Satire and the Fight Against Intellectualism

I read an article today in the Los Angeles Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-muslim.html) about the current cover of The New Yorker, which is apparently stirring up quite the controversy in America right now. The article included an image of the cover: an over-the-top satirical cartoon by Barry Blitt entitled “The Politics of Fear.” The cartoon shows Obama dressed in a vaguely Muslim looking dashiki and headdress (a nod to the pictures of Obama in traditional Kenyan costume, and to the misinterpretation of this costume as militant Muslim) and Michelle Obama dressed as a militant Blaxploitation character—fatigues, ‘fro, and firearm equipped. The pair are standing in what appears to be a mock-up of the Oval Office, except for the fact that there is a portrait of Osama bin Laden hanging above a fireplace containing a burning American flag. To add to the clichéd effect, Barack and Michelle are “fist-bumping,” which is of course playing into every white person’s stereotypical belief that all black people have a secret handshake of sorts, which white people themselves are excluded from. All in all, I found the image itself so over-the-top, and so rich with details perfectly encapsulating the ridiculous caricature of Obama in online smear campaigns, that I laughed out loud. However, it surprised me to read that Obama’s campaign does not share in the humor, and that their official position is one of offense (although Obama himself is wisely refraining from comment).
At first, I was completely shocked that the Obama campaign would take offense to something so obviously satirical and explicitly ridiculing the Obama-detractors who claim he is militant, Muslim, anti-Patriotic, and “too Black.” However, George pointed out to me that I have to keep in mind two things:
1.) Not every person who sees the cover will pay attention to the context, and without a caption making the satire explicit, the image is prone to exploitation by those it attempts to satirize.
And, perhaps more interestingly, 2.) Obama’s campaign is faced with the incredible task of making sure that Obama does not appear “too intellectual.” By taking a position against The New Yorker, Obama’s campaign avoids being characterized as pandering to the intellectuals who are the perceived readers and audience of the magazine.
The first point is the more obvious problem with the cartoon, and has sparked abounding discussion on the Internet about context and interpretation of political cartoons. A tricky balancing act, to be sure. However, the second point George made—about intellectualism—was far more thought-provoking for me. Ever since Obama’s unfortunate comments in San Francisco about embittered lower classes (unfortunate not in their content, but in their context and delivery), the Obama campaign has had to fight an uphill battle to ensure that Obama does not succumb to the conservative death knell for all liberals—that they are too intelligent and intellectual, and therefore, de facto, too far removed from the concerns of the Average American. As a Critical Theorist and Feminist, I agree that all politics and politicians should be firmly grounded in practice and real change. However, I find it terribly disconcerting that this practical requirement for politicians has somehow evolved into an absolute disdain for intelligence in the current political climate. Obama’s campaign was forced, in a way, to distance itself from The New Yorker’s satire, for fear that even acknowledging the joke would make them seem too smart. What?! Shouldn’t we expect our leaders to be intelligent, thoughtful, and discerning? Aren’t these qualities preconditions for leading in a democratic society? Yes, we want our politicians to listen and respond to the concerns of average Americans, but why does that preclude intelligence? I find it condescending and insulting that “the average American” is characterized as so uneducated as to be anti-education. I was the first member of my family to receive a secondary education, but my parents and grandparents are far from blissful ignorance or disdain for intelligence. Further, most of the pundits who make these claims about “over-intellectualism” and Ivory Towers, are themselves highly educated people from prosperous families: so why do they understand the “average American” any better than Obama or any other educated person? Personally, I think it is a clever ploy to pit Americans against themselves—if people are told that intellect and critical thinking are anti-political and defeat the best interests of the “heartland,” than they, too, will avoid employing their own critical thinking skills (which, although honed by education, are not dependent upon a secondary degree). Without critical thinking, the American voter must resort to accepting punditry at face-value. So, the pundits themselves are the ones who benefit the most from anti-intellectualism. This perspective, however, is much more uplifting than simply thinking that all Americans are idiots, and therefore just don’t want an educated or intelligent leader. In the interest of optimism, I wax cynical.