political cartoon analysis essay

Political Cartoon: Yankee Volunteers Marching Into Dixie Essay

Introduction, works cited.

Political cartoons are generally regarded as a hypertrophied imagination of the political or social reality of the particular time epoch. The image that is selected for the analysis is from the pre-1856 epoch of US history, and it represents the imagination of the political and social life as it was imagined by artists. The cartoon that was selected for the analysis is Yankee volunteers marching into Dixie. This is regarded as a music cover 1862 year dated. This is a patriotic, and a bit sarcastic depiction of the Union forces.

The general description of the picture presupposes that the Union forces are marching for opening the Civil War. The troop marches forward, and their dressings are characterized as the Yankee character Brother Jonathan (Brody, 106). The background of the poster depicts the skyline with capitol building. The interpretation of this painting is associated with the events before the civil war and is based on the fact that the Union forces were regarded as the only hope of the democratic development of the further American society.

Because political cartoons were based on the subjective perception of reality, it should be emphasized that the actual importance of the interpretation is associated with the necessity to explain the origins of the artist’s wish to attract attention to the fact of the civil war beginning. By the research by Lent (156), the following statement should be emphasized:

Political prints and satires have, quite appropriately, long been collecting interest for the congressional library. A particularly large group of such works from the late eighteenth century relates to the Revolutionary War period, including historical prints, satires, and allegories by American artists such as Paul Revere and Amos Doolittle, as well as British publishers from across the political spectrum.

In the light of this statement, the historical context of the analyzed poster is mainly associated with the necessity to analyze the sequence of the historic events, as well as the social background and moods of the people and soldiers. Because the poster depicts the very beginning of the Civil War, both sides of the conflict are highly inspired.

The interpretation accuracy may be doubted because the actual importance of the picture was to inspire the audience, and soldiers marching in white top hats look a bit strange. On the other hand, the colors of the US flag were regarded as a patriotic inspiration for everyone who should watch this poster. Therefore, the artist chose to draw the troops in national colors.

From the theoretic perspective of political satire and cartoons, it should be stated that the picture itself was aimed at increasing the level of self-consciousness and patriotism. In the light of this fact, the statement by Winfield and Yoon (234) emphasizes the importance of the political background and the necessity in such cartoons:

As the controversy grew in the United States over the proper form to be given the new government, cartoons and satires became an increasingly vital and ubiquitous component of the national public discourse in the formative years of the young republic. Two of the finest graphic satirists from this period, James Akin and William Charles, are well represented at the Library. For example, a rare impression of Akin’s virulent attack on President Thomas Jefferson for conducting secret negotiations with Spain toward the purchase of West Florida is significant not only as an early presidential satire but also as the earliest-known signed satire by Akin.

Hence, the United States army had to be depicted as a heroic and powerful force. Even though the national forces could not look like this, the authors managed to create the cartoon with a high level of inspiration, and create the necessary mood for motivating people.

The only reason why authors preferred to choose this type of interpretation may be explained by the fact that social advertisement was not developed highly. The national colors were regarded as the only inspirational hook possible for a political cartoon. These colors could be used either as for inspiration or for political sarcasm, however, while the warriors of the Union troops are depicted as dignified people, there is no space for sarcasm

The impact that it might have on the people is linked either with the pride for the dignity of the national troops, or with the irritation and anger of those who were on the opposite side of the barricades. Anyway, the authors reached their goal.

The cartoon analyzed may be regarded from several points, however, the main idea of the image is linked with the inspiration of the target audience. Hence, the interpretation of the cartoon from the perspective of inspiration and motivation may be regarded as the most accurate.

Brody, David and Henretta, James. America: A Concise History: Vol. 1, To 1877 . 4 th edition. New York. 2010.

Lent, John. Animation, Caricature, and Gag and Political Cartoons in the United States . Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2004.

Winfield, Betty H., and Doyle Yoon. “Historical Images at a Glance: American Editorial Cartoons.” Newspaper Research Journal 23.4 (2002): 97.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, January 10). Political Cartoon: Yankee Volunteers Marching Into Dixie. https://ivypanda.com/essays/analysis-of-political-cartoon/

"Political Cartoon: Yankee Volunteers Marching Into Dixie." IvyPanda , 10 Jan. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/analysis-of-political-cartoon/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Political Cartoon: Yankee Volunteers Marching Into Dixie'. 10 January.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Political Cartoon: Yankee Volunteers Marching Into Dixie." January 10, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/analysis-of-political-cartoon/.

1. IvyPanda . "Political Cartoon: Yankee Volunteers Marching Into Dixie." January 10, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/analysis-of-political-cartoon/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Political Cartoon: Yankee Volunteers Marching Into Dixie." January 10, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/analysis-of-political-cartoon/.

• "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court" by Mark Twain
• Friendship in the ‘Because of Winn Dixie’ by Kate Dicamillo
• American Music Bands: Dixie Chicks and The Weavers
• "Dixie": A Racially-Discriminating Song
• "The Contrast” by Royall Tyler
• Explaining Business Model Innovation Processes
• “The Goophered Grapevine” by Charles W. Chesnutt
• Identity Crisis in "Nisei Daughter" by Sone
• Donald Hall: What Makes a Poet Great?
• New York Yankees Franchise in the 1920s and 1930s
• Vietnam War: David Halberstam's "The Making of a Quagmire"
• “The Right Stuff” by Tom Wolfe
• Family Model: Stephanie Coontz’s “What We Really Miss About the 1950s”
• Colonialism Questions: George Washington and Monroe Declaration
• US Southern Command as Command in the Defense Department

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Finance and Business

How to Analyze Political Cartoons

Last Updated: January 16, 2023 Fact Checked

This article was reviewed by Gerald Posner . Gerald Posner is an Author & Journalist based in Miami, Florida. With over 35 years of experience, he specializes in investigative journalism, nonfiction books, and editorials. He holds a law degree from UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and a BA in Political Science from the University of California-Berkeley. He’s the author of thirteen books, including several New York Times bestsellers, the winner of the Florida Book Award for General Nonfiction, and has been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History. He was also shortlisted for the Best Business Book of 2020 by the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. There are 8 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 579,573 times.

Political cartoons use imagery and text to comment on a contemporary social issue. They may contain a caricature of a well-known person or an allusion to a contemporary event or trend. [1] X Research source By examining the image and text elements of the cartoon, you can start to understand its deeper message and evaluate its effectiveness.

Examining the Image and Text

Common Symbols in Political Cartoons

Uncle Sam or an eagle for the United States John Bull, Britannia or a lion for the United Kingdom A beaver for Canada A bear for Russia A dragon for China A sun for Japan A kangaroo for Australia A donkey for the US Democratic Party An elephant for the US Republican Party

• Many political cartoonists will include caricatures of well-known politicians, which means they’ll exaggerate their features or bodies for humor, easy identification, or to emphasize a point. For example, an artist might make an overweight politician even larger to emphasize their greed or power.

• For example, if the cartoonist shows wealthy people receiving money while poorer people beg them for change, they’re using irony to show the viewer how wrong they believe the situation to be.

• For example, the stereotype of a fat man in a suit often stands for business interests.
• If you’re analyzing a historical political cartoon, take its time period into account. Was this kind of stereotype the norm for this time? How is the artist challenging or supporting it?

Text in Political Cartoons

Labels might be written on people, objects or places. For example, a person in a suit might be labeled “Congress,” or a briefcase might be labeled with a company’s name.

Text bubbles might come from one or more of the characters to show dialogue. They’re represented by solid circles or boxes around text.

Thought bubbles show what a character is thinking. They usually look like small clouds.

Captions or titles are text outside of the cartoon, either below or above it. They give more information or interpretation to what is happening in the cartoon itself.

• For example, a cartoon about voting might include a voting ballot with political candidates and celebrities, indicating that more people may be interested in voting for celebrities than government officials.
• The effectiveness of allusions often diminishes over time, as people forget about the trends or events.

Analyzing the Issue and Message

• If you need help, google the terms, people, or places that you recognize and see what they’ve been in the news for recently. Do some background research and see if the themes and events seem to connect to what you saw in the cartoon.

• The view might be complex, but do your best to parse it out. For example, an anti-war cartoon might portray the soldiers as heroes, but the government ordering them into battle as selfish or wrong.

• For example, a political cartoon in a more conservative publication will convey a different message, and use different means of conveying it, than one in a liberal publication.

Rhetorical Devices

Pathos: An emotional appeal that tries to engage the reader on an emotional level. For example, the cartoonist might show helpless citizens being tricked by corporations to pique your pity and sense of injustice.

Ethos: An ethical appeal meant to demonstrate the author’s legitimacy as someone who can comment on the issue. This might be shown through the author’s byline, which could say something like, “by Tim Carter, journalist specializing in economics.”

Logos: A rational appeal that uses logical evidence to support an argument, like facts or statistics. For example, a caption or label in the cartoon might cite statistics like the unemployment rate or number of casualties in a war.

• Does it make a sound argument?
• Does it use appropriate and meaningful symbols and words to convey a viewpoint?
• Do the people and objects in the cartoon adequately represent the issue?

Community Q&A

• Keep yourself informed on current events in order to more clearly understand contemporary political cartoons. Thanks Helpful 6 Not Helpful 0
• If you are having trouble discerning the meaning of a political cartoon, try talking with friends, classmates, or colleagues. Thanks Helpful 3 Not Helpful 3
• Historical context: When?
• Intended audience: For who?
• Point of view: Author's POV.
• Purpose: Why?
• Significance: For what reason?

