<p>At least some of this rings true to me. If you can get past Kamiya’s pretensions, there is a good beat of light to heat in his critique of the left’s fear of failure…and humor.</p>
<p>Religion and revolution are typically humorless.</p>
<p>Should we add politics?</p>
<p>In Iran, when Khomeini died, people were forbidden to laugh in public for what was deemed a respectable amount of time–months. </p>
<p>Can we laugh when the left is being satirized by the left?
I ask sincerely.
.</p>
<p>As I repeated ad nauseum in the other thread–the point to me is not that the left is “satirizing the left” but that the New Yorker claims it is *not *satirizing Obama, but his critics. In doing so, they completely overlook the fact (which any idiot could foresee) that the cartoon would be greeted with glee by his critics, which it has been, and dismay by his supporters, who could see how it could be used. So, their purported goal failed miserably.</p>
<p>If the NY decided they were going to satirize Obama, then fine, their choice. But this disengenuous pretense that he *wasn’t *the one attacked and should not feel so, well, it makes me question their judgment and frankly smacks of “truthiness.”</p>
<p>The left’s rising fear they might lose this “cinch” election is palpable in all the outrage over a cartoon in a very liberal magazine. Rule #1 is don’t let them see you sweat. The Left is sweating like Albert Brooks in "Broadcast News.</p>
<p>Garland, political magazines such as National Review on the right and New Republic on the left run these kinds of cartoon covers all the time. They spoof their critics by exaggerating their claims in a humorous way. Check out some past issues and you will see that not all the spoofing is directed at their ideological opponents. The subject of this New Yorker satirical cartoon, however, is untouchable in many circles. That’s the point, in my view. </p>
<p>Woodwork, your post is quite interesting. The right has always had a better sense of humor than the left.</p>
<p>One year ago, the country was facing the inevitability of having another Clinton in the White House. Hillary’s victory was also a cinch. Overconfidence sinks candidates … just ask George Bush the Elder! </p>
<p>A bit of fear might be the best weapon Obama. Of course, seeing his double digit lead in the polls vanish in the middle of the summer is not exactly great news, especially when considering how well democrats usually do in the summer before the election. Heck, wasn’t Flip Floppity Kerry also a cinch?</p>
<p>PS The NY might have sent a reporter to Denmark to study the impact of satitical cartoons.</p>
And it seems this has always been the case:
As far back as Socrates and ‘more recently’ Jonathan Swift. </p>
<p>One of the things about Bill Buckley that delighted even many liberals was the ironic twinkle in his eye and the sense that all will be well in this country; even knowing one day one side will be more or less right and the other wrong. Even if he was wrong.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the nature of modern liberalism --say, French Revolution on-- has been to have a “political-unto-death worldview” in the words of the Salon author above. Don’t give an inch.</p>
<p>Perhaps, too often, progressives and liberals assume the stakes are just too high to be lighthearted or trifling. It feels as if the liberal zeitgeist of our current political season is:</p>
This is not particularly relevant, but I went to Rutgers with Mike Sweeney years ago. He was a very funny stand out in a creative writing class almost 30 years ago.</p>
<p>SS–I’m not sure what you’re saying here:
"They spoof their critics by exaggerating their claims in a humorous way. Check out some past issues and you will see that not all the spoofing is directed at their ideological opponents. "</p>
<p>The first sentence seems to suggest one thing, the second the opposite. I maintain that I, personally, do not find Obama untouchable. And if the NY cover was really carrying out its intent, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because *they *claim are *not *attempting to “touch” him.</p>
<p>The whole discussion of who has a sense of humor is fairly cute, but really, who has said you can’t attack Obama? Here, or anywhere?</p>
<p>And Woodwork, Swift could call himself a Tory all he wanted, but “A Modest Proposal” was a railing against the established government, hardly a right wing position–it went against the folks he claimed to identify with. I’m not sure that Socrates “question authority” demeanor was particularly so, either. but sure, have them, if it makes you smile a little.</p>
<p>NR & NR often mock their ideological opponents by publishing spoofs of their more outlandish claims/beliefs. The spoof is directed at thier OWN position, but if the satire is clever enough, the foolishness of their opponent is exposed.</p>
<p>Railing against tyranny is the quintesential right wing position. That’s why we love Swift. But we’re straying off topic now…</p>
<p>Not about such a precious and fragile orchid who will send Jesse, Jr. and Donna Brazille over to CNN to call you a racist. It’s an amazingly effective strategy to turn liberal white guilt into a teflon coating.</p>
<p>I believe Socrates is what we would call these days a gadfly, even a reactionary, but certainly not a progressive or revolutionary. Certainly not politically correct. The kicker: Socrates found the rabble of democratic politics insulting, dumb and dangerous; an elitist with no love of Democrats, nor they for him. </p>
<p>Eventually the Pharisees/Professors/party-bosses of his day killed him for publicly opposing the hot political fashions of the day.</p>
<p>I’d say the old curmudgeon has more in common with Ben Stein, or even Mark Steyn, then Keith Oberman or Phil Donahue --as politics goes; even a Rush Limbaugh would draw a better comparison if only Rush Limbaugh’s loyal audience was a bunch of rich elitists with too much time on their hands rather than, as it is, the opposite. This is also why I believe “Liberal Talk Radio” will always fail: humor.</p>
<p>Socrates would have disapproved --I’ve no doubt-- the populist impulse in Rush Limbaugh and some other conservatives of the day, but he would have found the populist boilerplate of today’s left utterly revolting. </p>
<p>As for Swift – of course Alexander Solzhenitsyn opposed the powers that be as well, and I do not think anyone would confuse him for a progressive liberal. Swift: same game. </p>
<p>Swift and Solzhenitsyn were anything but politically correct with an all-too-quick quip to offend just about everyone and anyone at any time. </p>
<p>Of course there are a number of liberals with a grand sense of humor; though I believe their humor is almost exclusively directed at diminishing and pointing out the foibles of their arch-nemesis’; not their hard-at-it fellow travelers: Because that’s where the real work needs to get done. The world has to change!</p>
<p>In short, nothing should be out of bounds with either Obama or McCain.
