Blue Collar Muse

I’ve been privileged to meet some interesting people recently. One new colleague in particular stands out. I met Asma Hasan at SamSphere Denver this April. She’s a talented writer, great conversationalist and very, very bright. She is also a passionate, articulate and intelligent defender of her Muslim faith. She has authored two books; American Muslims: The New Generation in 2000 and 2005’s Why I am a Muslim. She currently writes a weekly post for ‘Glamocracy’, Glamour Magazine’s blog coverage of the presidential election.

I read each week and find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with Asma’s insight and analysis of the topics she chooses. This week is a disagree week. This week’s post is titled ‘Sticks and Stones - and Cartoons’ and addresses the recent New Yorker cartoon cover of the Obamas. Asma thinks the cartoon chosen for the cover falls

… far short of the editors’ stated goal of satire. According to the editors (and to paraphrase them), they chose to highlight the smears against Obama to show how absurd they are. …

I don’t accept that explanation as I feel that the cartoon could only be the product of Islamophobia, or racism against Muslims and Islam.

The article the cover promotes is a pro Obama article. The cover and story depict, not what the New Yorker thinks of Obama, but what the magazine thinks Obama’s critics think of Obama. As such, it exactly achieves the goal of satire. Dictionary.com defines “Satire” as “Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.” While inaccurate in its premise, that is exactly what the New Yorker is attempting.

Nor is the cartoon a product of “… Islamophobia or racism against Muslims and Islam” as Asma believes. The value lampooned by the cartoonist is that Obama’s critics incorrectly think him an Islamic terrorist. Islamic terrorists are bad and so incorrectly thinking Obama is one is also bad. That false depiction of Obama’s detractors masks the truth that rejecting those choosing terror over talking is a position shared by many Muslims. The cartoon’s rejection of Islamic terrorism does not make the piece anti-Muslim any more than criticizing Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church makes one anti-Christian. Rejecting a hate group doesn’t require me to reject everyone sharing a trait with their members. I can reject the Klan without hating all whites. I can reject The Nation of Islam without hating all blacks. And I can reject Islamic terrorists without hating all Muslims.

Asma is right about one thing. There is prejudice at the New Yorker. It’s just directed at those opposing Obama’s bid to be President. There are a host of real issues on which opposition to Obama is based. They are debated in the marketplace of ideas daily. Obama on Taxes, Obama on Energy, Obama on GWOT, Obama on Immigration, Obama on the size of Government and on and on. None of these were the basis for the New Yorker’s treatment of Obama’s detractors. The only point the magazine wants to leave in your mind is “The Right thinks Obama is a Terrorist!” That’s a lot more anti-Right Wing than it is anti-Muslim.

The New Yorker does a further disservice. It detracts from, and makes more difficult, legitimate discussion of issues related to Islamic extremists and Obama. We must be able to question Obama’s intentions to cozy up to radicals like Syria’s Assad without having the conversation hijacked by charges of racism. We need to be able to discuss how Muslim extremists view Obama without fearing demonization. If Obama becomes President there are things we need to know. What do Islamic terrorists think of his repudiation of his Muslim heritage? Does that make him an apostate to them? How do they treat apostates?

Hatred exists for every group - black, brown and white; Christian, Jew and Muslim; Democrat, Republican and Independent. It is to America’s shame that it is so. To our credit, it is less present in our society with each passing day. Most Americans reject the myriad -isms used to divide us. But they won’t go away until humanity goes away. The capacity for self deception and hatred is rooted in the fallen nature of man. There will always be those who won’t work to determine what should be opposed and what should not and what accounts for the difference between the two. Too bad the New Yorker isn’t helping.

I think Asma’s missed it in the case of the New Yorker cartoon. And that’s all I mean. She’s just wrong on this one. I believe she still “gets it”, nonetheless. I’ll keep reading her stuff and learning from her. I’ll keep respecting her political and religious views, even when we disagree. She’s not a terrorist and I’m not anti-Muslim. We’re friends, we’re colleagues, we’re Americans. That’s a change from the New Yorker’s opinions and from the views of most on the Left - but it’s change I can believe in.

