Top critical review
12 people found this helpful
Androgenized artists can't carry a "toon"
on August 25, 2002
The "Best Editorial Cartoons of the Year" series has been around for at least 30 years now.
I know this because I actually remember the 1972 and 1973 editions. The differences between those editions and this one show how far the art of political satire has declined and how far the Matriarchy has progressed.
We're never told what standard is used to rate a particular cartoon as among the "best" of the year, and it's fairly safe to say that it's purely based on the subjective preference of the editor, Charles Brooks. And this much has to be said for him - he includes cartoons from a number of perspectives but leaves out left-wing heavy hitters such as Conrad, Trudeau, and the recently deceased Herblock (did they hit him in the head with a shovel to make sure?). This is important for balance, simply because there are no right-wing heavy hitters among political cartoonists to even the score.
For the most part, the cartoons included in all collections have been from relatively obscure contributors - both left and right. This is all to the good.
But this year's edition was just a lot of pap. For one thing, Gary Condit had been the big story before September 11. Where are the Condit cartoons?
Of course, the biggest story in 2001 turned out to be the terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. So the "best" cartoons mostly repeat conventional sentiment - what a tragedy, but we're strong and united now so we'll get the bastards, blah blah blah.
How many cartoons were drawn which showed the Statue of Liberty, Uncle Sam, and the American Eagle alternatively weeping, praying, retaliating etc. etc.? What a self-replicating show of pompous victimologistic self-assuming virtue!
Incisive masculine wit is disappearing from the modern political cartoon, and cartoons that are supposed to make you EMOTE without THINKING have become the rule.
Get a load of the contribution from Richard Wallmeyer of the Long Beach Press Telegram about "anti-bully" legislation. In the penultimate panel, one kid suggests that people just live by the Golden Rule instead of passing a law and in the last panel, his friend responds by reminding him that religion isn't allowed in public schools.
That's it. No wit; no nuance; no attempt to make the reader THINK about what the cartoonist is trying to say. No symbolism even. Wallmeyer tells you straight out what you should believe.
And Jeff Parker's post-September 11 contribution from Florida Today showing two Floridians wearing "I Love NY" paraphernalia and agreeing between themselves that "We are all New Yorkers now".
No biting masculine wit, no nuance, no intellect, no symbolism. And suck a lozenge, Jeff Parker. All of the terrorists attacks in the world won't turn the average New Yorker into a human being, any more than the 1989 earthquake could do so for the average San Franciscan. Parker is just engaging in cheap sentiment masquerading as patriotism.
The decline in quality of political cartoons stems from the fact that as women continue to make war on men and as the Matriarchy's grip becomes more crushing, male cartoonists have become softer and more effeminate (this is happening in other settings too, obviously).
And more women have become political cartoonists. There's an Ann Telnaes cartoon in which Joseph Lieberman's statement at Notre Dame that public morality should be based on faith is juxtaposed against a picture of Moslem women wearing veils.
Even assuming that it's BAD for women to hide their features, is it really accurate to suppose that a faith-based public morality would require an imposition of the burqua? No more than it would require baptism or a kosher diet but in a feminized world, the reader is not supposed to think but to emote, emote, emote.
Of course, as anyone who has seen her recurring appearances on C-SPAN knows, as a political cartoonist, Ann Telnaes is one hot babe whose face definitely should NOT be covered. But her cartoons would only be improved by the camouflage that a veil would provide. They are hardly worthy of inclusion among the country's "best".
And the feminization of the American political cartoon isn't just limited to matters of style.
Resistance to the Matriarchy has become unthinkable. In the 1973 edition, there is an entire section devoted to "Women's Lib", most of the contributions deliciously skewering the feminazis.
In one uproarious example, a man is standing at the altar looking apprehensive while hooked in his arm is his "bride", a man in drag. The preacher performing the "marriage" ceremony asks the "groom", "Do you, John, promise to love, honor and obey the Equal Rights Amendment?"
Go try to find a cartoon like that today! We've come a long way from when Thomas Nast cartoons afflicted and ultimately defeated party bosses such as Bill Tweed. Today's feminist bosses have no reason to moan, "Stop them damned pictures!" The people drawing them come from the same New Class that their masters do.
So where gender issues are concerned, the drawing board cult members bow their collective heads in deference to the "women are strong and good; men are weak and bad and deserving of punishment" party line. The 2002 edition shows an androgenized Statue of Liberty punching a Taliban member in the face in a display of women's "rights" (get it? She`ll throw her "left" at him next).
The Evil Rights Amendment might not have been enacted, but feminism has still become the official state religion of both left and right. As such, it stifles masculine energy, independence, and creativity. These can only return when and if a younger generation of males rebels against the imposition of public morality in the name of this particular faith.
Until then, the quality of written protest, in the form of political animation, can be expected to continuously decline. But I wonder what the 2032 edition of "Best Editorial Cartoons" will look like.