No matter their age or race. A classical liberal would know that; a modern liberal, perhaps not so much.</p>
<p>The distortions of political correctness (which started out as just plain good manners–you don’t use the n-word, for instance), are egregious but have nothing to do with any meaningful left right definitions. But they serve as stand-ins for empty iterations–such as Socrates or Swift must be rightwing cuz they aren’t PC. Well, neither are John Stewart, Bill Maher, Steven Colbert, Al Franken, Lewis Black, Eddie Izzard, or really, any of my favorite comedians. There are left wing and right wing curmudgeons–the official CC one would, I’m pretty sure, fall into the leftish camp :).</p>
<p>I do not believe that any of these historical gadflies were necessarily right or left wing in any way that we could understand or draw direct parallels to today. Although, in the case of Socrates/Plato we could certainly say he would not approve of populism of any sort: left or right. </p>
<p>Our comedians today live off of the fruits of populism. Even the funny ones. Note their take on making funny on Senator Obama in the NYT article linked above: Can’t do it.</p>
<p>What I am saying, is that there is what I would call an orthodoxy-of-behavior to the modern left that prevents it from lightning-up and making funny; laughing it off; allowing no-holes-barred barbs and insults. It was what was once called thin-skinned.</p>
<p>I believe that many have allowed their cause to supplant their otherwise naturally acquired knack for wry looks and satiric glances; as here, with the latest New Yorker brouhaha and with the cautious comments of the late-night comedians regarding the most important public-persona of our time: Senator Obama.</p>
<p>I can only speak for myself, and I have said enough times here that my problem with the NY cover had nothing to do with whether Obama can/should be satirized or not–if the argument didn’t get conveyed before, it ain’t going to again.</p>
<p>But again, there’s nothing orthodox or PC about the bunch I listed–you’ll hear them differently, of course.</p>
<p>Then, how about you or anyone else laying this issue to rest by reiterating the best Obama jokes you’ve heard, out of the bunch you listed or others from the Left.</p>
<p>As you know, we could drop a truck load of media-funny on McCain from the same crowd. Even on Hillary, but I don’t recall any gut-busters over Senator Obama. Colbert, perhaps, but like the New Yorker satire his angst-n-humor is really directed at the right, not the left. </p>
<p>And as you say, you may not have been offended by the satiric cover of the New Yorker …but the left as a whole went nearly apoplectic. Still are.</p>
<p>I would link to numerous instances of the phenomenon but for the cc ban on linking to blogs. The New Yorker inadvertently tested the point. The Left came up short on this one.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>Coulter is better compared to Oberman, another commentator, not a comedian. Don’t know about you but his hillarious witticisms don’t get me reaching for the tissue.
.</p>
<p>Your point is not quite clear to me. Im sorry for that. </p>
<p>But on the face of it, it seems that what you are doing as a liberal is limiting the discussion of conservative political humor to the incendiary writing of Ann Coulter; but that would be no different than a conservative believing Randi Rhodes --of Air America, (Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro are f<em>//</em>^ Wh0res)-- was the sum total of the lefts polemic, wit and satire.</p>
<p>The thought never crossed my mind that Randi Rhodes --a big supporter of Senator Obama-- represented either the sum total and mainstream of Liberal political humor or the sentiments of Senator Obama.</p>
<p>So all that aside, whats the best Obama joke you have heard?</p>