CSotD: Cartoons Call For Comments
Skip to comments
Given the tumult we’ve been going through since Inauguration Day, the flow of political cartoons has been steady but has ranged from nuanced to absurd, sometimes out of extreme views one way or the other, other times because of the complexity of subject matter.
It definitely makes me hope that, when GoComics unveils their new website next month, it will include the ability for readers to comment on political cartoons. It wouldn’t hurt to make it a subscribers-only feature and it would be good to have the “Flag” capability other publications have so that offensive comments can be noted for review.
But there’s no point in running political cartoons without commentary. It’s a component of reader engagement (i.e., it’s good business) but it also helps measure how much support a particular opinion has, which is an element of civic responsibility.
It also can be pure criticism, which helps focus things.
Focus is why we need the ability to comment on Phil Hands cartoon, which seems to be pointing out that Musk and his vandals are taking an ax to parts of the budget that are insignificant while ignoring the larger items.
However, they are obviously targeting Medicare and Medicaid as well as Social Security, so he may mean that that is where the cut should be. From my point of view — and YMMV — I agree that cuts to USAID and firing of civil servants is an insignificant way to bring down spending, but the implication that those larger targets are being ignored simply won’t fly.
I suspect that making the cartoon open to comments would begin a dialogue rather than attracting a lot of vitriol, because nobody favors waste, but how to cut matters.
Similarly, but from the other side of the aisle, Benson’s cartoon begs for interpretation and criticism, because most readers would agree that Zelenskyy is under a barrage of hostile accusations.
Those who read news in some depth might point out that he’s giving as well as he gets, though whether he can win in those exchanges is a judgment call. But others would point out that many of Benson’s word balloons are lies, including the amount of aid spent, accusations of embezzlement and the false claim of a 4% approval rating, while others are personal insults of no real significance.
The truth or relevance of accusations doesn’t necessarily affect how they impact the war politically, but given the importance of the Ukraine war on the rest of Europe and potentially on the world, it would be useful to have a conversation about honesty and where the line is drawn between opinion and propaganda.
Juxaposition of the Day
Here’s an example of the line between opinion and propaganda: It’s not hard to strike up an exchange over Summers’ cartoon on a couple of levels. One would be his accusation that Democratic administrations are particularly inefficient, while the other would be the implication that Trump’s own administration is a model of efficiency.
Opinions would fly back and forth, but the topic is so nebulous that it’s doubtful any minds would be changed. Still, it would force people to marshal their arguments and so, if they didn’t convince anyone else, they would at least have the experience of focusing their own thoughts.
That’s constructive opinion.
Varvel, on the other hand, ignores the fact that there was a fellow named Bush who fit in between those two past presidents, and who added more to the debt by percentage than they did, and more in raw numbers than Obama, while Donald Trump added more to the debt than Bush, Clinton or Biden, all three of whom had eight years to work with.
It’s easy to argue with Summers’ opinion, but tough to pin down details. No such problem with Varvel’s claim, which doesn’t stand up to the most basic examination.
Juxtaposition of the Day #2
It’s hard to argue with Allie’s cartoon, because his point is that he doesn’t like Hamas, which is an opinion he expresses without any explanation beyond some blood droplets. You can disagree, but he hasn’t provided anything material with which to argue.
Bok, by contrast, makes a pair of claims that offer plenty of fruit for discussion. It’s true that children were kidnapped in the Oct 7 raid, and some died. But it’s also true that thousands of Gazan children died in the bombings that followed, and at least one little girl was killed by IDF forces in a stalled car while pleading on the phone to be rescued.
You could argue that Hamas positioned itself in civilian areas, but the counter to that is, first of all, that asynchronistic war has worked that way for the past century and, second, that the IDF had the option of smaller, more precisely guided explosives or sending infantry to sensitive areas.
Either position could be taken, and, again, it’s likely few minds would be changed, but having it argued might bring focus to people’s thinking, though you’d have to search through a lot of illogical passion on both sides to locate useful arguments.
And then we come to Mike Beckom’s piece, which so racist, offensive and illogical that it isn’t appearing here, though you can find it on the GoComics site. His point is that he hates Muslims, accuses them of bestiality and considers Allah to be a false god.
No argument is possible, no comments can matter: Bigotry is irrational.
Cole offers a fertile ground for back-and-forth, beginning with the fact that, while the McCarthy Era is generally looked at as a low point, there remain plenty of people who think McCarthy was right, and they are probably among those who agree that DEI is a bad thing.
A lot of people who scream about communism and socialism couldn’t define either, and critics of DEI tend to be similarly unclear on what they’re so opposed to. The sponsors of a bill to outlaw DEI in state government reportedly want “a government that operates on fairness and equal opportunity, rather than ideological mandates.”
The question isn’t whether you can argue with them. The question is whether comments could educate them.
It’s worth making the effort.
Comments 13
Comments are closed.