Why, exactly, has The New Yorker been widely vilified for its cover depicting the Obamas as fist-bumping Muslim terrorists? Do people think the magazine actually wants to spread the idea that they are in fact terrorists? Don’t be ridiculous. The cover is obviously a sharp commentary on the terrifying power of even the most absurd lies, and as such makes a potent and valuable political point. It’s saying, Just look at the ridiculous lies circulating about the Obamas. Given how poorly informed many voters are, the lies they hear on places like Fox News can have a huge impact on an election. (Think Swift Boat, which probably did a lot to renew the lease on the Bush disaster.)
So why do even those who “get it” condemn The New Yorker? I can only assume that they are worried that “low-information” voters won’t get it. (This is the polite label for those too ignorant or biased or lazy to roam beyond the right-wing media lying machine.) This is pathetic. Do we really have to dumb everything down, to lower the level of all political discourse to fit the political sophistication of someone who would, to pick a random example, vote for someone as colossally incompetent and corrupt as little George W.?
In an op-ed in The Times on Wednesday, Timothy Egan, writing from Montana, said the furor boils down to this: “We get it, but what will those folks in fly-over country think?” But mainly they do get it, he said, and those who don’t, who believe the “sludge” on right-wing radio, will never vote for Obama anyway.
So I applaud the New Yorker for its cover. Amid this epidemic of low information, it’s refreshing – exhilarating even – to have a magazine daring enough to make a sharp, intelligent political point in the most in-your-face way.
Leave Your Comments