• Political cartoons are oftentimes meant to be funny and occasionally disregard political correctness. If you are offended by a cartoon, think about the reasons why a cartoonist would use certain politically incorrect symbols to describe an issue. Thanks Helpful 14 Not Helpful 2

You Might Also Like

• ↑ http://teachinghistory.org/teaching-materials/teaching-guides/21733
• ↑ https://teachinghistory.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/Cartoon_Analysis_0.pdf
• ↑ https://www.metaphorandart.com/articles/exampleirony.html
• ↑ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/mideast/educators/types/lesson3.html
• ↑ https://www.writerswrite.co.za/the-12-common-archetypes/
• ↑ https://www.lsu.edu/hss/english/files/university_writing_files/item35402.pdf
• ↑ https://www.mindtools.com/axggxkv/paraphrasing-and-summarizing
• ↑ http://www.ysmithcpallen.com/sites/default/files/Analyzing-and-Interpreting-Political-Cartoons1.ppt

About This Article

To analyze political cartoons, start by looking at the picture and identifying the main focus of the cartoon, which will normally be exaggerated for comic effect. Then, look for popular symbols, like Uncle Sam, who represents the United States, or famous political figures. Make note of which parts of the symbols are exaggerated, and note any stereotypes that the artists is playing with. Once you’ve identified the main point, look for subtle details that create the rest of the story. For tips on understanding and recognizing persuasive techniques used in illustration, read on! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Sep 5, 2017

Did this article help you?

Ben Garrison

Jan 1, 2018

Julian Goytia

Nov 4, 2016

Jordy Mc'donald

Oct 29, 2016

Shane Connell

Jun 9, 2017

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Don’t miss out! Sign up for

wikiHow’s newsletter

The New York Times

The Learning Network | Drawing for Change: Analyzing and Making Political Cartoons

Drawing for Change: Analyzing and Making Political Cartoons

Updated, Nov. 19, 2015 | We have now announced the winners of our 2015 Editorial Cartoon Contest here .

Political cartoons deliver a punch. They take jabs at powerful politicians, reveal official hypocrisies and incompetence and can even help to change the course of history . But political cartoons are not just the stuff of the past. Cartoonists are commenting on the world’s current events all the time, and in the process, making people laugh and think. At their best, they challenge our perceptions and attitudes.

Analyzing political cartoons is a core skill in many social studies courses. After all, political cartoons often serve as important primary sources, showing different perspectives on an issue. And many art, history and journalism teachers take political cartoons one step further, encouraging students to make their own cartoons.

In this lesson, we provide three resources to assist teachers working with political cartoons:

• an extended process for analyzing cartoons and developing more sophisticated interpretations;
• a guide for making cartoons, along with advice on how to make one from Patrick Chappatte, an editorial cartoonist for The International New York Times ;
• a resource library full of links to both current and historic political cartoons.

Use this lesson in conjunction with our Editorial Cartoon Contest or with any political cartoon project you do with students.

Materials | Computers with Internet access. Optional copies of one or more of these two handouts: Analyzing Editorial Cartoons ; Rubric for our Student Editorial Cartoon Contest .

Analyzing Cartoons

While political cartoons are often an engaging and fun source for students to analyze, they also end up frustrating many students who just don’t possess the strategies or background to make sense of what the cartoonist is saying. In other words, understanding a cartoon may look easier than it really is.

Learning how to analyze editorial cartoons is a skill that requires practice. Below, we suggest an extended process that can be used over several days, weeks or even a school year. The strength of this process is that it does not force students to come up with right answers, but instead emphasizes visual thinking and close reading skills. It provides a way for all students to participate, while at the same time building up students’ academic vocabulary so they can develop more sophisticated analyses over time.

Throughout this process, you might choose to alternate student groupings and class formats. For example, sometimes students will work independently, while other times they will work in pairs or small groups. Similarly, students may focus on one single cartoon, or they may have a folder or even a classroom gallery of multiple cartoons.

Open-Ended Questioning

We suggest beginning cartoon analysis using the same three-question protocol we utilize every Monday for our “ What’s Going On in This Picture? ” feature to help students bring to the surface what the cartoon is saying:

• What is going on in this editorial cartoon?
• What do you see that makes you say that?
• What more can you find?

These simple, open-ended questions push students to look closely at the image without pressuring them to come up with a “correct” interpretation. Students can notice details and make observations without rushing, while the cyclical nature of the questions keeps sending them back to look for more details.

As you repeat the process with various cartoons over time, you may want to ask students to do this work independently or in pairs before sharing with the whole class. Here is our editorial cartoon analysis handout (PDF) to guide students analyzing any cartoon, along with one with the above Patrick Chappatte cartoon (PDF) already embedded.

Developing an Academic Vocabulary and a Keener Eye

Once students gain confidence noticing details and suggesting different interpretations, always backed up by evidence, it is useful to introduce them to specific elements and techniques cartoonists use. Examples include: visual symbols, metaphors, exaggeration, distortion, stereotypes, labeling, analogy and irony. Helping students recognize and identify these cartoonists’ tools will enable them to make more sophisticated interpretations.

The Library of Congress (PDF) and TeachingHistory.org (PDF) both provide detailed explanations of what these elements and techniques mean, and how cartoonists use them.

In addition to those resources, three other resources that can help students develop a richer understanding of a cartoon are:

• The SOAPSTone strategy, which many teachers use for analyzing primary sources, can also be used for looking at political cartoons.
• This student handout (PDF) breaks up the analysis into two parts: identifying the main idea and analyzing the method used by the artist.
• The National Archives provides a cartoon analysis work sheet to help students reach higher levels of understanding.

Once students get comfortable using the relevant academic vocabulary to describe what’s going on in a cartoon, we suggest returning to the open-ended analysis questions we started with, so students can become more independent and confident cartoon analysts.

Making an Editorial Cartoon

The Making of an Editorial Cartoon

Patrick Chappatte, an editorial cartoonist for The International New York Times, offers advice on how to make an editorial cartoon while working on deadline.

Whether you are encouraging your students to enter our Student Editorial Cartoon Contest , or are assigning students to make their own cartoons as part of a history, economics, journalism, art or English class, the following guide can help you and your students navigate the process.

Learn from an Editorial Cartoonist

We asked Patrick Chappatte, an editorial cartoonist for The International New York Times, to share with us how he makes an editorial cartoon on deadline, and to offer students advice on how to make a cartoon. Before watching the film above, ask students to take notes on: a) what they notice about the process of making a cartoon, and b) what advice Mr. Chappatte gives students making their own cartoons.

After watching, ask students to share what information they find useful as they prepare to make their own editorial cartoons.

Then, use these steps — a variation on the writing process — to help guide students to make their own cartoons.

Step 1 | Brainstorm: What Is a Topic or Issue You Want to Comment On?

As a professional cartoonist, Mr. Chappatte finds themes that connect to the big news of the day. As a student, you may have access to a wider or narrower range of topics from which to choose. If you are entering a cartoon into our Student Editorial Cartoon Contest, you can pick any topic or issue covered in The New York Times, which not only opens up the whole world to you, but also historical events as well — from pop music to climate change to the Great Depression. If this a class assignment, you may have different instructions.

Step 2 | Make a Point: What Do You Want to Say About Your Topic?

Once you pick an issue, you need to learn enough about your topic to have something meaningful to say. Remember, a political cartoon delivers commentary or criticism on a current issue, political topic or historical event.

For example, if you were doing a cartoon about the deflated football scandal would you want to play up the thought that Tom Brady must have been complicit, or would you present him as a victim of an overzealous N.F.L. commissioner? Considering the Republican primaries , would you draw Donald Trump as a blowhard sucking air out of the room and away from more serious candidates, or instead make him the standard- bearer for a genuine make-America-great-again movement?

You can see examples of how two cartoonists offer differing viewpoints on the same issue in Newspaper in Education’s Cartoons for the Classroom and NPR’s Double Take .

Mr. Chappatte explains that coming up with your idea is the most important step. “How do ideas come? I have no recipe,” he says. “While you start reading about the story, you want to let the other half of your brain loose.”

Strategies he suggests for exploring different paths include combining two themes, playing with words, making a joke, or finding an image that sums up a situation.

Step 3 | Draw: What Are Different Ways to Communicate Your Ideas?

Then, start drawing. Try different angles, test various approaches. Don’t worry too much about the illustration itself; instead, focus on getting ideas on paper.

Mr. Chappatte says, “The drawing is not the most important part. Seventy-five percent of a cartoon is the idea, not the artistic skills. You need to come up with an original point of view. And I would say that 100 percent of a cartoon is your personality.”

Consider using one or more of the elements and techniques that cartoonists often employ, such as visual symbols, metaphors, exaggeration, distortion, labeling, analogy and irony.

Step 4 | Get Feedback: Which Idea Lands Best?

Student cartoonists won’t be able to get feedback from professional editors like Mr. Chappatte does at The International New York Times, but they should seek feedback from other sources, such as teachers, fellow students or even family members. You certainly can ask your audience which sketch they like best, but you can also let them tell you what they observe going on in the cartoon, to see what details they notice, and whether they figure out the ideas you want to express.

Step 5 | Revise and Finalize: How Can I Make an Editorial Cartoon?

Once you pick which draft you’re going to run with, it’s time to finalize the cartoon. Try to find the best tools to match your style, whether they are special ink pens, markers or a computer graphics program.

As you work, remember what Mr. Chappatte said: “It’s easier to be outrageous than to be right on target. You don’t have to shoot hard; you have to aim right. To me the best cartoons give you in one visual shortcut everything of a complex situation; funny and deep, both light and heavy; I don’t do these cartoons every day, not even every week, but those are the best.” That’s the challenge.

Step 6 | Publish: How Can My Editorial Cartoon Reach an Audience?

Students will have the chance to publish their editorial cartoons on the Learning Network on or before Oct. 20, 2015 as part of our Student Contest. We will use this rubric (PDF) to help select winners to feature in a separate post. Students can also enter their cartoons in the Scholastic Arts & Writing Awards new editorial cartoon category for a chance to win a national award and cash prize.

Even if your students aren’t making a cartoon for our contest, the genre itself is meant to have an audience. That audience can start with the teacher, but ideally it shouldn’t end there.

Students can display their cartoons to the class or in groups. Classmates can have a chance to respond to the artist, leading to a discussion or debate. Students can try to publish their cartoons in the school newspaper or other local newspapers or online forums. It is only when political cartoons reach a wider audience that they have the power to change minds.