Blue

Popularity: 30% [?]

Few things seem better or sweeter than those times when we are able to have two things that ought to be mutually exclusive. Such moments are rare and to be savored. In my life, such moments were not the product of planning but of serendipity. Now and then, we realize that we are on the cusp of such a moment and spend time breathlessly waiting to see if the magic will happen; if the lightning will strike.

Usually, however, when confronted with such moments, we spend our time fending off the jests of family, friends and detractors who materialize around such moments to ask the age old question, “What? Did you think you could have your cake and eat it, too?” Barack Obama, despite his elevation to near infallibility by his supporters, is having one of those deflating moments.

As candidates do, Obama has sent family and friends out into the fray to fight on his behalf. Having people close to him in person take up his cause in public must certainly be gratifying and Obama has been grateful and gracious in alluding to their service and help. When these surrogates do well it gives the candidate an extra fist in the fight. As such, office seekers hope to find members of their family and entourage who are articulate, witty and who can stay on message as well as deliver the carefully planned zinger or policy point. But what happens when these surrogates don’t do so well?

As most candidate’s wives do, Michelle Obama has stumped for her husband. It’s important for her to do so. Not only does she want to be part of her husband’s world, which includes his campaign, but if she doesn’t believe in him, why should we? When the attractive, successful and educated Mrs. Obama does well, the obvious points are made and touted. “What a First Lady she would make!” “She reminds one of Jackie Kennedy, beautiful and the wonderful mother!”

But it’s what happens when this same attractive, successful and educated woman does poorly that is interesting. The woman who sat on corporate boards and stumps for a presidential candidate and who echoes her husband’s call for change and tolerance is the same woman who has publicly said she wants to scratch Bill Clinton’s eyes out and that she only recently found something to be proud of in her country as an adult. These were not comments made by a low level staffer or a radio talk show host introducing a candidate. These were words from someone the candidate himself described as “the rock of the Obama clan”.

Michelle Obama was not speaking out of school. She was speaking with the full knowledge and permission of the Obama for President campaign. As such, her words are inextricably tied to the candidate and are fair game for use by friend and foe alike. Which is why I find Barack Obama’s outrage at a Tennessee GOP video to ring false. In the Washington Times article, Obama says,

“The GOP, should I be the nominee, can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” the senator said. “If they think that they’re going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful because that I find unacceptable, the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family.”

Excuse me? It is not the GOP that turned Michelle Obama into a target. It was Obama himself. He is the one who sent or permitted her to be sent in his name out into the political arena to bear his standard. If, for whatever reason, she does a poor job of standard bearing, how is that the fault of the opposition? The Tennessee GOP put up a 4 minute video contrasting recent remarks by Mrs. Obama and everyday Tennesseans in advance of Mrs. Obama’s recent visit to Tennessee. Based on Obama’s response, one would have thought the Tennessee GOP had called her vile names or impugned her character or questioned her virtue. All they did was report her actual words.

Barack Obama sent his wife out to maximize his presence. He was hoping to be in two places at once. He was hoping to double his TV time, double his exposure and double his arsenal. He wanted to have his cake and now he wants to eat it, too.

Obama was the one attacking; floating the notion that there was precious little to be proud of in this country before he arrived on the scene. He was hoping to both score points and have deniability in that it wasn’t really him who made the point. He failed. Whining about it and tossing around thinly veiled threats in response to a problem of his own making only serves to make him look naive and pouty.

This is the big leagues. Obama needs to bring his “A” game. He needs to go big or go home. He can start by making sure that those he sends out to front for him are on the message he wants to convey and by taking responsibility for them even when they aren’t. If he doesn’t want his wife’s comments to be used against his campaign, he should keep her off the stump. Where this goes from here is his call, not anyone elses and certainly not the Tennessee GOP.

Blue Collar Muse

See also:

Hey Girlie Man! Come Get You Some for the discussion over at RedState.

The Audacity of Nope at Glamour Magazine online.

Popularity: 81% [?]