Political cartoons as First Amendment-protected persuasion and rhetoric

Freedom of the Press and Cartoons as Political Statements

Allegorical interpretations of the public sector's opinions and feelings about the U.S. Government have been expressed as political cartoons since the beginning of our Republic. These political cartoons have been most often conveyed through the various newspaper media, and have long been protected under the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Especially early on in America's history as a Republic, freedom of the press was the primary mode by which public opinion and feelings about government were expressed, because newspapers were mass produced and were widely distributed thereby carrying ideas and expressions to a greater number of people who were spread out over a large geographical range. Political cartoons could be understood by people who could not read. They helped to create a forum for debate and a way in which people could relate their own ideas and feelings about government knowing that their ideas and feelings were shared by and with others even though they were lived in remote areas of the country and were far away from the city centers of culture and political activity. But political cartoons also served to influence the ideas and emotions of the public because of the debate they stirred in the public sector, and because they drew the reader or viewer into the concepts being conveyed. Even people who held no political ideology or who were inexperienced in the ways of government became critical thinkers of individual political representatives' positions on issues and government processes and legislation when their thoughts and imaginations were stirred by the images of political cartoons.

Protected by the First Amendment, political cartoons became a tool of those who labored to shape government by way of public opinion. Andrea a. Lunsford, Kirt H. Wilson, and Rosa a. Eberly (2008), in their book, the Sage Handbook of Rhetorical Studies, say that the use of political cartoons in the United States is "a time-honored form of political rhetoric (p. 596)." They go on to say:

"The persuasive nature of political cartoons is perhaps more obvious than that of photographs: Editorial cartoonists, in particular, are assumed, and, indeed, encouraged to engage in social and political critique. Using the term graphic persuasion to refer to such efforts, Medhurst and DeSousa (1991) analyzed an assortment of U.S. editorial cartoons depicting the Ayatollah Khomeini and found three "commonplaces," another term for familiar to public to address scholars, with regard to how these representations were offered and assumed to impact viewers' understanding of Iranian politics (p. 596)."

If we look back at the nature of the U.S.-Iranian relationship since the Shah of Iran was dethroned from his "peacock throne," and the Ayatollah Khomeini succeeded him and installed a theocracy as the governing ideology and power in Iran; and subsequently to the time when the U.S. Embassy in Iran was overrun by Iranian student Islamic fundamentalists in protest of the U.S. backing of the Shah, allegedly delaying the onset of Islamic theocratic governance of Iran. We will find that political cartoons shaped the American perspective on Iran, and provided the foundation from which Americans built their understanding of Islamic rule in general as it is perceived by most Americans today.

Block 1979

The above political cartoon (by Herbert Block) was distributed by Field Newspaper Syndicate and published in the Washington Post April 8, 1979, following the Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exile in France, to Iran. The cartoon depicts the "spiritual leader" looking sinister and cruel, and below his poster are the bodies of Iranians, presumably ideological opposition. One of the men is beheaded, while the other lies dead in the street. The caption below the image of the Ayatollah quotes him as saying

"There is no reason why a criminal should be tried in the first place . . . Once his identity is established, he should be killed right away (Block, 1979)."

There are many direct and subtle messages conveyed by the cartoon. First, that the Ayatollah Khomeini as a spiritual leader is an image that stands in stark contrast to the image most Americans would have of a spiritual leader, such as the much loved and always gently portrayed Pope John Paul II, who was head of the Catholic Church at the time the cartoon was published. The cartoon would have alarmed Catholics and other religious denominations in the United States because it would have aroused their fears and superstitions about Islam, especially surrounding the events leading to the Shah of Iran having been deposed by Islamic fundamentalists.

Secondly, the remarks of the Ayatollah stand in stark contrast to the freedoms held precious by Americans as individual rights. The presumably public executions of people because of their religious or political ideologies would alarm Americans who for the most part associate legal due process with not just Constitutional rights, but human rights. It is a violation of one of the most cherished American principles upon which the Republic was founded on. For Americans, Constitutional rights have long been held synonymous with human rights, and the Ayatollah's expressions are in direct contradiction of those human rights. Therefore, it would follow, that Americans would perceive the Ayatollah as representative of religious and legal persecution. For those reasons, Americans would fear and loathe the Ayatollah and the Iranian theocracy over which he presided, and would be indifferent to the cultural traditions of Iranians and others who follow the path of Islam. The stage was then set for a political standoff between the U.S. And Iran and any subsequent action, military or diplomatic, that the U.S. might initiate or take against Iran.

Understanding the power of political cartoon influences on the minds and ideas of Americans, we can now move forward and examine the rhetoric of other political cartoons that have influenced the ideas and opinions of Americans, thereby helping to shape American politics at home and in the world at large.