Where to Find Cartoons

Finding the right cartoons for your students to analyze, and to serve as models for budding cartoonists, is important. For starters, Newspaper in Education provides a new “ Cartoons for the Classroom ” lesson each week that pairs different cartoons on the same current issue. Below, we offer a list of other resources:

• Patrick Chappatte
• Brian McFadden

A Selection of the Day’s Cartoons

• Association of American Editorial Cartoonists
• U.S. News and World Report

Recent Winners of the Herblock Prize, the Thomas Nast Award and the Pulitzer Prize

• Kevin Kallaugher in the Baltimore Sun
• Jen Sorensen in The Austin Chronicle
• Tom Tomorrow in The Nation
• Signe Wilkinson in the Philadelphia Daily News
• Adam Zyglis in The Buffalo News
• Kevin Siers in The Charlotte Observer
• Steve Sack in the Star Tribune

Historical Cartoonists

• Thomas Nast
• Paul Conrad

Other Historical Cartoon Resources

• Library of Congress | It’s No Laughing Matter
• BuzzFeed | 15 Historic Cartoons That Changed The World

Please share your own experiences with teaching using political cartoons in the comments section.

What's Next

• Source Criticism
• Interpretation
• Political Cartoons

How to interpret the meaning of political cartoons

Interpreting a visual source , like a political cartoon, is very different to interpreting words on a page, which is the case with written sources .

Therefore, you need to develop a different set of skills.

What is a 'political cartoon'?

Political cartoons are ink drawings created to provide a humorous or critical opinion about political events at the time of its creation.

They were particularly popular in newspapers and magazines during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, they are still used by many newspapers, magazines and websites today.

While political cartoons can be funny, that is usually not their main purpose. They were primarily created to persuade their audience to take a particular view on a historical event.

A successful political cartoon can change someone’s mind so that they ultimately agree with the cartoonist’s point of view.

Further information:

Learn more about the history of the political cartoon with this short YouTube clip:

If you've never seen a political cartoon before, you can see a contemporary one being made below:

How do I understand the meaning of a political cartoon?

Understanding what a historical political cartoon means can be difficult for us because we did not live through the political events the cartoons talk about.

However, all political cartoons rely heavily upon a very simple visual ‘code’ rather than relying solely on words to convey their message.

Once we learn how this visual code works, we can use it to ‘decode’ the specific message of a cartoon.

Political Cartoon Visual Codes

Cartoonists intentionally draw people or characters with physical features that are larger than they naturally are. They do this in order to make a point.

Usually, the point is to highlight something about the character of a person. For example, if a person is drawn with a large, toothy grin, it can be a sign that they have evil intentions and are untrustworthy.

Therefore, when interpreting a cartoon, look for any physical features that seem obviously exaggerated. Then, try to decide what point the creator was trying to make about the person.

If you want to see how a cartoonist uses caricatures, watch the short clip below:  

To help their audience understand what each person represents in their drawings, cartoonists often write a name on the major figures. Common names include famous politicians or countries.

So, when you’re interpreting a cartoon, look for the labels. You might need to do some background research to find out who the people are before you continue with your interpretation.

3. Symbolism

Cartoonists use simple objects, or symbols, that the general public would be familiar with. These symbols are used to represent important concepts or ideas.

For example, using a ‘skull and crossbones’ could represent ‘death’ or ‘danger’. While you’re interpreting a cartoon, identify any symbols and try to work out what concept the image is meant to represent.

Here are some common symbols used in political cartoons, along with their common meanings: 

4. Captions

Another handy way that cartoonists convey important information to their audience is by providing a written explanation through a speech bubble in the cartoon itself or a caption at the bottom of the image.

These words should help you understand the main historical event or issue that the image is based upon.

5. Analogies

An analogy is a comparison between two different things to highlight a particular similarity in ideas. Through the comparison of a complex political issue with more simplistic, 'everyday' scenarios with which the audience would be more familiar, a cartoonist can more easily convey their message.

Here are some common analogies and what they could mean in political cartoons:

6. Stereotypes

It was very common for cartoonists to represent a particular group of people (usually in a very racist way) using stereotypes.

A stereotype is an over-simplification of what a particular racial group looks like. For example, Chinese people in the 19th century were drawn with a long pony-tail in their hair.

Cartoonists use this so that audiences can readily identify which people group is the target of the cartoon. Getting to know common stereotypes can be quite confronting for us, since they can be very derogatory in nature.

However, once you become familiar with common forms of stereotyping, you can identify the appropriate people group being targeted in a particular cartoon.

Common Stereotypes: 

People Group:

Australians

Jewish People

Exaggerated Features:

Pickelhaube (the spiked helmet), gorilla-like body

Long ponytail, narrow eyes, thin moustache, traditional Chinese clothes and hat, two large front teeth

Circular glasses, narrow eyes, toothy grin

Slouch hat, clean-shaven, khaki clothes

Large nose, kippah (Jewish prayer cap)

How do I write an interpretation?

Once you have deconstructed the cartoon, now you can start creating your explanation. To do so, answer the following questions:

• Who or what is represented by the characterisation, stereotypes and symbols?
• Who or what have been labelled?
• What information is provided by the caption?
• What is the political issue being mentioned in the cartoon? (You may need to do some background research to discover this).
• What is the analogy that this cartoon is based upon?

Once you have answered these questions, you are ready to answer the final one:

• What did the cartoonist want the audience to think about the issue? 

What do I do with my interpretation?

Identifying the message of a political cartoon shows that you understand the primary source, which means that you can use it as an indirect quote in your historical writing.

Your interpretation can also help you in your analysis and evaluation of the source. For example, identifying the source's message can help you ascertain:

• The purpose of the cartoon
• The motive of the cartoonist
• The relevance of the source to your argument
• The accuracy of the information presented in the image

Frith, J. (31st December, 1941). 'No offence, mum...', The Bulletin.

Demonstrating interpretation of political cartoons in your writing:

The political cartoon by Frith makes a comment on Australia's changing diplomatic relationships between Great Britain and America during the Second World War. The cartoonist does this through the depiction of three main characters. The man on the left is clearly a caricature of Australian prime minister John Curtin, as he was commonly drawn with his distinctive hat and glasses. The woman on the right of the image is meant to symbolise Great Britain. This symbolism is clear due to the use of the Union Jack, the flag of Great Britain, drawn upon her apron. Furthermore, she is depicted as the mythical figure of Britannia, a common representation of Britain. The second woman is meant to be America, as she is drawn with a stereotypical 1940s American hairstyle and clothing. This symbolism is reinforced by the depiction of the stripes of the American flag drawn on her apron. The primary analogy the cartoon uses is the idea of 'holding onto your mother's apron strings', which is used to describe a young child depending on their mother for comfort and security. This analogy is evident in the image caption which explicitly states that Curtin is "shifting to these here apron strings". The overall message of the cartoon is that Curtin is switching Australia's dependence from Great Britain to America for comfort and security. It is meant to be a satirical comment on the childish dependency that Australia demonstrated during the early years of the Second World War.

What do you need help with?

Download ready-to-use digital learning resources.

Copyright © History Skills 2014-2024.

Contact  via email

A Semiotic Analysis of Political Cartoons

Cynthia Bailey Lee

CSE 271, Spring 2003

Professor Joseph Goguen

June 5, 2003

Political cartoons historically and currently play a significant role in public discourse about serious and important issues. They are also most often funny. This paper presents a formal analysis of political cartoons using methods from classical semiotics, semiotic morphisms, and in particular the study of blends. This includes rigorously addressing questions such as why the humor in political cartoons has a different flavor from most other cartoons, how political cartoons achieve serious commentary and humor, and what literary structures characterize political cartoons’ visual style. A selection of political cartoons are analyzed in detail.

1           Introduction

A cartoon is ``a drawing, representational or symbolic, that makes a satirical, witty, or humorous point.'' [5] This work focuses attention on a particular kind of cartoon, the political cartoon. In addition to the obvious difference in subject matter for political cartoons compared to other types of cartoons, political cartoons constitute a distinct class visually. Also, while most political cartoons are funny in some sense, it is not the sense in which most other cartoons are funny.

The origins of the modern political cartoon can be traced to the 16th century, with drawings used in the theological debates of the Reformation. The cartoon style as such developed in Britain in the 1800's and is distinguished by the use of caricature. [5] Throughout much of the United States' history, political cartoons have held a prominent place. During the Civil War era, Thomas Nast's mastery of the medium was applied very effectively to the defense of Lincoln's policies. Nast is the inventor of Donkey and Elephant signs that remain today the de facto standard signs for the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively. Additionally, his influence is credited with the overthrow of the corrupt ``Boss'' Tweed government of New York City. [5]

To achieve such ambitious practical results as these, political cartoons must strike a delicate balance between telling things that seem real and true, and using wild imagination, exaggeration and humor. The result is to drive home a powerful and relevant message in a pleasant way. Indeed, this is the essence of caricature, or satire, which is the basis for political cartoons' effect. But what does it mean structurally and mathematically to be caricature or satire? The rest of the paper will address this question using methods from classical semiotics, semiotic morphisms and particularly blends.

First, a comment about the interpretation of political cartoons as presented in this paper. This is not a paper about politics, but rather how political thoughts and opinions are expressed through complex signs. In general, the worldview of the artist will be accepted as truth for the sake of analysis. Furthermore, the words used here in the labeling of concepts from the cartoons were chosen with a large amount of arbitrariness, as they are generally unimportant in the analysis.

2           Saussure and Sign Systems

In linguist Ferdinand de Saussure's study of signs, he emphasized the importance of studying whole systems of signs, rather than simply doing individual analysis. He claimed that signs draw meaning and significance from the way they interact with other signs in the system. In particular, he observed that ``concepts...are defined not positively, in terms of their content, but negatively by contrast with other items in the same system'' [1][2](editing and emphasis as given in [3]). This principle is nicely illustrated in the following cartoon (Figure 1).

Figure 1: February 10, 2003 [4]

What strikes one first about the cartoon is the relative difference in size and fuse length of the two ``bombs.'' One also notices a difference in the person depicted as the bombs' ``heads.'' The likeness of George W. Bush acts as a means of further distinguishing these two signs; he lights the fuse of a distant bomb while turning his back on the closer one. Thus he creates a contrast between them, both in terms of a spatial relationship and a mode of interaction. Together these contrasts form part of the core meaning of this cartoon, which is a contrast between nations, a contrast between policies towards nations, and a contradictory matching between nations and policies. But how exactly are these images and signs related to nations and policies? To answer this question, we turn to a structural study of the meaning of complex metaphorical signs known as blending.

