Against All Flags

Top honors today go to Clay Bennett, for his depiction of the entire world accepting and preparing for a crisis, and one foolish, solitary figure stubbornly heading the opposite direction.

Bennett's chief weapon is his deadpan delivery. He rarely adds a wink, and here there might have been a temptation to have at least one animal looking over its shoulder in puzzlement or criticism.

Less is more, however, and Bennett's depiction, in which the only overt statement is in the angry, stubborn expression on Trump's face, does far more to set the reader's mind in motion.

To invoke another axiom, he shows rather than telling. And whether that's a rule or a cliche, it's true.

As it happens, the 13-year-old I sent to the "Wonder Woman" preview noted in her review that, while she liked the movie,

... the film was overly expositional, which added to its runtime of 2 hours 21 minutes, but this mostly served to make the movie enjoyable even for those not especially familiar with the character of Wonder Woman or with the DC extended universe. For die hard fans though, this exposition and narration could be annoying, and it did detract from my enjoyment of the film. 

Political cartoonists must also balance playing to the faithful while attempting to welcome and persuade a new crowd.

Towards that end, it's often advisable to tip the reader but Bennett uses such spare, clear images that he gets a pass.

In this case, there can be no mistaking that line of two-by-two animals. We know who they are, we know why they have gathered, we know where they're going and we know what happens next.

If you don't get it, well, here's one more wise saying: A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse.

On the other hand, Marian Kamensky has a more specific and complex message in mind, which he expresses in direct terms. Two things justify the decisions he has made: 

The most important is that, direct as the piece is, he leaves plenty of space for the reader's mind to build beyond the cartoon itself. The European is annoyed by the smoke, but Kamensky lets you figure out the details of that response.

The other justification is that, if you look at his other work, you'll see that he can be quietly metaphorical when he chooses to be, and more direct, as here, when that's how he wants to deliver his message.

And it is a choice: Without the labels, this would still be a very solid cartoon. His decision to specify not simply a difference in approach, but a move backward vs a move forward is deliberate.

Kamensky, by the way, is one of the few cartoonists who uses Uncle Sam in this discussion, rather than Trump himself, and it stings.

Again, if you look at his other works, you'll see that he has no reluctance to take on Trump, but, in this case, he's laying it on us all, as a nation, and I think it's a harsh but appropriate accusation.

In a cartoon more general than specific to the Paris agreement, Kevin Kallaugher depicts the attitude of the Trump administration.

It's an interesting contrast to Bennett's piece, because, while Trump is angry and even hostile in Bennett's cartoon, Kal makes a broader statement about the bizarrely isolated nature of the White House, and indicates very directly -- this being a cartoon for the Economist, a British magazine with a global viewpoint -- that the world has certain expectations of the United States.

A further contrast comes when we add Steve Sack's cartoon to the mix. 

This is more aligned with Bennett's hostile Trump, in contrast to those frightened eyes peering out from Kal's tortoise shell.

However, evoking Melania's handslap adds a petulant element of "To Hell With You" that is in itself contrasting, even without the crestfallen response of the World. Unlike Kamensky's annoyed, put-upon European, Sack shows more sorrow and disappointment.

Taking Bennett, Kal and Sack together, we have a portrait of a leader whose aloofness is less a conscious choice than the outcome of deep personal insecurity and a sort of involuntary inability to fit in and cooperate.

I concur.

Yesterday's speech has been fact-checked nearly to death, and you can read the analysis here or here or here or in any number of places, but I continue to believe that fact-checking the president is a fool's game.

If someone hands you a $10 bill with a picture of George Washington on it, you shouldn't have to check for watermarks or analyze the fiber content of the paper.

You might want to know if the person handing it to you is aware that it's bogus or was simply foolish enough to accept it himself, but whoever holds it last owns it, and, if you take it, you'd better find someone equally gullible to stick with it.

Checking facts and keeping track of broken promises is a waste of time. It's for chumps.

Trump does not deal in facts or promises. He says whatever sounds good to him at the moment.

I listened to the speech on NPR and what I heard was yet another throwback to Trump's adventures in professional wrestling: The bluster of a braggart in the ring, bellowing to the crowd to stir them up.

I heard in his speech what I used to hear from drunks when I was in talk radio: Someone parrotting what stupid people think intelligent people sound like.

And so I laughed when I saw John Cole's take on Trump's plan to shake up his staff.

Dear Leader is running out of people who want $10 bills with George Washington's face. 

 

Comments

[sean martin]

I love the people who insist that the US pulling out of this is the "end of the world!" No, it's not, little one. The rest of us will just muddle along with you, and then at the end of things you'll sweep in and declare you won the war for *everyone*.

:: sigh ::

I'm running out of popcorn.

[Brad Walker]

I taught EFL in Japan for awhile, and learned to appreciate how pervasive Bible stories can be in our culture. Someone in Japan wouldn't necessarily get the point of Bennett's cartoon.

On a related note, I did a YouTube search for an educational cartoon I remembered, "Max The 2,000 Year Old Mouse." Two of the episodes I turned up were for the Battle of Hastings and David vs. Goliath.

[Mike Peterson]

A matter of knowing your audience - Bennett doesn't cartoon for an international audience, Kamensky does.

I think, though, that animals-two-by-two is a clear symbol for any Jewish, Christian or Muslim reader, and that picks up a pretty good proportion of the population -- before you add anyone else who reads Western media with any frequency, just as someone who reads Japanese media regularly would likely understand a cartoon featuring a tanuki.