Political Cartoons and Freedom of the Press

Freedom of speech exists through the free press, and both are Constitutional guarantees to these rights for Americans. Constitutional rights, however, are subject to interpretation. For instance, freedom of speech does not allow a person in a crowded movie theatre to yell, "Fire!" When the personal freedom of an individual puts the freedoms of society as a whole or in part at risk, then the right of the individual is legally weighed against the rights of society as a whole. Therefore, it is illegal to yell, "Fire!" In a crowded theatre, because it is putting at physical harm and risk the greater society that is in the theatre. So, legally, the rights of the individual are weighed against the risk society as a whole is subjected to as a result of exercising personal rights.

The right to freedom of the press by way of satirical depiction of individuals and government has been challenged from time to time in the United States. One such case, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, tested the Constitutionality of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In this case, Hustler Magazine, a magazine that deals with risque and sexually explicit images targeting men as its consumer base, but which also combines those risque images and images with articles on contemporary issues such as politics and religion, was the unlikely champion of freedom of the press. While many people, especially women with traditional values, would not subscribe to Hustler Magazine, the magazine has a consumer base, and its owner/publisher, Larry Flynt, is an American success story in entrepreneurship.

The case involved a satirical depiction of another American success story, that of the American religious leader Jerry Falwell, whose power base amongst political conservatives and especially "Bible Belt" Christians, had evolved beyond his successful televangelism program to form the politically powerful "Moral Majority (Lively and Weaver, 2006, p. 79)." Falwell was also the founder of Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia, and he was widely published in books and publications. But the Moral Majority, representative of religious and traditional Americans who believe that traditional American values like faith and family are deteriorating in American society, was certainly the basis of Falwell's wide-spread success and even his own personal wealth. The Moral Majority took Falwell beyond his own religious group, uniting a constituency founded on traditional values that surpassed religious affiliation. Their purpose as a political group is to influence lawmakers by the strength of their voting power to enact legislation that they believe prevents the erosion of traditional values, and to oppose legislation, such as abortion, that they believe undermines those values. They are, even today, a powerful political action group backed by the wealth of their membership which is, for the most part, middle class Americans.

As the national leader of the Moral Majority, Falwell became a widely recognized public figure whose image became synonymous with the traditional values of his membership and other conservatives (p. 79). Hustler Magazine represented an expression of free speech and free press that Falwell held as contrary to American values and traditions. Authors Donald Lively and Russell Weaver describe Hustler Magazine as Falwell's "antagonist (p. 79)," no doubt representing for Falwell abuses of our Constitutional freedoms.

"In 1983, Hustler Magazine decided to parody Falwell using a Campari Liqueur advertisement. The actual Campari ads portrayed interviews with various celebrities about their 'first times.' Although the advertisement actually focused on the first time that the celebrities had sampled Campari, the ads portrayed the double entendre of the first time that the interviewees had engaged in sex. Hustler mimicked the Campari format and created a fictional interview with Falwell in which he stated that his 'first time' was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse (p. 79)."

The Oregon Commentator, May, 2007

There is probably no limit to the outrage that was felt by Falwell, and by his support base, both of which would have been offended, first, by using Falwell in any way to entertain the subscribers to Hustler Magazine. The image, however, depicts a relaxed, even family-like, photo of Falwell resting his chin on his hand. In the right-hand section of the ad, is the Campari Liqueur with glasses of presumably the alcohol in two of the ways it might be served, and then, at the left margin, the name "Campari," with the words, "You'll never forget your first time (the Oregon Commentator, 2007)." The page also contains a mock and fictitious interview with Falwell in which it is suggested that Falwell's "first time" was with his mother in an outhouse. The ad, taken as a whole, suggests that not only did Falwell have an incestuous encounter with his mother, but that he was "a hypocrite who preaches only when he is drunk (Lively and Weaver, p. 79)."

Our legal system sometimes eludes our own personal sense of dignity and moral values; and in this case Falwell could not sue Hustler for defamation, because that legal cause requires "a false assertion (p. 79)." At the bottom of the, Hustler covered itself using a disclaimer that read, "ad parody -- not to be taken seriously." Hustler, thereby, established its use of the inflammatory material as a parody, an abstract expression of its reaction to Jerry Falwell in his role as a champion of American faith, family, and tradition. It conveyed Hustler's idea that Falwell was flawed, human, and, horrifying as it might be to his support base, had originated from a sexual act, and ostensibly an act that required some sexual imagination and fantasy as might be depicted in the magazine. Also, that Falwell his self probably had sex, and perhaps even suggesting that Falwell could not attract the sensual, sexy women depicted in the magazine, and, therefore, would have sex with the one woman who truly loved him, despite his narrow-mindedness -- his mother.