3           Blending

The most basic intuition for identifying a blend in this cartoon is to notice that while the images of the bombs play a metaphorical role in describing geopolitical relationships between the United States, North Korea, and Iraq, what is seen cannot be a simple projection from a geopolitical space to a metaphorical ``bombs with fuses'' space. This is because elements of the source space are visible in what is supposed to be the target space! The natural explanation for the coexistence of elements from both the source and target spaces is that a new blended space has been created. Figures 2 and 3a below compare the structures of traditional metaphor theory and blend theory. Figure 3b shows how the blend analysis works for this cartoon.

Figure 2: Traditional Metaphor Analysis

Figures 3a and 3b: Blending Analysis [*]

In the blending theory, the source and target spaces are both called input spaces, since they both contribute to the blended space. Notice that in addition to the blended space, a generic space has been added. The purpose of the generic space is to define at a very high level the nature of the structures internal to the three other spaces. This will become clearer by looking in more detail at the ``bomb'' cartoon example. First, since Iraq and North Korea are really two different conceptual spaces, we amend Figure 3b to include three input spaces, something not generally possible in traditional metaphor analysis (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Amended Blend Analysis             

Figures 5: Detail of Blend Analysis

Figure 5 gives the detail of the structures internal to the nodes shown in Figure 4. The three input space structures are found by taking an interpretation of international politics, and knowledge of how bombs and fuses work. Observe that the structure of the three input spaces is strikingly similar. A generalization of this similarity is defined in the generic space, and one particular way of blending the two input spaces, the one shown in the cartoon, is defined in the blended space.

In the blended space, the Bush and the Bomber nodes have been fused to a single Bomber-Bush. This in itself has significance for the meaning that is emergent in the blended space, in other words, is not found in any input space. Since each input space is its own sphere, it is only in the blended space that such a profound and dangerous contradiction between the policies towards Iraq and North Korea, and the immediacy of the danger posed by each can be seen. Also, because the Bomber figure is fused with Bush , and bombers are generally thought of as dangerous and even evil, the fusing of this figure with Bush is particularly unflattering.

Another structural difference between the blended space and the input spaces is that in the blended space there is a loop; the North Korea bomb ``will injure'' Bomber-Bush , who lit the fuse. However, in the input space, war with North Korea ``will injure'' a third party, United States . The ``bombs with fuses'' input space also implicitly assumes that Victim is different from Bomber . President Bush is certainly part of the United States, and as such would be injured if the United States in general were injured, so in an indirect sense the concept of Bush hurting himself can be found in an input space. But a strong, direct conclusion about the self-injury aspect of Bush's neglect of North Korea can only be found in the emergent meaning of the blended space.

This exemplifies how blending theory helps define satire, the genre of humor used in political cartoons. Satire does not seek to create totally new meaning, else it would not be relevant to real events; rather satire reconfigures spaces to emphasize, illustrate, and comment.

4           Semiotic Morphisms

The contribution of semiotic morphisms to the analysis above can be seen in that there is not only structure connecting the conceptual spaces, but also structure within them, and these structures also have inter-relationships. What makes a metaphor or blend work, what defines the quality of the choice of target or input spaces, is the degree to which the mappings between spaces preserve this structure. [8] As discussed above, the relationships between elements in the ``bombs with fuses'' space mirror the important relationships in the North Korea and Iraq spaces, and all are mirrored in the blended space. This is why readers are able to make sense of the metaphor, and why the emergent meaning of the blended space is accepted (because it does not stray too far from known reality). For a formal, explicit listing of the morphisms between the five conceptual spaces, see Appendix A: BOBJ Code for the ``Bombs'' Cartoon.

5           Metonymy and Metonymic Tightening

This cartoon also makes for an interesting study of the use of metonymy. Metonymy is defined as ``a trope in which one word is put for another that suggests it.''[7] An obvious example is the use of caricatures of the leaders of the various countries as representatives for the countries themselves. In other words, Kim Jung Il the man, though no doubt ruthless, is not the real danger to the United States; it is North Korea's advanced weaponry. President Bush is an interesting example because he represents himself directly in terms of policy-making, but in terms of the danger posed by North Korea, also stands in for the United States. Metonymy is widely used in political cartoons, and helps to define their distinctive caricature visual style.

Gilles Fauconnier and Mark Turner formalized the concept of metonymy in terms of its application to blends. As the last of their six ``optimality principles,'' conditions for successful blends, they define the Metynomic Projection Constraint (or as it has come to be known, Metynomic Tightening) as ``when an element is projected from an input to the blend and a second element from that input is projected because of its metonymic link to the first, shorten the metonymic distance between them in the blend.'' [6]

A classic example is the embodiment of Death in western tradition as a cloaked skeleton. The metaphor of death is garnished with an element that is literally associated with dead things (i.e. a skeleton). [6] In this case, bombs, as a weapon, have a metonymic link to the concept of war and danger.

6           Further Example

Now that the major elements of semiotics, semiotic morphisms and blends have been introduced, we present a brief analysis of a second cartoon for reinforcement.

Figure 6: March 28, 2003 [9]

In this cartoon, we see the conventional stereotype of a family vacation where the children do nothing but ask ``Are we there yet?'' of their embattled parents, combined with U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the news media. Formally, this corresponds to the following blend diagram:

Figure 7: Detail of Blend Analysis

In this case, the emergent meaning of the blended space derives from a mismatch in the connotations of the Result node in the Family Vacation space and the War space. In a family vacation, one generally assumes that the Destination is something exciting, say Disneyland, to naturally be desired and eagerly awaited by the children. However, in the case of the War Space, one would never hope for the kind of disaster that happened in Vietnam, a Failed, Expensive War . (Note the use of metonymy; Vietnam the country replaces Vietnam the war, which in turn stands for the abstract concept of a disastrous military campaign.) But in the blended space, the eagerness of children to arrive at Destination is fused with the zeal with which reporters ask Rumsfeld about struggles in the war in Iraq, to lead to a grotesque situation where reporters seem to desire horrible things to happen. Indeed, the inappropriateness of this seemingly too-eager attitude is both the ``punch line'' and serious message of the cartoon. Notice that the full effect of this conclusion can only be reached in the blended space, a condition Grady, Oakley, and Coulson call the `` chief diagnostic for the occurrence of blending .'' [10]

7           Reblending

Though more common to non-political cartoons, reblending is a common process by which humor is created. In part, reblending is more common to other types of cartoons because they are more likely to be multi-frame, but this can occasionally be seen in political cartoons such as the one in Figure 8, below.

Figure 8: May 29, 2003 [11]

The essence of reblending is that the reader is led to form one blended space, then given new information that reinterprets the input spaces and creates a different, usually contradictory, blended space. [12] In the first frame above, we have the space of back-patting, blended with the space of Iraqi-US relations, yielding a blend that seems to say Iraqis have love and gratitude for the US. In the second frame, the same two input spaces are reblended to say that Iraqis do not like the US, a direct contradiction of the first blend.

8           Conclusion

In The Literary Mind, Mark Turner argues that complex metaphorical and blending patterns, such as those in the cartoons seen in this paper, are fundamental to the way humans think and reason. [13] Indeed, he argues that almost no thought or reason can take place without these seemingly advanced processes. This may explain the surprising fact that political cartoons, on the surface a not ``serious'' art form, are so successful in helping society to understand and make judgments about the extremely complex interactions at work in political systems. In this paper, the nature of political cartoons' signature caricature-based visual style was linked to metonymy and metonymic tightening. Political cartoon's particular flavor of humor, satire, was understood in terms of the emergent meaning in blended spaces. Finally, the classical semiotic study of contrasts between signs in sign systems was shown to characterize a common practice in political cartoons.

Appendix A: BOBJ Code for the ``Bombs'' Cartoon

In the text of this paper, the mathematical structure of the blends was represented in visual diagrams. For the purposes of very rigorous analysis, a formal language for these structures becomes convenient. Such a language is presented in Joseph Goguen's ``An Introduction to Algebraic Semiotics, with Application to User Interface Design,'' using OBJ3 (now BOBJ). [14] The following is essentially a transcription of Figure 5 using the methods described there. An explanation of these methods is beyond the scope of this paper, though the basic points can be learned by comparing the code below to Figure 5. Note that the objection that the BOBJ interpreter raises to the code below, that Bush-Bomber acts as both Person and People from the generic space, is quite correct and highlights the unusualness of that loop structure.

  obj DATA is pr BOOL .

    sort Person .

    sort People .

    op unknown1 : -> Person .

    op unknown2 : -> People .

  th NKOREA is sorts Process Result . pr DATA .

    op conflict-escalation : -> Process .

    op war-NKorea : -> Result .

    op US : -> People .

    op initiates : Person Process -> Bool .

    op ends-in : Process Result -> Bool .

    op will-injure : Result People -> Bool .

    eq ends-in(conflict-escalation, war-NKorea) = true .

    eq will-injure(war-NKorea, US) = true .

  th IRAQ is sorts Process Result . pr DATA .

    op Bush : -> Person .

    op war-Iraq : -> Result .

    op effects : Result People -> Bool .

    eq initiates(Bush, conflict-escalation) = true .

    eq ends-in(conflict-escalation, war-Iraq) = true .

  th BOMBS-WITH-FUSE is sorts Process Result . pr DATA .

    op bomber : -> Person .

    op burning-fuse : -> Process .

    op bomb-explosion : -> Result .

    op victim : -> People .

    op lights : Person Process -> Bool .

    op injures : Result People -> Bool .

    eq lights(bomber, burning-fuse) = true .

    eq ends-in(burning-fuse, bomb-explosion) = true .

     eq injures(bomb-explosion, victim) = true .

  th GENERIC is sorts Process Result . pr DATA .

    op person : -> Person .

    op process : -> Process .

    op result : -> Result .

