A political discussion between Red State conservative Dave Simpson — a former reporter, editor, publisher and columnist — and Greg Bean, Blue Stater and executive editor of Greater Media Newspapers.
Dear Greg:
I have an admission to make, Old Pal. This may get me drummed out of the Red State Opinion Writers, Sandhogs and Storm Door Hangers International Union, but in the name of full disclosure, I must make a shocking revelation:
Red State Dave subscribes to the ultraliberal New Yorker magazine, and I have since way back in the last century, when I was in college.
This would be like hearing that Blue State Greg subscribes to Rush Limbaugh’s newsletter — a revelation I would welcome, because it would show that you’ve “grown in office” as an opinion writer. But, it would be anathema to your wild-eyed liberal posse. They’d storm your office.
I read The New Yorker because they publish nonfiction articles by great writers like John McPhee, one of my all-time favorites. (Did you know that Truman Capote’s “In Cold Blood” first appeared in serial form in The New Yorker?)
I also read the political stuff, but only to keep an eye on what your goofy side is up to. I like to keep tabs on how crazy the lunatic left is getting. And, I learned a long time ago not to expect New Yorker covers that reflect my Red State view of the world.
So, I’m loving every second of this flap over the Barack and Michelle Obama cover from the July 21 edition, titled “The Politics of Fear.” It shows Obama in Muslim attire, his wife toting an assault rifle, a picture of Osama bin Laden on the wall, and a flag burning in the fireplace, all in the Oval Office.
Your liberal pals are in high dudgeon over this magazine cover, Greg. Somehow, The New Yorker’s satire, which they understand so well when it is George Bush or John McCain getting skewered, has crossed a line, and most liberals are now dumping on The New Yorker. For once, it is the liberals who “just don’t get it” that their house organ magazine was actually satirizing hopeless Red State drones for fearing Obama. No, you can’t draw pictures like that, they say, because people might get the wrong idea. (The wrong idea is never a problem when a cartoon involves Republicans.)
This does not come as a surprise. It’s my experience that the vast majority of editors and reporters in this country are a lot more enthused about free speech that helps liberals than free speech that doesn’t help liberals, even if by accident.
If you don’t believe me, try being a conservative in any newsroom in this country. It’s a lonesome existence, pal. Take it from a guy who has been there: Conservatives are like two-headed toads in most newsrooms, the skunk at the garden party, or something sticky and disgusting on the bottom of your shoe.
The bad seed must be expelled as soon as possible.
So, it’s fun for this bad seed to see your liberal friends excoriating satire and freedom of speech when one of their own gets roughed up, even if by accident.
This longtime New Yorker subscriber is eating this stuff up with a big old spoon, Greg.
Yours truly,
Red State Dave
[email protected]
Dear Dave:
You know, old friend, even I am embarrassed and nearly (joking) speechless over some of the goofy stuff certain people on the liberal side of the aisle come up with. And this over-the-top reaction to a clearly satirical cover in the New Yorker is one of those times.
I remember a few years ago when a Danish newspaper published a bunch of cartoons featuring Mohammed, and those cartoons offended Muslims across the globe. In many places, they expressed their displeasure by rioting and demonstrating (more than 100 people eventually lost their lives) and making death threats against the cartoonists and the executives of the publications that printed the cartoons.
At that time, the deep thinkers among the liberals opined that those rioting Muslims just didn’t get the notion of a free press, and while they might be angry at the cartoons, they shouldn’t get angry enough to start making threats and killing people.
And I also agree that you sure didn’t hear those deep thinkers complaining at almost any time in the last eight years over the way George W. (Shrub) Bush has been treated by this nation’s editorial cartoonists. (Let me just note that Shrub’s treatment at their hands has been every bit as edgy as Barry Blitt’s cartoon in the New Yorker featuring the Obamas.)
So when Obama spokesman Bill Burton gets all puffed up and righteous, calling the cartoon tasteless and offensive, and all the serious men and women in the liberal think tanks start opining that while smart people might “get” the satire in the New Yorker’s cartoon, others might think it’s some kind of accurate representation, and even a number of Blitt’s fellow cartoonists like Daryl Cagle and Ted Rall chime in with their own snarky criticisms, I just have one thing to say:
“Please, in the name of all that’s holy, will you all just shut up!”
About the only voice of reason in this whole stupid argument was Barack Obama himself, who went on “Larry King” and said that he wasn’t that bothered by the cartoon because he has a thick skin and it was, after all, JUST A CARTOON.
“I know it was the New Yorker’s attempt at satire,” Obama said. “But you know what, it’s a cartoon, Larry, and that’s why we’ve got the First Amendment. And I think the American people are probably spending a little more time worrying about what’s happening with the banking system and the housing market, and what’s happening in Iraq and Afghanistan, than a cartoon.”
But even he couldn’t leave well enough alone. While the cartoon was no skin off his nose, he did say it was an indirect insult to Muslim Americans, because it might insult or raise suspicions about them, by raising suspicions about him.
Because, of course, he also apparently thinks most of the American public is too stupid to realize that the cartoon was not meant to be a realistic depiction of Barack Obama, or of Muslim Americans.
Now that attitude, my friend, is offensive.
Takin’ a chill pill,
Blue State Greg
[email protected]