Our legal system does, however, if one looks hard enough, offer a number of other ways to deal with this kind of inflammatory depiction. Falwell brought suit against Hustler Magazine and its owner/publisher, Larry Flynt, on grounds that the magazine had intentionally harmed him by inflicting upon him mental distress (p. 79). Indeed, one can easily concede that Falwell's distress was great given that his constituency was a post World War II public morality whose sensitivities were protected even by the television industry, which required its public television dramatizations of people in bedrooms, on beds, to have one foot out of the bed and on the floor (Chunovic, 2000, p. 17).

Falwell was successful in his suit, and a jury awarded him compensatory damages in the amount of $100,000, and punitive damages in the amount of $50,000 (Lively and Weaver, p. 79). It was not, of course, the financial win that Falwell was most interested in, but the win involving the control the decision exercised over freedom of the press and free speech when it came in conflict with the values and traditions of his constituency. The challenge was one that Flynt was not prepared to accept, and Hustler appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which delivered a blow to Falwell when it reversed the lower court, and issued the following opinion:

"In answering the question in the negative, the Court emphasized that the First Amendment emphasizes the 'fundamental importance' of allowing people to express themselves 'on matters of public interest and concern.' The Court also recognized that 'robust political debate' is likely to result in speech that is critical of public officials and public figures 'who are intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions, or, by reason of their fame, shape events in areas of concern to society at large.' Moreover, those who comment on public affairs are generally against liability (p. 79)."

Other cases in American law have gained further ground and established precedents in protection of free speech and free press. The Supreme Court's decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254), set limits on the amounts that could be awarded to a public figure who successfully challenged the press for libel or defamation. Joining in their opinion, Justices Black and Douglas said:

"The half-million-dollar verdict does give dramatic proof, however, that state libel laws threaten the very existence of an American press virile enough to publish unpopular views on public affairs and bold enough to criticize the conduct of public officials. The factual background of this case emphasizes the imminence and enormity of that threat. One of the acute and highly emotional issues in this country arises out of efforts of many people, even including some public officials, to continue state-commanded segregation of races in the public schools and other public places, despite our several holdings that such a state practice is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Montgomery is one of the localities in which widespread hostility to desegregation has been manifested. This hostility has sometimes extended itself to persons who favor desegregation, particularly to so-called "outside agitators," a term which can be made to fit papers like the Times, which is published in New York. The scarcity of testimony to show that Commissioner Sullivan suffered any actual damages at all suggests that these feelings of hostility had at least as much to do with rendition of this half-million-dollar verdict as did an appraisal of damages. Viewed realistically, this record lends support to an inference that instead of being damaged Commissioner Sullivan's political, social, and financial prestige has likely been enhanced by the Times' publication. Moreover, a second half-million-dollar libel verdict against the Times based on the same advertisement has already been awarded to another Commissioner. There a jury again gave the full amount claimed. There is no reason to believe that there are not more such huge verdicts lurking just around the corner for the Times or any other newspaper or broadcaster which [295] might dare to criticize public officials. In fact, briefs before us show that in Alabama there are now pending eleven libel suits by local and state officials against the Times seeking $5,600,000, and five such suits against the Columbia Broadcasting System seeking $1,700,000. Moreover, this technique for harassing and punishing a free press -- now that it has been shown to be possible -- is by no means limited to cases with racial overtones; it can be used in other fields where public feelings may make local as well as out-of-state newspapers easy prey for libel verdict seekers (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 2010, found online)."

The decision not only supports freedom of speech and the press, but it causes the public official or person whose fame or celebrity is used to shape public policy, or, indeed, who might be responsible for the behavior of individuals working under them to enforce or carry out public policy, to accept their role in the public light as a precarious one in terms of how their role might be perceived by the public or interpreted and described by the press.

Political Cartoons

Since the beginning of our Republic, one of the most frequently depicted images of American politics has been that of Uncle Sam. Created early in the 19th century, Uncle Sam was the representation of American government. Appearing in his original form, Uncle Sam was serious, aged to an impression of worldly-wisdom, and dressed in a star spangled top-hat and tux of red, white, and blue. His original image is shown below:

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition

The term "Uncle Sam," is reported by the Columbia Encyclopedia (2010, online) as having originated in 1812, in conjunction with the War of 1812 (online). The image quickly became synonymous with all things American, and, as such, Uncle Sam has since become the target of any satirical representation intended to be a commentary on the American government, and the American mood, as a whole. His image was depicted as a means by which to inspire enlistment in the Army, but has perhaps been more frequently used to satirize the folly of the American Government. The following images show the range of Uncle Sam as the military recruiter, and in depictions representing the American attitude towards the government.