    op people : -> People .

    eq initiates(person, process) = true .

    eq ends-in(process, result) = true .

    eq effects(result, people) = true .

  view M1 from GENERIC to NKOREA is

    op process to conflict-escalation .

    op result to war-NKorea .

    op people to US .

    op effects to will-injure .

  view M2 from GENERIC to IRAQ is

    op person to Bush .

    op result to war-Iraq .

  view M3 from GENERIC to BOMBS-WITH-FUSE is

    op person to bomber .

    op process to burning-fuse .

    op result to bomb-explosion .

    op people to victim .

    op initiates to lights .

    op effects to injures .

  th CARTOON is sorts Process Result .   pr DATA .

    op bomber-BushA : -> Person .

    op Hussein-bomb-explode : -> Result .

    op Il-bomb-explode : -> Result .

    op bomber-BushB : -> People .

    eq lights(bomber-BushA, burning-fuse) = true .

    eq ends-in(burning-fuse, Hussein-bomb-explode) = true .

    eq ends-in(burning-fuse, Il-bomb-explode) = true .

    eq will-injure(Il-bomb-explode, bomber-BushB) = true .

  view M4 from NKOREA to CARTOON is

    op conflict-escalation to burning-fuse .

    op war-NKorea to Il-bomb-explode .

    op US to bomber-BushB .

  view M5 from IRAQ to CARTOON is

    op Bush to bomber-BushA .

    op war-Iraq to Hussein-bomb-explode .

  view M6 from GENERIC to CARTOON is

    op person to bomber-BushA .

    op result to Hussein-bomb-explode .

    op result to Il-bomb-explode .

    op people to bomber-BushB .

Bibliography

[1] Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics (trans. Roy Harris). London: Duckworth. [1916] 1983.

[2] Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics (trans. Wade Baskin). London: Fontana/Collins. [1916] 1974.

[3] Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics for Beginners . (see also print version, Semiotics: The Basics . Routledge. November 2001.) http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/semiotic.html .

[4] Cagle, Daryl. Cartoon dated February 10, 2003. Slate. See http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/ .

[5] Low, David and Williams, R. E. ``Political Cartoon,'' The American Presidency . Grolier. 2000.

[6] Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark. ``Conceptual Integration Networks,'' Cognitive Science , 22(2) 1998, 133-187.

[7] Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary , © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

[8] Goguen, Joseph. ``An Introduction to Algebraic Semiotics, with Applications to User Interface Design,'' in Chrystopher Nehaniv, editor, Computation for Metaphors, Analogy and Agents . Springer, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, Volume 1562, 1999, pages 242-291.

[9] Cagle, Daryl. Cartoon dated March 28, 2003. Slate. See http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/ .

[10] Grady, Joseph, Oakley, Todd and Coulson, Seana. ``Blending and Metaphor,'' Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics , G. Steen and R. Gibbs (eds.). Philadelphia. 1999

[11] Parker, Jeff. Cartoon dated May 29, 2003. Slate. See http://cagle.slate.msn.com/politicalcartoons/ .

[12] Goguen, Joseph. ``Towards a Design Theory for Virtual Worlds: Algebraic semiotics, with information visualization as a case study,'' Proceedings, Conference on Virtual Worlds and Simulation , C. Landauer and K. Bellman (eds.), Society for Modelling and Simulation, 2001, pages 298-303.

[13] Turner, Mark. The Literary Mind. Oxford University Press, New York. 1996.

[14] Goguen, Joseph. ``An Introduction to Algebraic Semiotics, with Applications to User Interface Design,'' Computation for Metaphors, Analogy and Agents , C. Nehaniv (ed), Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence , Volume 1562. Springer, 1999, pages 242-291.

[*] The acronym POTUS means President of the United States.

Analyzing the Purpose and Meaning of Political Cartoons

• Resources & Preparation
• Instructional Plan
• Related Resources

The decisions students make about social and political issues are often influenced by what they hear, see, and read in the news. For this reason, it is important for them to learn about the techniques used to convey political messages and attitudes. In this lesson, high school students learn to evaluate political cartoons for their meaning, message, and persuasiveness. Students first develop critical questions about political cartoons. They then access an online activity to learn about the artistic techniques cartoonists frequently use. As a final project, students work in small groups to analyze a political cartoon and determine whether they agree or disagree with the author's message.

Featured Resources

It’s No Laughing Matter: Analyzing Political Cartoons : This interactive activity has students explore the different persuasive techniques political cartoonists use and includes guidelines for analysis.

From Theory to Practice

• Question-finding strategies are techniques provided by the teacher, to the students, in order to further develop questions often hidden in texts. The strategies are known to assist learners with unusual or perplexing subject materials that conflict with prior knowledge.
• Use of this inquiry strategy is designed to enhance curiosity and promote students to search for answers to gain new knowledge or a deeper understanding of controversial material. There are two pathways of questioning available to students. Convergent questioning refers to questions that lead to an ultimate solution. Divergent questioning refers to alternative questions that lead to hypotheses instead of answers.

Common Core Standards

This resource has been aligned to the Common Core State Standards for states in which they have been adopted. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, CCSS alignments are forthcoming.

State Standards

This lesson has been aligned to standards in the following states. If a state does not appear in the drop-down, standard alignments are not currently available for that state.

NCTE/IRA National Standards for the English Language Arts

• 1. Students read a wide range of print and nonprint texts to build an understanding of texts, of themselves, and of the cultures of the United States and the world; to acquire new information; to respond to the needs and demands of society and the workplace; and for personal fulfillment. Among these texts are fiction and nonfiction, classic and contemporary works.
• 6. Students apply knowledge of language structure, language conventions (e.g., spelling and punctuation), media techniques, figurative language, and genre to create, critique, and discuss print and nonprint texts.
• 8. Students use a variety of technological and information resources (e.g., libraries, databases, computer networks, video) to gather and synthesize information and to create and communicate knowledge.
• 11. Students participate as knowledgeable, reflective, creative, and critical members of a variety of literacy communities.

Materials and Technology

• Computers with Internet access and printing capability
• Several clips of recent political cartoons from a local newspaper
• Overhead projector or computer with projection capability
• Editorial Cartoon Analysis
• Presentation Evaluation Rubric

Preparation

Student objectives.

Students will

• Develop critical question to explore the artistic techniques used in political cartoons and how these techniques impact a cartoon's message
• Evaluate an author or artist's meaning by identifying his or her point of view
• Identify and explain the artistic techniques used in political cartoons
• Analyze political cartoons by using the artistic techniques and evidence from the cartoon to support their interpretations

Session 2 (may need 2 sessions, depending on computer access)

Sessions 3 and 4.

• Daryl Cagle's Professional Cartoonist Index and The Association of American Editorial Cartoonists: Cartoons for the Classroom both provide additional lesson plans and activities for using political cartoons as a teaching tool. Students can also access these online political cartoons for additional practice in evaluating their meaning, message, and persuasiveness.
• Students can create their own political cartoons, making sure to incorporate a few of the artistic techniques learned in this lesson. Give students an opportunity to share their cartoons with the class, and invite classmates to analyze the cartoonist's message and voice their own opinions about the issue.
• This lesson can be a launching activity for several units: a newspaper unit, a unit on writing persuasive essays, or a unit on evaluating various types of propaganda. The ReadWriteThink lesson "Propaganda Techniques in Literature and Online Political Ads" may be of interest.

Student Assessment / Reflections

Assessment for this lesson is based on the following components:

• The students' involvement in generating critical questions about political cartoons in Lesson 1, and then using what they have learned from an online activity to answer these questions in Lesson 2.
• Class and group discussions in which students practice identifying the techniques used in political cartoons and how these techniques can help them to identify an author's message.
• The students' responses to the self-reflection questions in Lesson 4, whereby they demonstrate an understanding of the purpose of political cartoons and the artistic techniques used to persuade a viewer.
• The final class presentation in which students demonstrate an ability to identify the artistic techniques used in political cartoons, to interpret an author's message, and to support their interpretation with specific details from the cartoon. The Presentation Evaluation Rubric provides a general framework for this assessment.
• Print this resource

Explore Resources by Grade

• Kindergarten K

Module 10: Westward Expansion (1800-1860)

Reading political cartoons, learning objectives.

• Identify the different components of a political cartoon

Part One: Analyzing Visual Components

A political cartoon, a type of editorial cartoon, is a cartoon graphic with caricatures of public figures, expressing the artist’s opinion. They typically combine artistic skill, hyperbole, and satire in order to question authority and draw attention to corruption, political violence, or other social ills.

First, we will walk through a political cartoon analysis together.

Worked Example, Southern Ideas of Liberty:

The political cartoon below was published around 1835 by an anonymous author, possibly in Boston. It is a response to the tarring, feathering, and lynching of anti-slavery activists in several southern states. Around 1835, several slave states passed resolutions calling for the North to suppress abolitionist activities and societies, as they were a threat to the slave-labor economy of the South. The image is titled “Southern Ideas of Liberty.”

Figure 1 . 1835 political cartoon titled “Southern Ideas of Liberty.”

In the image, a judge with ass’s ears and a whip, seated on bales of cotton and tobacco with the Constitution underfoot, condemns a White man (an abolitionist) to hanging. The prisoner is roughly dragged by two captors toward a crowd of jubilant men who surround a gallows. In the distance, a cauldron of tar boils over an open fire.

The text below the image reads:

Sentence passed upon one for supporting that clause of our Declaration viz. All men are born free & equal. “Strip him to the skin! give him a coat of Tar & Feathers!! Hang him by the neck, between the Heavens and the Earth!!! as a beacon to warn the Northern Fanatics of their danger!!!!” [1]

What to Look For

The visual components of a political cartoon are the ones you can see in the image. They speak to artistic choice, symbolism, and realism vs. fantasy. What visual elements do you see in the political cartoon above? As you read through the list below, look at the image and think about how each visual element was carefully chosen by the artist to send a message or evoke an emotion.

Who are the people depicted in the cartoon? Are they real historical individuals or are they symbolic of a larger group or movement? Where are the characters in relation to each other?

