bizsolutionsplus Featuring Solutions to Grow Your Business

Obama, The New Yorker, Political Correctness & Sensitivity

Are you offended by this New Yorker Cover? Apparently, the Obama Campaign is outraged. To quote from CNN.com:

"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

Sen. John McCain's campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said he agreed with Burton's sentiment

But wait. All this angst comes before anyone has read the article. And just to set the record straight, the article and the cover represent satire, a great writing and educational tool that is (or at least was) encouraged and taught in public and private schools, and college writing classes. Why? Because it pokes fun at things deserving of ridicule and points out in humorous ways misinformation and ignorance.

Here is the e-mail the New Yorker sent to the press with advanced copies of the cover: "Please note that it is satire -- we are poking fun at the scare tactics and misinformation that some have employed to derail Obama's campaign."

And here is a comment from Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page, no right wing or left wing loose nut, on CNN's "Reliable Sources" this past Sunday about the cover:

"(The cover) is just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.

"I remember a few years ago, when The New Yorker had a cover at a time of great black-Jewish tension in New York. You had a cartoon of an obvious Orthodox Jewish male kissing a black woman, and this created a lot of buzz. That's what it is, buzz. It's discussion. It's talk. And that's what covers are supposed to do."

I agree but maybe I'm too insensitive. What's your take? Did The New Yorker go too far? Just far enough? What does our angst say about us as a culture, as readers, as political junkies, as a people, or as an educated (or not) people? Is politcal correctness killing great writing, communication and art?

It's Sunday Morning in America

It's Sunday morning in America, which in my house means the Sunday morning news talk shows are on the TV. Two and one-half hours of political silliness. Why bother? Because every Sunday patience is rewarded with a bit of wisdom. This morning, that came in the form of a single word uttered by Sen. John McCain. The word was action.

Let me begin by saying that I cringe every time a politician or their surrogates utter the phrase, "What Americans want is ... (fill in the blanks)." I doubt seriously that any of those making that claim have a clue what Americans want. Those utterers live in and are part of the most isolated culture in America--those working and living in Washington, D.C. Even those national political beings living outside the District of Corruption (a moniker borrowed from Geoff Livingston) represent but another cog in that machine. And that machine exists in a one-machine factory, isolated from the workings of all other factories. But, with that aside, let's get back to my word--action.

Americans are action-oriented, no one can argue that claim. Throughout history, action heroes--real and imagined--have laid claim to our national heritage. So when we hear "change", I think many if not most of us hear the word "action". Face facts: Change is not possible in our national politics or our government without first changing the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers (and mothers) made change nearly impossible. They believed in a government incapable of doing much because they believed a national government was not to be trusted with running a nation. (Ever hear of state's rights. The Founders rested their hope for democracy on state's rights.) So they created three branches of government to enable a separation of powers. They wanted each institution to have limited power, preventing leader or institution having enough power to take control of our Republic. It is naive to believe that any politician can go to Washington, D.C. and create noticeable or far-reaching change.

On the other hand, action is possible, and the results of action can be good or bad. Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, and JFK are Presidents remembered for action; so are LBJ, and Ronald Reagan. We can argue the results fostered by each and do, but with the exception of LBJ, those Presidents are often recognized as great leaders.

We can draw parallels between the federal government and big business. In government, local politicians can be change agents; in business, so can entrepreneurs. In the federal government, change agents are hindered by the Constitution and the bureaucracy; in big business agents of change are hindered by meetings, memos, silos and the bureaucracy. But as in government, business leaders emerge who are people of action: Oprah Winfrey, Martha Stewart, Michael Dell, Arianna Huffington, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Jack Welch, Safra Catz, and Phil Knight come to mind.

Again, action can create and usually does, both good and bad. But at the end of the day, our culture remembers leaders who create something through their action. It is hard for us to point to anyone responsible for changing either the Federal Government or the Fortune 1000.

In conclusion, for me, the word change represents empty rhetoric. When I hear the word action, I pay attention.