Michael Ramirez Essay: In Defense of Editorial Cartooning
From America's Premier Editorial Cartoonist
IN DEFENSE OF EDITORIAL CARTOONING
By Michael P. Ramirez Nov. 13, 2023
In an interview on Lebanese television, Senior Hamas official, Ghazi Hamad, hailed the brutal October 7th attack and the systematic murder, torture, and kidnapping of unarmed men, women, and children.
The gruesome details and brutal savagery of the October 7th attack launched by Hamas operatives on innocent civilians was shocking to even the most battled-hardened soldiers and war correspondents. Evidence of beheadings, babies shot in their cribs, parents shot in front of their children, entire families massacred, the torture and execution of the elderly, people burned alive, and hundreds of young people gunned down while attending a musical festival for peace, were widely reported and verified by video, audio, and forensic evidence.
Most people would be horrified, but Hamad pledged to repeat the October 7th attack until Israel is “removed,” claiming Hamas “was the victim,” therefore “everything they do is justified.”
A direct quote from his interview: "We must teach Israel a lesson, and we will do this again and again. The Al-Aqsa Flood (October 7th attack) is just the first time, and there will be a second, a third, a fourth…”
That interview was the inspiration for my Human Shields cartoon that was recently pulled off the Washington Post editorial website.
Critics have called it “racist” claiming it stereotyped and demonized Palestinians and opined the cartoon ignored the death of thousands and the suffering of millions of Palestinians as a result of the Israeli military response.
Any decent human being would agree that this war is catastrophic. I mourn the loss of innocent life… on both sides. I am shocked by the destruction that has shattered their lives and grieve for those families. I wish for the safe return of the more than 240 hostages that Hamas has taken… but those are separate issues.
This cartoon was designed with specificity.
Its focus is on a specific individual, the statements he made on behalf of a specific organization he represents, their claims of victimhood, and the plight of innocent Palestinians used as pawns in their political and military strategy.
That person is Ghazi Hamad. The caricature of the central figure looks like Ghazi Hamad.
The organization is Hamas. The main figure in the cartoon is labeled Hamas.
His words, and the innocents bound to him as human shields and their forced martyrdom, reflect the official position of Hamas.
It is ironic that those who criticize the cartoon for overgeneralizing and stereotyping cannot seem to distinguish the difference between a known terrorist group and Palestinians.
Hamas is a terrorist organization.
In my speeches, I say, "An editorial cartoon is not humorous for the sake of humor. It is not controversial for the sake of controversy. Whether you agree with it philosophically or not, a good editorial cartoon engages the reader in debate. It informs and challenges. It draws the reader into the democratic process."
Liberty, the free exchange of ideas, is the foundation of our democracy. Thomas Jefferson once wrote, "Our Liberty depends on the freedom of press, and that cannot be limited without it being lost." The reason our Founding Fathers included the right to a free press in our constitution, was because they knew the communication of ideas and information, the right to inform and be informed, the dissemination of ideas and the expression of opinion, are all necessary components in a political system based on self-governance and individual liberty. Limiting the exchange of ideas even in our common culture, limits our freedom.
The purpose of an editorial cartoon, and a good editorial page is to be the catalyst for thought. By promoting the thoughtful exchange of ideas, we forge a consensus through the fiery heat of debate.
Today, political correctness and now, the WOKE movement, have defined words and images as weapons that should be banned for offending political categories and self-defined oppressed groups. This Orwellian transformation of language threatens to neutralize debate and suppress dissent through language policing. Cancel Culture utilizes subjective political criteria and threats of alienation to force a consensus, rather than one forged through the debate of ideas.
It is tolerance of all ideas, except those they disagree with.
It follows the adage that if you can't win the argument, you change the rules.
This is unfortunate. It treats people as children who must be shielded from conversation, unable to manage a verbal exchange without supervision, and it is a direct threat to freedom of speech and liberty.
The free exchange of ideas is central to any free society, but especially to a vibrant democracy. I agree with John Milton, who wrote against censorship in1644, and said, "Give me the Liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” John Stuart Mills, 215 years later said, “freedom and free expression was the key to progress, and to argue freely and push arguments to their logical limits, is necessary to advance thinking."