Often, animals are used in political cartoons in place of people or institutions (like the snake in Ben Franklin’s cartoon on the previous page) – do you see any animals or humans who have been given animal or animal-like features? What are some common traits or characteristics assigned to that animal? What might be the historical context of the animal being used?

Buildings or Furniture

Do you see any buildings in the image? What type of building is it? Is it standing or crumbling? Is there any furniture in the image like a throne, a chair, a table, a carpet, etc? Is it luxurious furniture or is it rough? What might be the purpose of including certain types of furniture?

Look for any other objects in the image like ladders, trees, household items, boats, trains, etc. What do you think they represent? Is it a direct representation or a symbolic representation? How is it being used and by whom?

Do you see any logos, insignias, flags, shapes, or other symbols? What group or person are they connected to? Where are they in the image in relationship to the other visual components? Are they being used to label another component?

Style Choices

This section pertains more to how the artist drew the visual elements, rather than what they drew. Look for elements like exaggeration of features or objects, irony in the way people or objects are depicted in relationship to one another (irony is defined as “a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects”), or the use of analogy comparing a complex situation or issue to a simple one in order to make it easier to understand (i.e., comparing a presidential election to a horse race).

As you can see, analyzing a political cartoon is not always cut and dry. Sometimes, one element can fall into multiple categories or be from different perspectives. Much of this analysis is “could be,” since we do not know what the author’s actual intention was when the cartoon was created. We can only speculate based on what we see and what we know. The following Practice Questions will test your ability to analyze the visual components of a different cartoon.

Answer the questions below based on the cartoon above.

Visual Components

• “Grand Presidential Sweepstakes for 1849.”
• “An Available Candidate.”
• “Cock of the Walk.”
• Figures – who are the people depicted in the cartoon? Are they real historical individuals or are they symbolic of a larger group or movement? Where are the characters in relationship to each other?
• Animals – often, animals are used in political cartoons in place of people or institutions (like the snake in Ben Franklin’s cartoon above) – do you see any animals or humans who have been given animal or animal-like features? What are some common traits or characteristics assigned to that animal? What might be the historical context of the animal being used?
• Buildings and/or Furniture – do you see any buildings in the image? What type of buildings is it? Is it standing or crumbling? Is there any furniture in the image like a throne, a chair, a table, a carpet, etc? Is it luxurious furniture or is it rough? What might be the purpose of including certain types of furniture?
• Objects – look for any other objects in the image like ladders, trees, household items, boats, trains, etc. What do you think they represent? Is it a direct representation or a symbolic representation? How is it being used and by whom?
• Symbols – do you see any logos, insignias, flags, shapes, or other symbols? What group or person are they connected to? Where are they in the image in relationship to the other visual components? Are they being used to label another component?
• Style Choices – this is more about how the artist drew the visual elements, rather than what they drew. Look for elements like exaggeration of features or objects, irony in the way people or objects are depicted in relationship to one another (irony is defined as “a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects”), or the use of analogy, comparing a complex situation or issue to a simple one in order to make it easier to understand (i.e., comparing a presidential election to a horse race).

Part Two: Analyzing Creative Components

The creative components refer to things about the cartoon that you cannot see in the image: the author, the purpose or agenda, the audience, the ideology, and the context. Looking at our example from above (“Southern Ideas of Liberty”), we can run through the creative components for our analysis:

Who was the author/artist? What did they do for a living? What were their political or social beliefs and associations? (i.e., were they a Whig or a Democrat? Abolitionist? Wealthy or working class?)

Purpose/Agenda

Was the piece created to help support or to speak out against a person, institution, or organization? Was it meant to make a logical argument or a more emotional appeal to the audience? What was the author’s agenda in creating the cartoon?

Who is the audience that this piece is targeting? What do you think is the gender, race, socioeconomic status, nationality, and education level of the target audience?

What basic ideals is the cartoon supporting or speaking out against? (i.e., freedom, independence, courage, self-reliance, immorality, dishonesty, greed)

Figure out where and when the cartoon was first published. What type of historical context was the cartoon printed in? What else was going on at the time that could have had an influence on the content of this particular cartoon or on its author or audience? Think about social, cultural, political, economic and military events, even natural disasters or climate events. All of these would have informed the context of the political cartoon you are analyzing.

Out of these five elements, the Purpose or Agenda and the Context are the most important for understanding political cartoons. The purpose or agenda of the cartoon is the most important because it shows what issues were important to people at the time of its creation. If you go to the Library of Congress website and select a decade on the left-hand menu, you can scroll through the cartoons and see which topics have the most material. This can be a good measure of which issues, people, or events were being frequently discussed during that time period.

Context is important because political cartoons are essentially a form of propaganda, which is a medium that is difficult to understand outside of its own time period. For example, many people in the modern era are required to read Virgil’s Iliad in school as an example of Classical literature, but few realize that it was actually written as a propaganda piece to boost the image of the Emperor. Nearly anyone who read the Iliad at the time it was written would be able to recognize it as propaganda because of the literary features, language, and subject matter. Context is sort of like an inside joke, where you “had to be there” to get it. Since we cannot be back in history, our context has to be taken from what we know about the time period from other sources.

Creative Components

You will now analyze the creative components of your own political cartoon which you chose in the activity above. Instead of doing an analysis of all five, you will focus only on the two most important ones mentioned in the paragraph above: Purpose/Agenda and Context .

Using the visual components of your cartoon as supporting evidence, write two brief paragraphs (3-5 sentences) describing the Purpose and Context of your cartoon. This is an open-ended exercise, but you can use the spaces below to jot down your ideas.

• HarpWeek, American Political Prints, 1766-1876. Retrieved June 15, 2021, from https://loc.harpweek.com/LCPoliticalCartoons/DisplayCartoonLarge.asp?MaxID=42&UniqueID=42&Year=1835&YearMark=1830 ↵
• Reading Political Cartoons. Authored by : Lillian Wills for Lumen Learning. Provided by : Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
• Political Cartoon. Provided by : Wikipedia. Located at : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_cartoon . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• A Society of Patriotic Ladies at Edenton in North Carolina Interactive. Authored by : Dr. Christy Jo Snider. Located at : https://sites.berry.edu/csnider/resources/patriotic-ladies/ . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike
• Southern Ideas of Liberty Political Cartoon. Provided by : Library of Congress. Located at : https://loc.harpweek.com/LCPoliticalCartoons/DisplayCartoonLarge.asp?MaxID=42&UniqueID=42&Year=1835&YearMark=1830 . License : Public Domain: No Known Copyright

Home — Essay Samples — Arts & Culture — Visual Arts — Political Cartoon

Essays on Political Cartoon

The possibilities are virtually endless. Political cartoons are a rich source of material for analysis and commentary on a wide variety of issues, from current events to historical controversies. In this article, we'll explore some of the most compelling and relevant topics for political cartoon essays, and discuss how to choose a topic that will attract readers and engage them in meaningful discussion.

Criteria for choosing a topic

Before we dive into specific topics, it's important to understand what makes a good political cartoon essay topic. First and foremost, the topic should be current and relevant. Political cartoons are often a response to current events, so choosing a topic that is in the news or on people's minds is a good way to ensure that your essay will be timely and interesting. Additionally, the topic should be controversial or thought-provoking. Political cartoons are often designed to provoke a reaction, so choosing a topic that is contentious or divisive can provide a wealth of material for analysis and discussion.

Potential topics

With these criteria in mind, let's explore some potential topics for political cartoon essays. One of the most obvious and timely topics is the current state of politics. With the 2020 presidential election looming, there is no shortage of material for political cartoons. From the candidates themselves to the issues that are dominating the campaign trail, there is a wealth of material to analyze and discuss. For example, you could explore how political cartoons are depicting the candidates and their policies, or how they are commenting on the state of the country as a whole.

Another timely topic for political cartoon essays is the ongoing debate over climate change. With increasing concern over the environment and the impact of human activity on the planet, political cartoons have been a powerful tool for raising awareness and provoking discussion on this issue. You could explore how political cartoons are addressing the issue of climate change, and how they are contributing to the public discourse on this important topic.

In addition to current events, political cartoon essays can also delve into historical topics. For example, you could explore how political cartoons have addressed past events such as wars, social movements, or political scandals. By analyzing how these events were depicted in political cartoons, you can gain insight into how public opinion and discourse have evolved over time.

Approaching the analysis

Once you have identified a potential topic for your political cartoon essay, it's important to consider how to approach the analysis. A good approach is to start by examining a variety of political cartoons on the topic, and identifying common themes or messages. For example, if you are writing about climate change, you might look at how different cartoonists have depicted the issue, and identify recurring symbols or tropes. By doing this, you can gain a deeper understanding of the topic and identify key points for analysis in your essay.

In addition to analyzing the content of political cartoons, it can also be helpful to consider the context in which they were created. For example, you might consider the political climate at the time the cartoons were published, or the audience they were intended for. Understanding the context in which political cartoons were created can provide valuable insights into their meaning and impact.

When writing a political cartoon essay, it's also important to consider the visual elements of the cartoons themselves. Political cartoons often rely on visual symbols and metaphors to convey their message, so it's important to consider how these elements contribute to the overall meaning of the cartoon. For example, you might consider how the use of color, composition, or caricature contributes to the message of the cartoon.

Finally, when choosing a topic for a political cartoon essay, it's important to consider the potential impact of your analysis. Ideally, the topic you choose should be one that is likely to generate interest and discussion among your readers. By choosing a timely and thought-provoking topic, you can ensure that your essay will be relevant and engaging to a wide audience. Choosing a topic for a political cartoon essay requires careful consideration of current events, historical context, and visual elements. By selecting a timely and thought-provoking topic, and approaching the analysis with a critical eye, you can create a compelling and relevant essay that will engage readers and provoke thoughtful discussion. With so many potential topics to choose from, the only limit is your imagination.

