What If . . .?

   One of my favorite "parlor games" from years gone by was "What if . . .?"  The rules of the game were the essence of simplicity: one person would pose a "What if . . .?" kind of question -- almost invariably historic -- then everyone would get a chance to give an answer and try convincing us that their case made the best sense.

   To this day, I often find myself playing "What if . . .?" in my own mind whenever stuck on an airplane or driving endless miles on some boring stretch of I-95.  Among my favorite historic "What ifs . . .?" are:

• What if Moses had led the Israelites to present-day Saudi Arabia instead of Israel?
• What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo?
• What if the South had won the Civil War?
• What if John Wilkes Booth's bullet had missed Abraham Lincoln?
• What if Hitler had won the Second World War? and
• What if the U.S. Supreme Court had decided in favor of Al Gore?

   Then too, there are the more trivial, less earth-shattering "What ifs . . .?"

• What if James Dean hadn't died at age 24?
• What if Sandy Koufax hadn't retired from baseball at age 30?
• What if Bill Gates had decided to stay in school?
• What if the remote control had never been invented?

   So where's all this headed?  

   Why to our three "What ifs . . .?" of the day: 

• What if the New Yorker had decided not to run Barry Blitt's satirical cartoon?
• What if, say, National Review had run a satirical cartoon on John McCain? and
• What if the American public wasn't afflicted with such overwhelming political A.D.D.?

     
   By now, seemingly everyone from Kansas to Khartoum has weighed in on what they think about Blitt's cartoon gracing the cover of this week's New Yorker.  "Is it satiric or is it libelous?" that is the question --  posed by literally tens of thousands of editorialists, talking heads and bloggers.  I for one am both upset and dispirited -- not so much by the cartoon or the question surrounding its propriety -- but by the haunting feeling that so very few will take the time to read Ryan Lizza's insightful article on Senator and Mrs. Obama that runs inside that New Yorker.  If they do, they will see that Blitt's cartoon is more come-on than commentary; a ham-handed way of getting people to buy this week's issue in the first place.  Viewed from that perspective, David Remnick, the New Yorker publisher, has succeeded beyond his wildest expectation; this week's issue is bound to sell like hotcakes. 

   My fear -- and the cause of my upset -- is that where the vast majority of folks will come to know the Blitt lampoon like the back of their hand, very few will have the sitzfleisch to read the accompanying article.  Increasingly we have become a society that scans rather than reads; that favors titillation over elucidation; that more often than not gets its information from those who entertain rather than from those who educate. Indeed, if the gap between the super-rich and the rest of us is vast; that which exists between the "plugged-in" and the "logged-off" is of chasmic proportions. 

   Those who do take the time to read Lizza's 14,550-plus word article will be treated to a fine piece of journalism. Lizza -- one of the first serious journalists to put the presidential bug in Obama's ear -- guides readers through the step-by-step political maze by which Obama progressed from community organizer to state senator, from to failed Congressional candidate, to United States Senator, and from primary aspirant to presidential nominee.  At each step along the path, we see both Obama's growth as a creature of politics as well as his undeniable ability to learn from his political mistakes.  In the end, the most important lesson Lizza teaches is, perhaps, that "Superheroes don't become president; politicians do."

   But back to the "What ifs . . .?"

   What if, say, the conservative National Review had run a "satiric" cover on John McCain?  What would it look like?  What would people be complaining about?  Well, the other day, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Pulitzer-prize winning political cartoonist David Horsey came up with one such example.  As you can see, it shows a wheel-chair bound McCain sitting next to wife Cindy, who is dumping pills out of a bottle into her husband's hand.  While Senator McCain hums "Bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" [sung to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara-Ann,"] Cindy says, "Here John, take some of my meds to get you through the inaugural parade!"  Where Blitt's cartoon has a painting of Osama bin Laden on the wall, Horsey's has Dick Cheney.  Where the Obama cartoon has an American flag burning in the fireplace, the McCain version has the Constitution going up in flames.  There are, to be certain a couple of key differences between the two cartoons.  Most obviously, Horsey's McCain caricature hasn't graced the cover of a national magazine, where Blitt's has.  Second, and more importantly, where the McCain cartoon lampoons things which are true -- i.e., Senator McCain is a senior citizen and did once sing "Bomb-bomb-bomb . . ." -- the Obama sketch satirizes untruths, distortions, and misconceptions. 

   So "What if . . ." the American public could get over what newscaster Rachael Maddow calls our collective "Political Attention Deficit Disorder?"  Well, first of all, it is highly likely that most of the "newscasters" on Fox and the talkmeisters on conservative radio would be out looking for new careers. Second, voters would begin demanding that both candidates and the media which covers them deal far more with issues, and far less with personalities.  And thirdly, we might finally, finally come to understand that like it or not, only political professionals win elections. If perfection is what we're looking for or demanding in our leaders, we will be far better off renting "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." 

   PS:  If great political satire is what you're after, might I recommend Jonathan Swift?

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

           



 

Comments

[REYNA GALLER]

so sorry tomiss Wed class, as I dont feel informed enough untl I GET YOUR TAKE ON THE CURRENT ELECTION PRE-STUFF---ITS SCARY---BE THERE THIS WED--AFTER THE FACT---BUT HOPEFULLY, THE RASCALS WILL BE QUIET FOR A WHILE---THANKS FOR THE REPORT--REYNA GALLER

[REYNA GALLER]

so sorry tomiss Wed class, as I dont feel informed enough untl I GET YOUR TAKE ON THE CURRENT ELECTION PRE-STUFF---ITS SCARY---BE THERE THIS WED--AFTER THE FACT---BUT HOPEFULLY, THE RASCALS WILL BE QUIET FOR A WHILE---THANKS FOR THE REPORT--REYNA GALLER

[Douglas Hall]

The number one google for 'New Yorker' is about this article. I read part of it before being kicked off of the computer. It was well-written and delivered a unique look at Obama's early political life. Your point that the McCain cartoon was based in reality while Obama's was based in bias is the main point. I hope all the commenatating on the 24-hour networks boils down to that. Somehow, I doubt it though.

When you log on to barack's web page you can see the amount of local events cerntering around him. From teas to speech-viewing parties to voter registration-drives. I certainly hope that this is a good sign. 200,000 American flag-waving germans can't hurt either.

[Michael Fein]

I keep hearing people, mostly white, claiming that Obama will not be elected because Americans will not vote for a black man, no matter what they may say publicly.

Well, call me naive, (it wouldn't be the first time) but I sincerely believe that the racial fears are being over-played by a lot.

Perhaps this would have been the case in past elections, but this year, with the Republican brand being in the cesspool, and McCain flubbing his campaign, along with the public's fear of the economy even more than terrorism, I believe Obama will be able to overcome the innate racism we believe exists. His current world tour is not hurting Obama much either these days, is it?

[Stan]

I know that you didn't really mean it when a couple of years ago you expressed confidence in the acumen of the American voters. I have long held to the belief that they
are increditably stupid. A couple of hours before I opened you blog I started
reading Rick Shenkman's book, "Just How Stupid Are We?". If you haven't already read it, let me suggest that you get a copy.

The public is as easily manipulated as sheep.
And, the simple fact is that the Republicans are better at it than are the Democrats. In the meantime, I sit here and stew. "What if" some of
the Obama voices started to point out the foibles and inconsistancies of Senator John McCain?

[martin]

...and what if the NY Times/CBS News poll which reported earlier this week that only 30% of whites trust Obama is reflected at the polls come November?