An obnoxious political cartoon

[Mr. Deez]

Apparently the New Yorker is running this political cartoon:

And this might be the most ludicrous cartoon I've ever seen. This article sums up its absurdity well. So liberal politicians and elitists are comparing themselves to professional airline pilots? Their record of success and accomplishment is comparable? Talk about being delusional.

A more appropriate caption would be, "These pilots get drunk and crash the plane about 80 percent of the time. They just polished off a case of beer and are entering the cockpit. Who thinks we should get off the plane a try another airline?"

 

[Phil Elliott]

The entire DNC/MSM/GOPe con-game is based on them making you think that only PROFESSIONAL politicos can fly the plane and you would be insane to trust anyone else to do it. This is what scares them the most about Trump. What if a guy who has ZERO political experience can do even a passable job as POTUS? Their whole business model is kaput. They cannot have that.

I did not find the cartoon offensive so much as delusional. As Glenn Reynolds points out, the pilots routinely crash the plane and walk away unscathed. The folks in economy class, not so much.

 

[Clean]

Like most New Yorker cartoons, I didn't get it at first. However, it's makes perfect sense that the New Yorker, an elitist magazine, would ridicule the populist movement.

 

[UTChE96]

I had the same reaction to this cartoon. It was so unintentionally ironic. Smug and condescending while being dead wrong so I guess it makes it the perfect cartoon for liberals.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Isn't it equally as arrogant to think any business person could be equally effective (if not more) as a professional politician? I think that's the point of the cartoon. Trump is the guy holding up his hand, to me at least. You can add most of his cabinet picks too. I'm not saying that change isn't needed but putting a surgeon in charge of HUD is a prime example of the actions that this cartoon is rightly mocking.

There are plenty of examples of successful business people, coaches, etc. that went to Congress and left in frustration due to an inability to push the change they wanted.

 

[Phil Elliott]

You know they were laughing, telling jokes, and slapping backs over the greatness of this cartoon at the New Yorker. They were like, "We so NAILED it!"

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Brad Austin]

You know they were laughing, telling jokes, and slapping backs over the greatness of this cartoon at the New Yorker. They were like, "We so NAILED it!"

Your excellent description provided a hilarious mental image of the highly likely douchefest. I'm thinking there was an "Omg, that's so epic!" as well.

 

[I35]

Isn't it equally as arrogant to think any business person could be equally effective (if not more) as a professional politician?

We already got the "hope and change" from a community organizer and it was a disaster. Why not give a chance to someone that's going to "drain the swamp" and "make America great again?" I don't call that arrogant. I call it not doing the same thing over and over and expecting a new result.

 

[Horn6721]

I am sure most would agree Trump is much more than just a business person. He has performed at an extremely high level for decades. That includes IMO facing financial disasters and finding ways, including using legal remedies some on here gave denigrated, to overcome the failures. He has met many world leaders and found ways to do business in other countries. He has shown he knows how to compromise and build concensus
What exactly does"Profesional politician" have that you think makes that person better qualified to be POTUS?

 

[Mr. Deez]

Isn't it equally as arrogant to think any business person could be equally effective (if not more) as a professional politician? I think that's the point of the cartoon. Trump is the guy holding up his hand, to me at least. You can add most of his cabinet picks too. I'm not saying that change isn't needed but putting a surgeon in charge of HUD is a prime example of the actions that this cartoon is rightly mocking.

There are plenty of examples of successful business people, coaches, etc. that went to Congress and left in frustration due to an inability to push the change they wanted.

During the campaign when I35, Horn6721, and other Trumpsters used to defend Trump by saying how bad Hillary and liberal elites were, I used to tell them that their faults do not make Trump better. Well, the reverse is also true. Trump's faults don't make Hillary and liberal elites any better.

There are three problems with the cartoon. First, it suggests an equivalency between airline pilots and liberal politicians. There isn't - not even close. Airline pilots do their job perfectly almost every time they take to the air, and if they don't, they face real consequences (almost certain death). Political leaders have no such record of excellence. In fact, they screw up a lot more than they get right. They simply haven't earned the trust that a professional pilot has earned.

Second, it suggests that putting a non-political professional (whatever that means) in charge is comparable to letting a lay person pilot an airliner. It's not. Putting a lay person in the pilot seat is suicide. Putting a non-professional politician in the White House may not be a smart move (especially the current president-elect), but it's not suicidal.