Exploring The Founding Brothers: a Case Study Analysis

Sedition bills of war: national security and civil liberties, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Analysis of The Political Cartoons of Lisa Benson

A report on political cartoons in india, the political cartoon: how the author uses visual rhetoric's to portray discrimination of native americans, analyzing mccarthyism as depicted in the political cartoon, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Reveal of The Hypocrisy of The Mabo Decision Within Political Cartoon

How political cartoons can mirror the social and political issues: 'z' political cartoons, sustaining attention to any specific political issue: satire of political cartoons, political cartoon: themes of personal responsibility and social responsibility, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Prevalent Sub-genre of Media: Political Cartoon

Depiction of gun violence in political cartoon, personal comment on the effectiveness of the selected political cartoon, political cartoon as the easy way to understand politics, political cartoon of the cronulla riots and history background, portrayal of the suffrage movement in two political cartoon, review of the political cartoon 'the trumps tapes we need’, rise of interest in studies on political cartoons and their ideas, relevant topics.

• Interior Design
• Art in Architecture
• Architecture

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Gun Control is a Political Cartoon

This essay about the role of political cartoons in the gun control debate examines how these illustrations reflect and influence public discourse on the right to bear arms in the United States. Political cartoons serve as a societal mirror, using satire and symbolism to address the tension between public safety and individual rights. The essay describes various common themes in these cartoons, including absurd literal interpretations of the Second Amendment, contrasts between idealistic views of gun ownership and the harsh realities of gun violence, and the portrayal of lawmakers influenced by gun lobbies like the NRA. It argues that political cartoons simplify complex issues into impactful, memorable imagery, fostering wider engagement and discussion. These cartoons not only entertain and inform but also provoke thought and debate, playing a crucial role in democratic discourse regarding gun control.

How it works

Political cartoons have long served as a mirror to society, capturing complex issues in a single, poignant image that can provoke thought, inspire debate, or incite controversy. One such perennial topic depicted in these cartoons is gun control and the constitutional right to bear arms in the United States. Through satire and symbolism, political cartoons offer a unique commentary on this divisive issue, revealing deep cultural tensions and sparking conversations about rights, safety, and liberty.

A classic example of a political cartoon related to gun control might depict a character literally interpreting the Second Amendment by bearing armaments in an absurdly literal fashion—perhaps strapping on an array of increasingly outlandish weapons.

This image could be both humorous and critical, highlighting the perceived extremities of gun ownership arguments while questioning the boundaries of Second Amendment protections. Cartoons like this leverage exaggeration to underscore the tension between public safety and individual rights, often pointing out the perceived anachronism or irony in current interpretations of ancient laws.

Another common theme in these cartoons involves contrasting the idealistic views of gun ownership with the harsh realities of gun violence. A cartoon could show a character, beaming with pride over an arsenal of firearms meant for “protection,” juxtaposed with another panel depicting a somber scene of the aftermath of gun violence. Such a stark contrast not only emphasizes the potential consequences of loose gun regulations but also challenges the viewer to consider whether the right to bear arms justifies the associated risks.

Moreover, cartoons often target the political and financial aspects of the gun control debate. One might depict lawmakers literally in the pockets of powerful gun lobbies such as the NRA, suggesting that financial incentives rather than public welfare drive the legislative agenda on gun laws. This portrayal criticizes the influence of money in politics, particularly how it can stifle reform efforts that have significant public support but face intense opposition from well-funded interest groups.

The effectiveness of political cartoons lies in their ability to distill complex issues into a single, impactful image that captures the essence of public sentiment or controversy. Through humor and hyperbole, these cartoons can soften the approach to sensitive issues, making the conversation more accessible or engaging. However, they also have the power to alienate or offend, which can be a double-edged sword in public discourse.

In conclusion, political cartoons about gun control and the right to bear arms serve as a vital part of the national conversation about these issues. They reflect the fears, prejudices, and hopes of society, providing commentary that can be at once enlightening and provocative. As debates over gun rights and regulations continue, these cartoons will undoubtedly play a continuing role in shaping public opinion and possibly even policy by framing the discussion in uniquely visual and memorable terms. In this way, they not only entertain and inform but also engage the public in democratic discourse, fulfilling one of the most vital roles of political art.

Cite this page

Gun Control Is A Political Cartoon. (2024, Apr 29). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-is-a-political-cartoon/

"Gun Control Is A Political Cartoon." PapersOwl.com , 29 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-is-a-political-cartoon/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Gun Control Is A Political Cartoon . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-is-a-political-cartoon/ [Accessed: 3 May. 2024]

"Gun Control Is A Political Cartoon." PapersOwl.com, Apr 29, 2024. Accessed May 3, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-is-a-political-cartoon/

"Gun Control Is A Political Cartoon," PapersOwl.com , 29-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-is-a-political-cartoon/. [Accessed: 3-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Gun Control Is A Political Cartoon . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/gun-control-is-a-political-cartoon/ [Accessed: 3-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Josh's Portfolio ENG 2150

Just another CUNY Academic Commons site

Rhetorical Analysis of Political Cartoon

The artifact that I chose for my rhetorical analysis is a Political Cartoon. The cartoon is a drawing of two elephants dressed in suits that are on top of the white house. Only the very top of the white house can be seen as the rest is submerged underwater. At the top right of the cartoon, there is a time period of when the cartoon is taking place that says “Washington 2050”. Finally, there is a very brief statement made by one of the Elephants who says “Uh, still no evidence of manmade climate change. We’ll let you know if any floats by.” Finally, the cartoon has the author’s name as well as the outlet in which the cartoon was published at the top left of the cartoon. In my opinion, the message that the rhetor is trying to convey is that climate change is not only a man-made issue, but also an issue that is starting to become dangerous because of a lack of regulation. Yet, the Republican conservatives in the White House that have the power to stop the consequences of climate change continue to ignore even the existence of climate change. This cartoon, as well as all political cartoons, is a medium by which the four methods of rhetorical strategies, Ethos, Logos, Pathos and Kairos, are used extensively in the form of visual rhetoric.

The first use of rhetoric in the cartoon is persuasion through the trust of the rhetor’s credibility, or Ethos. Although the cartoon does not directly address the credibility of the rhetor, it does say the name of a person and next to it, the name of a publishing company. Drew Sheneman is a well known editorial cartoonist with a very impressive resume in the realm of political cartoons. Sheneman graduated Central Michigan University and worked at The Star Ledger for most of his career. In his 20 year career as an editorial cartoonist, Sheneman won many awards for his cartoons, most notably the “Vic Cantone Editorial Cartoon Award”. Tribune Content Agency is a large media company that sends comics and political cartoons to news and media outlets all across the country, such as the L.A. Times and ABC news. With the variety of accolades that Drew Sheneman has received over his illustrious career and the widespread influence of the Tribune Content Agency, there is no question over the credibility and legitimacy of the political cartoon.

The second form of rhetoric used in the political cartoon is logical reasoning, or Logos. In the cartoon, the two elephants, that symbolize the Republican conservatives that are currently in the white house, are staring at the water that has submerged almost all of the building. In the case of this political cartoon, Sheneman uses the image of a submerged White House as an appeal to logic. In order to appeal to the logical and reasonable response for addressing the issues of climate change, Sheneman attacks the unreasonable attitude of the Republican conservatives. It can clearly be seen by the unnatural water level that climate change is dangerous and needs to be addressed. However, the republican conservatives are shown to be unreasonable with the dialogue in the cartoon, “Still no evidence of manmade climate change, We’ll let you know if any float by”. The unreasonable attitude of the republican conservatives works to accentuate the logic of the central message of the cartoon, which is to prevent and regulate climate change.

The third form of rhetoric used by Sheneman to prove his point is the appeal to emotion, or Pathos. The two emotions that the cartoon invokes in the audience are shock followed by anger. The first thing that is felt when seeing the cartoon is shock because of the water level. Even with unnatural powers at play, to have the water level reach the top of the white, which is fairly inland, is unimaginable. However, Sheneman exaggerates the possible results of climate change to give his audience an initial shock and undeniable belief that climate change does exist and is becoming more and more dangerous. The next emotion followed by the initial emotion of shock is anger. The blatant ignorance of the statement made by one of the Elephants, about not seeing any evidence of manmade climate change, serves to tap into an emotion of anger. The fact that the audience can clearly see the devastating effect of climate change, leads to the frustration that the “intelligent” politicians in the White House who have the ability to enact change are completely oblivious to such obvious dangers. This combination of the audiences’ shock and anger serves to promote the rhetor’s argument for increased government regulation of factors that lead to climate change and to denounce the ignorance of the republican conservatives in the White House.

The fourth and last of the strategies used in rhetoric is the persuasion of the audience using the relationship between the artifact and the events surrounding the artifact, or Kairos. Although the issue of climate change has been around for quite some time now, it still remains a relevant topic today because it has yet to be recognized universally, let alone resolved and because of the recent election of a republican president and a republican-controlled congress. The fairly recent election of President Donald Trump in combination with the unprecedented consequences of climate change has accentuated the relevancy of this political cartoon. If it is not bad enough that President Trump has gone on record, denying the consequences of climate change, congress is currently under the control of the Republican Party. With all the parties that have the power to enact reforms regarding climate change completely ignorant to the effects and even the existence of climate change, it can be fair to say any form of change is distant. The ignorance of the Republican Party is a pressing issue because climate change is getting worse as time goes on. Due to climate change, polar ice caps are melting at an accelerated rate that is only getting faster and faster. Now more than ever, the effects of climate change are becoming more devastating especially in recent light of hurricane Florence. Although the evidence that climate change had an effect on hurricane Florence is still debatable, the relationship between climate change and weather is enough for the audience to make a connection between the two. The recent events of President Trump’s’ election and the devastation of hurricane Florence both accentuate the relevancy of the cartoon, which also empowered it’s message and argument about reforming factors that contribute to climate change.

Well, did it work? Although I already believed in climate change and the detrimental effects it had on weather, the cartoon made me believe that the effects of climate change were worse than I had imagined. The rhetor succeed in evoking a feeling of anger at the blatant ignorance of the republicans in power. Overall, I would say that the political cartoon had a variety of rhetorical strategies that were used effectively. The rhetor, Drew Sheneman is a renowned editorial cartoonist who’s cartoons are very effective. This specific political cartoon was especially effective in using rhetorical strategies and was very persuasive in it’s message.

