The Green New Deal

AOC’s Zany New Deal: Analysis of a Political Editorial Cartoon
In a cartoon posted on the Washington Times website entitled “The Socialist States of the Green New Deal” by Gary Varvel (2019), freshman representative Alexandrio Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) is depicted, arms outstretched, as standing in the middle of a map of the USA while all around her are highlights of her Green New Deal bill with visualizations of how her proposals would impact America. One can see a U.S. Navy air craft carrier using sails (instead of fuel) for power. There is an arrow pointing away from the States and two large yachts sailing off for other shores with the inscription below signifying that these are “The Rich” leaving the U.S. Large signs read “Free Stuff” and “No Fly Zone,” indicating how different the American landscape is to become were the Green New Deal to be implemented. The argument being presented in the cartoon is that AOC’s bill is not only completely antithetical to everything American but it is also completely impractical, unrealistic, and like something one might expect to find in a Dr. Seuss book—totally silly.
Varvel really emphasizes the silliness of AOC’s bill by showing two tracks of high-speed rail—one going all the way up to Alaska and the other going all the way out to Hawaii. The tracks careen out from behind AOC in the middle of the U.S. and shoot off into the Pacific like Thing 1 and Thing 2 from Dr. Seuss’s The Cat in the Hat. The rail has no regard for physics: it just goes for it, propelled onward by high hopes and dreams. The rail is a reference to AOC’s plan to overhaul and revolutionize land travel by installing high speed rail lines—which California’s governor has already rejected because of the fact that it would cost too much money and be impractical, geographically speaking (Klein, 2019). Nonetheless, AOC is shown here promoting it as part of her Green New Deal, which, Varvel indicates, is just one of the reasons AOC comes across as naïve.
The imagery is very effective in conveying the argument of the cartoonist. However, the images themselves would not make much sense without the words. For example, labeling the yachts in exodus as “The Rich” helps to make the point that were AOC’s bill to become law, there would be a mass exodus of the wealthiest as they would not want to see their wealth taxed into oblivion. Without the label, the image loses something of its argument as the viewer would have to stop and think about what he is looking at and what the possible interpretation might be. The label allows the viewer to not work so hard and just look and appreciate what is being shown. Another example is the image of the embarrassed milk cow, standing up and trying to hold in its gas: the label explains what is going on—“No Farting Cows”—the idea being that AOC’s Green New Deal would eliminate all toxic emissions—and the fact is that farm animals (i.e., cows) produce more toxic emissions than anything else on the planet (Lean, 2006). So the comical point that Varvel makes is that for AOC’s Green New Deal to work, cows would have to stop passing gas—which is not going to happen.
The visual imagery is helpful in persuading in ways that words are not by depicting ideas in a cartoonish and satirical manner. For example, there is the cow blushing and holding his cheeks, the “Free Stuff” sign pointing to the Government Health Care building, Navy aircraft carrier turned into a sailboat—these images convey in quick and easy ways exactly what critics of AOC’s Green New Deal might take whole pages of words to say. The ideas are so simple to grasp that a quick little cartoon can bare them for the viewer in a way that makes sense.
The printed words, however, do help. For example, beside the picture of the crane swinging a wrecking ball into skyscrapers in New England are the words “Rebuild Every Building,” which gets to the heart of the plan—nothing new is really required in many cases and the plan would simply call for destruction just so there can be new construction. In other words, the words very tersely show a lack of innovation and design in the visionary new deal. Then there is the label “Department of Taxing the Rich” affixed below an oblong building in the DC area: the words help to describe the essence of the Green New Deal’s strategy for securing funding—more taxes on the wealthy class. It does not take much work to figure out what comes next as the eyes move to the right of DC to see the yachts taking off and the label “The Rich” identifying who exactly is leaving. Without income from the identified source, the deal basically becomes no deal at all.
The meaning of the cartoon does not rely much upon the ability to make inferences: it is pretty clear what is being said. The title of the cartoon states explicitly the subject and the illustrations and their labels clearly explain the outcome. The claim and conclusion of the cartoon is apparent both in the words and in the images but is made most apparent by the combination of the two. The premises for the argument are certainly warranted as well based upon the information that is readily available for the public to digest—such as the admission by the California governor that high-speed rail is simply not going to happen (Klein, 2019) and the evidence that cows—not cars—are responsible for most of the pollution in the air (Lean, 2006). The Green New Deal is a quagmire of fantasy that Varval goes about exposing quite easily thanks to his cartoon, which cuts through the words and pontifications to present an image in simple terms of what the deal is really all about.
The imagery used is highly effective in playing up the Dr. Seuss-ian aspect of the Green New Deal—how it is not rooted in reality but rather in fantasy and exaggeration. The high-speed rail identity is literally only achievable if one is living in the clouds, so the imagery suggests—and the toxic emissions problem is humorously presented as a cow problem (though there is also a sign banning fuel burning cars in the cartoon’s socialist states of the Green New Deal). The intended audience, of course, is going to be any conservative or libertarian who despises government overreach and liberal ideologies. The goal of the cartoon is simply to reaffirm the values that conservatives and libertarians share while also to poke fun at AOC and her fantastical ideas and naïve views. One is not being asked to take action or to really change one’s views but rather to see how AOC’s views are not consistent with America’s needs or with common and practical sense. The visual element is not misleading and neither are the words. Both illustrate the problems of the Green New Deal by using the satirical argument style: exaggerated forms (AOC is given a head too large for her body), fanciful ideas (the high speed rail going off into the air), and the cow holding its farts are all part of that—and it all serves to make the cartoon very persuasive for anyone who is already inclined to dismiss AOC’s new deal as hyperbolic and impractical.
In conclusion, Varval’s political cartoon editorial skewers AOC’s Green New Deal. It uses both imagery and words to dissect the bill’s most impractical and idealistic sections. The images and words show exactly what would happen in real life were the bill to be taken seriously. Cows would be obliged to pinch off their emissions. The rich would vacate the premises. And the masses would storm the hospitals ensuring that chaos followed.


References
Klein, P. (2019). Gavin Newsom ditching California high-speed rail shows why 'Green
New Deal' is doomed. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/gavin-newsom-ditching-california-high-speed-rail-shows-why-green-new-deal-is-doomed
Lean, G. (2006). Cow 'emissions' more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars.
Retrieved from https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html
Varvel, G. (2019). The socialist states of the green new deal. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtontimes.com/cartoons/