Context and definitions
Superstring01 said:
But you say "organized right-wing" as if every right winger is somehow taking their queues from some central authority (i.e. the Republican party). This poster is from some right-wing fear-monger, that much is obvious. That it is directly linked to the Republican party would be a dubious claim at best.
This is one of those occasions that I'll call out as simply as possible.
Your misinterpretation of the statement is the dubious aspect. The phrase, "organized right-wing" is incomplete as you have read it. Normally, I would point to the hyphen, but that's no cue around here. However, the phrase correctly read is "organized right-wing attack".
This phrase, in the immediate political discourse, is a reference to much noise and bluster put forward by a very small group of dissidents whose aim is not to add their voices to the discourse, but to disrupt it entirely with their shouting. Some conservatives hail this movement as being grass roots, but it is, in reality, exploitative and being organized by high-level Republican spinsters. That is, instead of an organic origin within the people, the movement is
organized by right-wing politicians. Hence the idea of an
organized right-wing attack.
It's part of a strange phenomenon widespread in politics, but also concentrated more heavily in the right wing. I've already noted the appearance of conservative difficulty with simile, metaphor, and analogy. This occasion is a matter of definitions. ("Right-wing" is an adjective, not a noun, on this occasion.) Sometimes when trying to discuss issues with people, one must be very careful in their selection of words and construction of sentences because, while we might be supposed to give, say, George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt on any of his odd misstatements—e.g., "We know what you're trying to say, George," such as the bit about terrorists working hard to hurt Americans, "and so are we"—the conservative tends to seek out the most confrontational and controversial definitions of words possible, even if doing so renders the statement in question completely incomprehensible. Insofar as I can tell, the purpose isn't to make the other person look stupid, although more power to you if you can; rather, it's a way of looking for a fight.
And perhaps it's not intentional. Maybe it's some inherent quirk of conservative psychology, but we should not be surprised if the behavior is more prevalent among conservative quarters. Indeed, I often think this is part of the reason why liberals just aren't good at sound-bite mudslinging; they're trying to play someone else's game according to rules they didn't make up.
But it's also why people often pick on conservatives for poor reading comprehension and a lack of context or subtlety.
For Quadraphonics, as near as I can tell, the point has to do with Countezero engaging a very common rhetorical device, which is presuming that an event occurs in a vacuum, in complete isolation. In such a context, it is clearly possible to create a poster like this without ever once thinking about racism, history, and smearing a black man's face with white makeup. Indeed, Quadraphonics was accurate when he suggested, "It has had exactly the intended effect on you: you're here publicly defending it, the people who made it, and the agenda it promotes."
But what of the other elements? A plot to subvert responsible governance in the United States? Certainly, there is a question of responsible governance, although the hue and cry from the right wing
does make it sound like, "No way but our way." Theoretically, even if there was responsible governance afoot, the right wing would oppose it for a matter of political labels.
As to racism, though? At the heart of anti-Obama paranoia
is a racist seed. Were the arguments of the general clamor against the president more sensible, relevant, or based in fact, those might become the focus for discussion. But it is still, as I suggested to S.A.M., about xenophobia. Ethnic heritage is one part of that xenophobia. Another is religion, and yet another is mere politics. And while political exaggeration is commonplace to the point of being expected (almost any Democrat will be attacked as a Socialist), religion and ethnicity are a different problem altogether. Kennedy was attacked as a Catholic, and among his opponents were those who would never be assuaged that he wasn't selling out the White House to the Vatican. Some of those still remain today, although they are largely insignificant to the historical discussion.
It may well be that the lobbyists and PR firms behind the current conservative outcry don't have a specifically racist agenda. That is, they aren't opposing Obama simply because he's black or has a Muslim name. At such heights in political organization, one does not operate so nakedly. However, they
are perfectly willing to exploit the racist seeds of Obamanoiac rhetoric in hopes of political capitalization. In this context, the attacks are still racist.
Which leaves only the connection between the artist in question and the political fires his work is fueling.
The artist need not be part of any racist plot
per se. Rather, the artist chose to play to a certain market segment, and made a decision (e.g., whiteface) with clear political implications. The art
in toto includes racial overtones, and it certainly has fed the Obamanoiac noise machine.
In the end, the strongest defense for the art in this question is that it
reflects the mood of a political subgroup. It is, as I have said before, quite the symbol of our times.
• • •
Jeff 152 said:
Criticizing Obama by making him look like a white villain is racist
Criticizing Obama by making him look like a black villain is racist
hmmm, I think I see where this is going.....any critic of Obama will inevitably be charged as a racist
In addition to the presumption critical to your conclusion, I would suggest you're also overlooking something basic about the political course this issue has followed.
• The image emerged
• The usual suspects made the predictable complaint
• The issue carries on because someone decided to make a point about the predictable complaint
If we had left that at the second step, with the usual interest groups making the predictable complaint, this whole thing would be largely forgotten by now.