Lossy Compensation
I am not among those who think Rick Wagoner got a raw deal or worry that Obama overstepped his bounds asking Wagoner to step down. He may have been a sacrificial lamb and a not-so-subtle message to other execs, but as Paul Ingrassia argues, he had it coming.
But he still walks away with a $23 million severance package — plus input on the restructuring. Flow my tears, the crocodile said. Meanwhile, real sacrifices are being asked of the people who can ill afford to make them.
It’s all part of Obama’s master plan to remake the auto industry into a more dynamic and flexible and efficient component of the new green economy. A worthy goal, actually, but I don’t understand why workers have to give up everything they have fought for. If Obama wants to replace their benefits with real, substantial changes in education, retirement and health care so that workers, with or without unions, don’t need them — well, shit, that sounds ducky. But call me cynical, I don’t think the government — not this Congress, not this White House — has the guts to create the requisite programs that would compensate for the pensions, scholarships, and medical coverage the UAW has won through decades of struggle, even as they have made concessions in the interest of keeping the auto industry afloat. Last I heard, Obama’s health care plan was not universal nor comprehensive, and he has been talking about revising Social Security as soon as he gets the political capital the previous President thought he had to broach that third rail.
So, uh, I’m not holding my breath.
Unrelated note: My original drawing for the fourth panel showed Obama pressing a shotgun into Ron Gettelfinger’s gut. I thought it would contrast with the giant bag of money Obama is handing Wagoner, and represent the White House’s coercive use of bankruptcy to get concessions from the UAW. But two things made me change my mind: a) the shotgun was, as my wife put it, “overkill;” and b) it didn’t feel right showing a black man threatening a white man with a weapon. It evoked too much of David Cohen’s ridiculously racist cartoon of a couple months ago — one which I criticized within my own work. I mention this because I think it illustrates the new territory that white cartoonists (like, say, me) find themselves in now that the U.S. has a black President. While it’s true I had no racist intentions — the White House position is coercive — had I gone ahead with the drawing, there would have been legitimate concerns of a racist subtext. Is it “self-censorship”? Not at all. Just taking care not to cloud the message I mean to communicate.
April 7th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Kevin,
I really enjoy not just your cartoons, but that you also share some insight into your creative thought process–a glimpse at the politics of political cartooning. Watching you adjust your approach to the issues of racial characterization presented by the new administration has been particularly interesting.
Whether it’s due to the cartoon itself, or to your commentary on it, I actually go away from your strips each week actually *thinking* about something, which is such a rarity in modern political cartooning.
April 7th, 2009 at 1:39 am
Thanks, man. I really feel that a political cartoon is both a column in visual form and an artistic statement on political issues. That is, on the one hand, it expresses the cartoonist’s point of view on an issue; but it also reflects the political culture it arises from. At its highest form, it will comment upon that culture and question previous modes of representation. A long look at the history of caricature in political art shows some pretty disturbing shit that continues to this day, though less obvious most of the time.
I am constantly mindful of racist representation and try to avoid the traps set by past conventions. I think the most pernicious is the “unintended” stuff — you can attempt a certain connection of symbols (say, President and shotgun) aiming at one meaning (coercing unions) only to create something really problematic (black man aiming gun at white man) that subverts whatever you were actually trying to say. But it’s also pernicious, because who is to say such an image wasn’t instilled by a lifetime of racist poison from the culture at large?
April 7th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Alexander Danner is right about this feature. He appears to LIKE thinking, a form of work. No thrills without illumination. Could I wean myself from instant gratification and be more like Alexander Danner? Is there something in these drawings and texts that I can work with? I delivered something to Rick Wagoner’s secretary on the second floor, not a bag of money, and remember the passion that Bob Dorn’s crew had to “change the culture” (in 1995) and make a cars up to the Camry standard. (The temp–somewhere between the security guard and the lint on the back of the refrigerator –Scott, Instant Gratification, Adams.) I heard a worker complain about UAW reps short on solidarity and unionism. Today’s images make Wagoner him infantile and grandiose, like me, Gettefinger as stately and humble, and Obama as fatuous, and as deluded. Is every U.S. president deluded by virtue of being President? Is it a function of the office rather than an individual character trait?
April 7th, 2009 at 9:22 am
Having met Alex in person, I can heartily recommend emulating him. He’s a smart, funny and easy-going guy.
I was once a member of the Communications Workers of America, a pretty progressive group, and even had to vote on a strike. The CWA was great, very much on solidarity and unionism, willing to strike so me and a handful of people could retain our health benefits. Eventually there was a compromise, but we kept our benefits and avoided a strike.
No doubt the worker you heard from was pissed about all the concessions the UAW made in the past. I can’t say if those were necessary or not, but I can certainly understand the frustration.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I really dig this one, Kevin! But this is the second time I’ve tried to comment, the first one vanished…
April 9th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Oh boy, guys, I really wasn’t seeking after flattery — But thanks!
April 9th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Mikhaela: Actually, I think you posted a comment to the mooretoons blog. Just my way of keeping my friends confused, or so Matt thinks.