A free and open debate distills and develops ideas, and refines them into understanding and enlightenment.
It is a shame that in 2023, these battles for free expression have to be resurrected.
Hamas blames Israel for the attack on civilians, but ignores their complicity in their suffering. It was Hamas that first launched the attack on Israel, continues to use civilian infrastructure as cover, and restricts the evacuation of Gaza civilians from areas in which Israel has given advanced warning of strikes.
Gaza civilians are victims. Hamas is not.
Editorial cartoons are a reflection of events.
There is overwhelming empirical evidence that Hamas uses civilians, both Palestinians and Israelis, as human shields. Their bases of operations exist within or under civilian infrastructure. They fire rockets from densely populated areas and hospital roofs, by design, to sacrifice the lives of innocents to exact a political toll from any military strikes.
Critics of the cartoon are using racism as a device to "cancel" the truth. When the intellectually indolent cannot defend the indefensible, they pull out the race card.
I do not mind being attacked for my cartoons. People should be emotionally invested in their politics. While the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, it does not insulate you from the consequences of your speech. I accept that. It is part of the job.
I stand by the cartoon… and I stand by critics’ right to condemn it.
It remains on the website of my home paper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which stands firmly behind me.
A high school student from Australia wrote to me to ask about the limits of speech. I told her, it may sound insensitive to allow the vile, vulgar, iniquitous, offensive, and obscene pronouncements into the public forum, and while they are not encouraged, they should not be disallowed, because it defines who these people are and exposes them for what they represent.
I would rather have these ideas exposed in the daylight of the public forum and debated in the political arena, than hidden away, buttressed by the absence of intelligent debate or deliberation, nurtured in a vacuum of predisposed, sympathetic collaboration, and circulated in the darkness.
The slogan of the Washington Post is “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” When the protest and rancor of a distressed newsroom, offended by a cartoon exposing the truth, cause adults to retreat to their safe spaces clutching their participation trophies and “canceling” the freedom of speech, these are truly dark days.
They should imagine what it was like hiding in a safe room, clutching their children and praying for the safety of their families.
You can call me what you want. You can ignore the specific target and mischaracterize the obvious point of the cartoon, create a diversion to cover up and justify the evil deeds of the villains you support, but it doesn’t change the truth.
Sometimes, the truth hurts.
I commend David Shipley for expanding the boundaries of the Post’s editorial page to include a wider variety of perspectives and challenge their readership to go beyond our commonalities and explore other divergent viewpoints to expand our horizons.
That is the duty of the editorial page.
Journalists have an obligation to keep the lights on and not kowtow to the voices of dissent, who want to extinguish the free exchange of ideas, and hide in the darkness.
From my perspective, I think it hurt the Washington Post far more than me.
Latest Essays:
Visit the T-Shirt Store, Prints @ Michael P. Ramirez Store (for special request art prints, please write to: ramireztoons@gmail.com) Original Website: michaelpramirez.com
Click on mylvrj.com/ramirez to enjoy two months of the Review-Journal for just 99 cents.
We’ll be back with a new cartoon tomorrow. Thanks so much for your subscription - it supports Michael’s editorial cartooning, writing, and this great independent space at Substack.
As always, let us know what you think of Michael’s work in the comments, or drop us a line at ramireztoons@gmail.com
I’m working on recording regular Zoom meetings with Michael at his studio, which I will share here exclusively with you. We are so grateful for your support as we continue to add elements to the newsletter.
As you can imagine, we receive many emails, and Michael reads everything you send with one exception: I regret that I cannot share your cartoon ideas. As an editorial artist, every original cartoon he publishes must spring from within his mind, though I will happily forward your good wishes, complaints, concerns about issues, or opinions about politicians who seem to make a mess of everything. Michael tries to keep his finger on the pulse of America, so what’s on your mind? What can we do better? Let us know in the comments or by email. We love hearing from you and will do our best to respond soon.
Best,
Melissa Praemonitus (editor and personal manager for Michael P. Ramirez)
P.S. Don’t forget your Subscriber discounts!
Excellent essay Michael.
I am 100% in agreement with your view that all opinions should be allowed to be expressed. There is absolutely no question about it. Robert M McClure