Cartoonist Michael Ramirez is a progressive’s worst nightmare.
In addition to a tightly focused conservative world view, his acid-dipped pen produces work that is simultaneously insightful and somewhat insulting. Like this one:
This appeared in the Washington Post, for which the two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner draws twice a week, along with other outlets.
After publishing it, the Post took it down, responding to some complaints that it was “racist.”
I see it as accurate, and condemning Hamas, but racist?
OK — I can see some argument in that Ramirez portrayed an actual Hamas spokesman in an unflattering light. The subject is portrayed with an exaggerated nose and other distorted features.
He did the same recently to Rashid Tlaib, a member of the Hamas Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Not very flattering, I will admit. But Tlaib starts out looking like the south end of a northbound horse.
So I am biased against loudmouth Leftist women?
Nope, the squirrelly socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is quite dishy. Her opinions don’t change her appearance.
So maybe it is Ramirez who is the bigot?
Nope. He is a patriot. Yet, this is how he depicted the Statue of Liberty:
Not that attractive, with that exaggerated, unflattering nose.
Because, as the first word I used on the post, he is a cartoonist, which gives him some latitude.
This is how Ramirez draws former President Barack Obama,
Racist? I don’t think so.
So he just is insulting with his art toward terrorists and Democrats?
Check out Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, next to President Joe Biden:
Not to mention Russian dictator President Vladimir Putin, and one of his generals.
So you can see what Ramirez’s style is.
Not flattering, but not racist, either.
As a private business, the Post was free to change its mind and take down the cartoon. It issued some statement talking about the cartoon lacking inclusiveness.
The problem is that cartoons are no more supposed to be inclusive than this column. Ramirez expresses a singular point of view.
Cartoons are not supposed to be inclusive, Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Signe Wilkinson told me. “It’s supposed to be what you believe in.”
Some people get it.
On his Saturday CNN show, Michael Smerconish did a segment on this issue, and polled his Left-leaning audience. An overwhelming 80%+ felt the Post was wrong to delete the cartoon.
As did Signe. A better response, she said, is to post more cartoons representing more points of view.
That’s the way free speech is supposed to work: Addition, not subtraction.
Editorial cartoons have always been, and continue to be, just representations of a point of view. Drawn in a comical sense, or at least one to make you think, and hopefully recognize that, as in all things, there are two sides to every story. For those who don’t have the time to read a complete op-ed, they might be the only thing they can turn to. I agree with you on this one.
I’ve always been a fan of Tony Auth, I got it, sometimes I thought about it, but I don’t take any political cartoon to heart.
I have always seen cartoons and caricatures as a way to make your view funny. It’s sad that some feel it is racist, but they are also probably the ones who are in the streets chanting River to the Sea and Free Gaza. I would love to see the faces of dissent when an outlet doesn’t back down. Alas, I won’t see that in my lifetime again.
As with any opinion, you can choose to agree with it or not agree with it. It is, after all, simply an opinion. I have no problem with anyone expressing an opinion. I have a big problem, however, with people who insist upon having their own facts. There is only one truth, and it has nothing to do with your opinion. There are a lot of people out there who unfortunately do not know how to tell one from the other.
👌
Auth used to piss me off consistently. He was doing his job. Ditto with Ramierez. The Post was a pussy to remove the cartoon.