Do not mock the anointed one; or, maybe any depiction of Barack Obama is sacrilegious

Are there going to be “cartoon riots” in parts of the world (Berkeley, Greenwich Village, West L.A.) over this depiction? Much ado has arisen about the cover on the latest New Yorker magazine featuring the Obamessiah and his bitter half. The magazine has described it as a dig at the right’s “paranoid” view about the anointed couple. The Obamas see it as tasteless and offensive, as if an honestly and unambiguously left-leaning publication is really going to smear Obama. I think Ann Althouse’s comments are dead on. Obama is so ideologically saturated that he cannot crawl outside his dour self and get the humor in something that might be critical of him, even if only a wee bit, and even if it mostly targets his opponents. And he is such a full-on elitist and so full of himself that, even if he could get the humor, that slight bit of criticism would make it offensive and tasteless, rather than just, well, “pointed.”

One of the things that I like about W (even as I sometimes gnash my teeth about various of his policies) is his self-confidence. His critics see that as arrogance, but I don’t see it that way. W has a quiet self-confidence that allows him to shrug off people’s attempts (think David Gregory and other White House “reporters”) to badger and corner him. It is a masculine “arrogance”: “Don’t push me; I know how to deal with the likes of you.” Think John Wayne. Or Ronald Reagan.

That is quite different from the arrogance that Obama just exudes: “Hey, do what I tell you. I know what’s best for you, and I won’t let you be complacent about your life.” That is a hectoring, or at least nannying, arrogance. Think Hillary. Or Dr. Laura. Or Jimmy Carter.

His type of self-confidence allows W to have fun at the expense of himself and others (see the comment Ann Althouse mentions about being a polluter), and to come across genuinely as a man of the people. Someone with whom to hang out at your house, or go share a beer or even a cup of coffee. Reagan had the same humor. Remember the inadvertently live microphone in 1984, where Reagan joked about outlawing Russia and that the U.S. would start bombing in five minutes. Ill-advised, perhaps, but funny in the context. Remember also Reagan’s joking with his doctors as he was gravely wounded in the assassination attempt and being wheeled into surgery. Obama would probably be telling the surgeons how to do their jobs. He reminds me of other “leaders” who have believed that their opinions on everything are the Word. Obama would be great at an academic seminar with people of similar egos and self-importance. But invite him to your house? Get a beer or a cup of coffee? Go bowling? Not so much.

I disagree, though, with Professor Althouse’s point that the cover is a spoof of the “fears and lies” about Obama. To work effectively, every spoof must have a kernel of truth. Otherwise, it approaches a printed equivalent of slapstick. So, while Obama is not a Muslim (though—however that is relevant—he was considered such until his apostasy conversion), he is long and closely associated with a version of “Christianity” that is at odds with the overwhelmingly accepted Christian message of love and universal brotherhood and unity in Christ. While his bitter half may not be a revolutionary in the sense of the Angela Davis throwback pictured on the cover, her remarks and writings and her rhetorical stylings go well beyond those associated with almost all spouses of presidential candidates. Actually they go well beyond those associated with most presidential candidates and those accepted by most Americans. While Obama has not burned the American flag, he ostentatiously refused to wear a flag lapel pin and pronounced sententiously on the patriotism of not wearing one. Until, that is, political circumstances such as the Reverend Wright eruptions, made it expedient to hold his press conference in front of a forest of American flags and to start wearing just such a pin.

If this is the Obama camp’s reaction to “pointed” humor, one wonders what the reaction would be to something of the tone of, say, a Doonesbury cartoon. Michelle Malkin has a collection of a few of the left’s cartoons (including, of course, those distributed in publications such as The New York Times) and degradation and assassination fantasies. What would the reaction be if that were the Obamas, instead of Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al. who were pictured? Hate crime accusation, anyone? Notice the gleeful and non-satirical Rolling Stone cartoon about the tortures suffered by McCain. I wonder how the metrosexual Obama (or Rolling Stone writers and editors) would have fared at the Hanoi Hilton? Did you hear a lot of media hand wringing about that cartoon? Neither did I.

UPDATE: Case in point: I like W’s response to the reporter’s stupid question. Let the American people decide. They’re competent to figure this out. What would Obama have said?