Finally, it smugly demeans the legitimacy of the middle class's grievances against the political class, and to be honest, the middle class has been getting crapped on for years. Trump isn't the answer to their problems, but that doesn't mean they have nothing to complain about. The government has long claimed to represent them, but it doesn't. Both parties have screwed them to promote more self-serving agendas and have largely dismissed their concerns. We spend trillions of dollars every year, and how much of that actually helps the middle class in their everyday lives? Very little, and what's supposed to help them mostly does a poor job for too much money, and nobody cares. Like I said, turning to Trump wasn't the right move, but they have good reason to be upset.

 

[NJlonghorn]

During the campaign when I35, Horn6721, and other Trumpsters used to defend Trump by saying how bad Hillary and liberal elites were, I used to tell them that their faults do not make Trump better. Well, the reverse is also true. Trump's faults don't make Hillary and liberal elites any better.

There are three problems with the cartoon. First, it suggests an equivalency between airline pilots and liberal politicians. There isn't - not even close. Airline pilots do their job perfectly almost every time they take to the air, and if they don't, they face real consequences (almost certain death). Political leaders have no such record of excellence. In fact, they screw up a lot more than they get right. They simply haven't earned the trust that a professional pilot has earned.

Second, it suggests that putting a non-political professional (whatever that means) in charge is comparable to letting a lay person pilot an airliner. It's not. Putting a lay person in the pilot seat is suicide. Putting a non-professional politician in the White House may not be a smart move (especially the current president-elect), but it's not suicidal.

Finally, it smugly demeans the legitimacy of the middle class's grievances against the political class, and to be honest, the middle class has been getting crapped on for years. Trump isn't the answer to their problems, but that doesn't mean they have nothing to complain about. The government has long claimed to represent them, but it doesn't. Both parties have screwed them to promote more self-serving agendas and have largely dismissed their concerns. We spend trillions of dollars every year, and how much of that actually helps the middle class in their everyday lives? Very little, and what's supposed to help them mostly does a poor job for too much money, and nobody cares. Like I said, turning to Trump wasn't the right move, but they have good reason to be upset.

I agree with your analysis of the holes in the cartoon's analysis. But a similar critique could be made about 99% of political cartoons. It is virtually impossible to encapsulate an entire issue into a cute drawing and a pithy phrase or two.

A good political cartoon says something that is both funny and insightful, albeit inevitably oversimplified. I'm not going to nominate this particular cartoon for any awards -- it was neither that funny nor that insightful. But I don't think it was far enough off the mark to justify panning it so thoroughly.

 

[iatrogenic]

But I don't think it was far enough off the mark to justify panning it so thoroughly.

What "mark" would that be, NJ?

 

[Musburger1]

My perception of what the airplane analogy actually should look like is something like this:

The passengers are on board expecting to be taken to the desired destination. The pilot is a very competent flier, but intends to take the plane to a war zone rather than to the destination where the passengers wish to go. The passengers then vote for a rookie with no idea how to fly a plane. So you can either allow yourself to remain hijacked and end up at a place that guarantees chaos, or choose another pilot and risk a crash landing.

 

[iatrogenic]

Sounds like George W. is flying the plane but Obama takes over as pilot.

 

[Musburger1]

Sounds like George W. is flying the plane but Obama takes over as pilot.

No that's a different narrative. In this scenario, Bush is flying 200 mph towards a mountain. Obama steps in and offers change. He then accelerates the plane to 400 mph and continues the course toward the mountain.

 

[Musburger1]

As an example, Bush toppled countries citing democratization and freedom. Obama stepped up the pace, but changed the criteria from democratization to an Orwellian humanitarian effort (we destroy your country so that you may have peace and feel safe).

Also, Bush was pro-immigration. Obama was pro-immigration on steroids.

Thirdly, Bush was a globalist. Obama, a globalist on steroids. Trump is a nationalist.

 

[iatrogenic]

No that's a different narrative. In this scenario, Bush is flying 200 mph towards a mountain. Obama steps in and offers change. He then accelerates the plane to 400 mph and continues the course toward the mountain.

Fortunately for the innocent passengers, the Russians will shoot down the plane before it impacts the mountain, so no need to be worried.