Now, political humor in comics is nothing new. As I recall, the very first instances of what we might recognize as word balloons were created for a political cartoon. And, of course, editorial cartoons frequently point out some of the absurdities of politics, to the point where several cartoonists have had very real death threats on their lives because their caricatures were published in the "wrong" country. About once every four years any more, there's usually a handful of semi-obligatory discussions with then-prominent cartoonists about capturing and exaggerating the likenesses of the day's politicians.
But what's interesting about political comics is that there's an inherent ideology behind many, if not most, of them. Take a non-political strip like Calvin & Hobbes or Garfield or Peanuts. Yes, those strips absolutely reflect the views and interests of the creators, and their humorousness is (like all humorousness) subjective. But they're also not reinforcing the beliefs of a specific group. (Sure, there's been some argument that Charles Schulz was promoting a decidedly Christian world-view, and I can see that in some strips, but his humor was largely not religiously allegorical.)
On the other hand, you can take a Doonsebury or a Slowpoke and the creators take a pretty decisive political stand on any number of issues. Gary Trudeau regularly points out the awfulness of Trump, and Jen Sorenson is usually even more pointed with what a shitstain he is. (Although I don't believe she's actually used the word "shitstain" yet.) And in both cases, I chuckle to myself because they both are promoting an ideology similar to my own by poking fun at those with opposing ideologies. When you really boil it down, even the forward-thinking, generally more high-brow approach Trudeau takes is essentially just a means of validation for my own beliefs.
"Ha ha! He's so stupid because he has different opinion and that makes me a better person!"
Not all political comics are quite so blatant about it, of course, but that's the basic message a lot of them carry. There's no idealogical validation in Frazz or Bob the Squirrel because the characters are fictional, and the only ideology they represent (largely) is the one imposed on them by the reader. By taking the leap into politics through political caricature, the creator is obliged to bring with him/her the ideology -- or at least an approximation of the ideology -- of the person(s) they're caricaturing. A drawing of Kamala Harris or J.D. Vance will inherently be imbued with some aspects of the character because they're already public figures with much of their character known and disseminated via news outlets. That includes their ideology.
But here's the thing: even knowing that, I was still struck by some decidedly right-wing comics of Carl Moore's (now-defunct) State of the Union.
"That's not funny! He's citing specific criteria that doesn't begin to represent Barack Obama accurately!" Well, of course not! Because Moore was trying to do the exact same thing from an opposing ideology. He's validating the beliefs of people other than myself. It still took me a minute to calm down after my initial reaction. It's not a comic for me because I'm not the audience he's aiming for; he's attacking many of my ideological beliefs for the benefit of people who disagree with me. He's validating their beliefs just as Gary Trudeau validates mine. People of all stripes try to knock down their opponents, whether or not the candidates themselves agree with them. That comes out on talk shows, blogs, op. ed. pieces, and comics. However, while everyone is entitled to their own opinion, if that opinion includes de-humanizing other people... if that opinion includes dismissing an entire class of people because of their race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, disability... if that opinion includes actively trying to make their lives worse or even entirely forfeit... if that opinion includes doing any of that while denying you're doing so or, worse, claiming that you're doing it for the betterment of your in-group... You can fuck right the fuck off! Even the most openly right-wing cartoonist* -- Bruce Tinsley of Mallard Fillmore -- has pulled back on the political messages of his cartoons, realizing how corrupt and downright cruelty-is-the-point evil his historical political party has become.
My point is that, if you find a cartoon that suggests more taxes should be spent on roads as compared to the electrical grid, you can have a civil disagreement about that, but don't lambast the cartoonist over it. That's a difference of opinion. Save it for the assholes who say immigrants are all rapists and murderers who eat puppies. (Damn, I wish I was just exaggerating for effect in that last sentence!)
* While some may claim Scott Adams and Ben Garrison also fall into the right-wing cartoonist camp, I would argue that Adams is no longer a cartoonist since Dilbert got axed, and Garrison... well, he draws pictures but I wouldn't call him a cartoonist. Cartoonists poke fun at political figures and situations using illustrations, and rely on visual analogies and iconography to get their points across. Their job is to know (and thus be able to draw) symbols. That is the very heart of their job. To convey ideas to readers using symbols. And Garrison has repeatedly shown that he is phenomenally inept at drawing symbols, sometimes getting them so wrong that his cartoons wind up making a point that is 180° opposite to what he intends. So I would not consider Garrison a cartoonist at all. Just a racist asshole who draws racist images.
0 comments:
Post a Comment