus.  Isn't that what we want?  Growth.

Even if the Obama's were flamers back then (and I don't think they were, by a long shot), isn't the American way for young activists to rebel, maybe the wrong way, early in their lives then "grow up" to ultimately help to make change from inside?  Justice Hugo Black, one of the great justices of the 20th century, started out as a member of the Ku Klux Klan - then went on to be a staunch defender of civil liberties for all.  If we deny our future leaders the capacity to grow and question while they're young, we will end up with leaders who may be what we deserve, but not who we need, by a long shot.

I guess what I'm saying is that this effort to force Americans to confront political trash talk by offering up a visual representation of it all is, to me, a terrible mistake.  An image that casts a shadow over the remarkable symbolic gift of this landmark candidacy - an image that lingers like a scar.
 

Comments

[RNA]

So is something like this next for the New Yorker? I'm sure this magazine cover also sparked lively comments in Germany in 1943.

http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/images/lb/lb43-27.jpg

[Cynthia Samuels]

I get what you're saying Jen. It's just that the stereotypes are so strong and ugly that I fear it will provide a tool for the opposition rather than a caution to us all.
Thanks for the thoughts -- I hope you're right. See you in SF.

[Jen]

I don't know, I think that the violent reaction to this cover from people who fall all over the political spectrum shows the power of a naked image like this to expose the utter stupidity of these rumors about the Obamas. Maybe by bringing these lurking shadows out into the light where they can be exposed as ridiculous, this cover will do us all a great service.