Unclesamphotos.com

Harper's Weekly newspaper 1862

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://forevergeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/unclesam_comics.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.forevergeek.com/2007/07/top_5_patriotic_super_heroes_that_arent_captain_america/&usg=__AI9cK33zR2dUUrzN_Q8ULNaoLls=&h=350&w=225&sz=15&hl=en&start=131&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=1o9a1rGPFs0qGM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=77&prev=/images%3Fq%3Doriginal%2Buncle%2Bsam%2Bimage%26start%3D126%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ndsp%3D21%26tbs%3Disch:1"

B92.net, 2010

forevergeek.com, 2010

fanpop.com, 2010

As we can see from the images, the political cartoon and satirical depiction of the icon has been used to generate patriotism, and to express the American peoples' feelings of being broke (b92.net), most likely as a result of their tax burden. Also, in the forevergeek.com likeness, to show Americans as the flexor of muscle, most likely intended to represent the foreign perception of Americans as bullies. And in the fanpop.com image, to show Americans as having blood on their hands, which can be related to any military engagement, although probably on foreign soil, where America used its vast arsenal of weaponry. It cannot be mistaken as a call for donating blood, because the image has blood in its teeth, showing that its creator intends to convey the image of Americans as the cannibalistic or carnivorous purveyors of destruction. It also shows blood on the hands, thereby suggesting that it is probably indeed related to the creator's sense that Americans have been the cause of death of other people, perhaps even Americans.

Uncle Sam has also been used to express the American's sense of patriotism, and standing together as Americans. Following the events of September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center, in New York City was destroyed by terrorists commandeering commercial passenger jets and who used those jets as weapons of mass destruction, the American people were incited to anger and demanded a response from the government. Uncle Sam was used to depict the national mood.

George Warvel, Classbrain.com, 2010

Kurtz 2002, Classbrain.com, 2010

The George Warvel cartoon, found on Classbrain.com, shows Uncle Sam carrying a fallen firefighter who responded the 9/11 attack at the World Trade Center. As non-military responders to emergencies, crisis, and disasters, the fallen firemen and policemen who lost their lives that day became symbolic of the terrorist attack on a non-military target, which was deemed the height of foul play regarding any action that might be taken by a politically motivated group.

The second cartoon, by Kurtz, depicts the awakening of the sleeping giant. Uncle Sam towers above New York City where the World Trade Center once stood, and is rolling up his sleeves, and is looking beyond the city, abroad, across the Atlantic, ostensibly towards Afghanistan where Osama bin Laden, the perpetrator of the events of September 11, was believed to be hiding in the mountains of that country. Both cartoons are symbolic of the feelings and anger experienced by Americans following the events, and of the unity that ensued in the American public's desire for retribution against Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda.

Conclusion

Political cartoons satirizing events and public figures are an American staple, a measurement of American sympathies and mood towards not just the American Government, but its perceptions of its relationships too. Presidents and public officials are public figures, and the right to express in political cartoons has been upheld by the Supreme Court, even when those depictions are offensive to most people. President Obama, the first black American president, has been depicted in political cartoons in negative and insensitive ways. The image below appeared in the New York Post:

Delonas, New York Post, 2009

The cartoon is offensive, because it infers that as the originator of the stimulus, with which many Americans disagreed on, and many were upset over, was President Obama. The cartoon was in horribly bad taste, because it plays on the affections of racist people. Most Americans, however, are not racist, and demonstrated that when they went to the polls in record numbers, crossing traditional party lines, to vote for Obama. If the cartoon did anything, it probably served to stir the anger of Americans who consider their selves to be without racial bias, and whose loyalty to Obama was renewed at a time when he found support for his administration losing momentum with the American people.

Obama is not the only political figure to be negatively depicted in political cartoons, although because of the racial inference this cartoon must rank as one of the most offensive depictions of a political figure -- but is it less offensive than the depiction of the leader of the Moral Majority as a drunk who had sex with his mother? The answer, of course, is no. The creator of this image, and the group that published it, are as much protected by the Constitutional rights of free speech and free press as was Larry Flynt when he published the offensive satirical image and fictitious interview of Jerry Falwell. Americans have suffered the indignities and inappropriate messages conveyed by political cartoons since the beginning of the Republic. It is, in the end, the price that Americans must pay in order that free speech and free press be afforded to everyone regardless of race, religious affiliation, or political ideology. We cannot be discriminate in administering the rights that each of us are guaranteed under the Constitution, and to do so would jeopardize those very rights we have proven ourselves committed to upholding and protecting for which so Americans have given their very lives to preserve. It is, however, the American response to these controversial depictions that define the nature of those depictions, setting us apart from the negative images they attempt to create of Americans as a people and a nation.