This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International license.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Need help with the Commons?

Email us at [email protected] so we can respond to your questions and requests. Please email from your CUNY email address if possible. Or visit our help site for more information:

• Terms of Service
• Accessibility
• Creative Commons (CC) license unless otherwise noted

Today's political cartoons - April 26, 2024

Friday's cartoons - teleprompter troubles, presidential immunity, and more

• Newsletter sign up Newsletter

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox

A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com

In the Spotlight Amateur archaeology is on the rise but flouting the laws can land you in prison

By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK Published 3 May 24

The Week Recommends Featuring pretty homes in Hampshire, Devon and West Sussex

By The Week UK Published 3 May 24

Puzzles and Quizzes Have you been paying attention to The Week's news?

By The Week Staff Published 3 May 24

• Contact Future's experts
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Advertise With Us

The Week is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site . © Future US, Inc. Full 7th Floor, 130 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036.

Opinion We have a radical democracy. Will Trump voters destroy it?

For some time, it was possible to believe that many voters could not see the threat Donald Trump poses to America’s liberal democracy, and many still profess not to see it. But now, a little more than six months from Election Day, it’s hard to believe they don’t. The warning signs are clear enough. Trump himself offers a new reason for concern almost every day. People may choose to ignore the warnings or persuade themselves not to worry, but they can see what we all see, and that should be enough.

Adapted from “Rebellion: How Antiliberalism is Tearing America Apart — Again” by Robert Kagan. Copyright © 2024 by Robert Kagan. Reprinted by permission of Penguin Random House. All Rights Reserved.

How to explain their willingness to support Trump despite the risk he poses to our system of government? The answer is not rapidly changing technology, widening inequality, unsuccessful foreign policies or unrest on university campuses but something much deeper and more fundamental. It is what the Founders worried about and Abraham Lincoln warned about: a decline in what they called public virtue. They feared it would be hard to sustain popular support for the revolutionary liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence, and they worried that the virtuous love of liberty and equality would in time give way to narrow, selfish interest. Although James Madison and his colleagues hoped to establish a government on the solid foundation of self-interest, even Madison acknowledged that no government by the people could be sustained if the people themselves did not have sufficient dedication to the liberal ideals of the Declaration. The people had to love liberty, not just for themselves but as an abstract ideal for all humans.

Americans are going down this route today because too many no longer care enough whether the system the Founders created survives and are ceding the ground to those, led by Trump, who actively seek to overthrow what so many of them call “the regime.” This “regime” they are referring to is the unique political system established by the Founders based on the principles of universal equality and natural rights. That, plain and simple, is what this election is about. “A republic if you can keep it,” Benjamin Franklin allegedly said of the government created by the Constitutional Convention in 1787. This is the year we may choose not to keep it.

A healthy republic would not be debating whether Trump and his followers seek the overthrow of the Founders’ system of liberal democracy. What more do people need to see than his well-documented attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power with the storming of the U.S. Capitol, the elaborate scheme to create false electoral slates in key states, the clear evidence that he bullied officials in some states to “find” more votes, and to persuade Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the legitimate results? What more do they need to know than that Trump continues to insist he won that election and celebrates as heroes and “patriots” the people who invaded the U.S. Capitol and smashed policemen’s faces with the stated aim of forcing Congress to negate the election results? As one 56-year-old Michigan woman present at the Capitol on Jan. 6 , 2021, explained: “We weren’t there to steal things. We weren’t there to do damage. We were just there to overthrow the government .”

Trump not only acknowledges his goals, past and present; he promises to do it again if he loses this year. For the third straight election, he is claiming that if he loses, then the vote will have been fraudulent. He has warned of uprisings, of “bedlam” and a “bloodbath,” and he has made clear that he will again be the promoter of this violence, just as he was on Jan. 6. Trump explicitly warned in 2020 that he would not accept the election results if he lost, and he didn’t. This year he is saying it again. Were there no other charges against him, no other reason to be concerned about his return to the presidency, this alone would be sufficient to oppose him. He does not respect and has never pledged to abide by the democratic processes established by the Constitution. On the contrary, he has explicitly promised to violate the Constitution when he deems it necessary. That by itself makes him a unique candidate in American history and should be disqualifying.

This kind of open challenge to our democracy was never meant to be addressed by the courts. As the Founders well understood, you don’t serve a subpoena to a would-be tyrant and tell him to lawyer up. Nor was it meant to be addressed by the normal processes of democratic elections. They knew, and feared, that a demagogue could capture the allegiance of enough voters to overthrow the system. That was why they gave Congress, and particularly the Senate, supposedly more immune from popular pressures, the power to impeach and remove presidents and to deny them the opportunity to run again — and not simply because they violated some law but because they posed a clear and present danger to the republic. After Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government in 2020, Congress had a chance to use the method prescribed by the Founders in precisely the circumstances they envisioned. But Senate Republicans, out of a combination of ambition and cowardice, refused to play the vital role the Founders envisioned for them. The result is that the nightmare feared by the Founders is one election away from becoming reality.

The problem with Trump is not that he has some carefully thought-out plan for seizing power, much less an elaborate ideological justification for doing so. (Others do have such plans and such justifications, including many of those who will populate his administration — more on that in a moment.) With Trump, everything is about him and his immediate needs. He will run roughshod over the laws and Constitution simply to get what he wants for himself, his family and his business interests. Americans know that if he is elected, he would abuse the justice system to go after his opponents. They know this because he says so. “I am your retribution!” he declares, and by “your” he means “my.” Americans know he would use his power as president to try to solve his financial problems. He did it as president and is doing it now as a presidential candidate . They know he would not respect the results of fair elections if he loses, which is the very definition of a tyrant.

So, why will so many vote for him anyway? For a significant segment of the Republican electorate, the white-hot core of the Trump movement, it is because they want to see the system overthrown. This should not come as a shock, for it is not a new phenomenon. On the contrary, it is as old as the republic. Historians have written about the “liberal tradition” in America, but there has from the beginning also been an anti-liberal tradition: large numbers of Americans determined to preserve preliberal traditions, hierarchies and beliefs against the secular liberal principles of the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. The Founders based the republic on a radical set of principles and assertions about government: that all human beings were created equal in their possession of certain “natural rights” that government was bound to respect and to safeguard. These rights did not derive from religious belief but were “self-evident.” They were not granted by the Christian God, by the crown or even by the Constitution. They were inherent in what it meant to be human.

This is the central tenet of liberalism. Before the American Revolution no government had ever been founded on liberal principles, and the vast majority of human beings had never believed in these natural rights — certainly not the Christian church in either its Protestant or Roman Catholic versions nor Islam nor Judaism nor Hinduism nor Buddhism. People might be equal in the eyes of their god, but no government or religious institution had ever been based on the principle of equal rights. Not even the English system was based on this principle but rather on monarchy, a ruling aristocracy, and a contract between crown and subjects that was modified over the centuries but was not based on the principle of universal “natural” rights.

The Founders knew these ideas were radical, that they were inaugurating, in their own words, a novus ordo seclorum — a new order of the ages — that required a new way of thinking and acting. They knew, as well, that their own practices and those of 18th-century American society did not conform to their new revolutionary doctrines. They knew that slavery was contrary to the Declaration’s principles, though they permitted slavery to continue, hoping it would die a natural death. They knew that established churches were contrary to those principles because they impinged on that most important of rights, “freedom of conscience,” which was vital to the preservation of liberty, yet a number of states in the 18th and 19th centuries retained all kinds of religious tests for office. In short, they knew that a great many Americans did not in fact believe in the liberal principles of the Revolution. As Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, put it, “We have changed our forms of government, but it remains yet to effect a revolution in our principles, opinions and manners so as to accommodate them to the forms of government we have adopted.” They did not insist that citizens believe in those principles. One could be an American citizen whether one believed in the Declaration or not.

And a great many did not. Leaders of the slaveholding South called the Declaration “a most pernicious falsehood.” South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun called the very idea of equal rights a “false doctrine.” They believed in democracy, but only if it was an exclusively White democracy. When democracy turned against them in 1860, they rebelled and sought an exit from the system. That rebellion never ended. It has been weakened, suppressed — sometimes by force — and driven underground, but it has never gone away. Although the South was militarily defeated and deprived of its special advantages in the Constitution, its hostility to the Founders’ liberalism did not abate. As Southern writer W.J. Cash observed in 1941, if the war had “smashed the southern world,” it had nevertheless “left the essential southern mind and will … entirely unshaken” and Southerners themselves determined “to hold fast to their own, to maintain their divergences, to remain what they had been and were.” In 1956, almost a century after the Civil War, a fifth of Congress, almost all Democrats — signed the “Southern Manifesto” calling on states to refuse to obey the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to end segregation in public schools. Nothing had changed. Are we so surprised that for many Americans, nothing has changed even today?

Nor has anti-liberalism only been about race. For more than a century after the Revolution, many if not most White Anglo-Saxon Protestants insisted that America was a Protestant nation. They did not believe Catholics possessed equal rights or should be treated as equals. The influential “second” Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s was anti-Catholic and anti-Jewish as well as anti-Black, which was why, unlike the original Klan, it flourished outside the South. Many regard today’s Christian nationalism as a fringe movement, but it has been a powerful and often dominant force throughout America’s history.

For two centuries, many White Americans have felt under siege by the Founders’ liberalism. They have been defeated in war and suppressed by threats of force, but more than that, they have been continually oppressed by a system designed by the Founders to preserve and strengthen liberalism against competing beliefs and hierarchies. Since World War II, the courts and the political system have pursued the Founders’ liberal goals with greater and greater fidelity, ending official segregation, driving religion from public schools, recognizing and defending the rights of women and minorities hitherto deprived of their “natural rights” because of religious, racial and ethnic discrimination. The hegemony of liberalism has expanded, just as Lincoln hoped it would, “constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of colors everywhere.” Anti-liberal political scientist Patrick Deneen calls it “liberal totalitarianism,” and, apart from the hyperbole, he is right that liberalism has been steadily deepening and expanding under presidents of both parties since the 1940s.

The fury on the anti-liberal right against what is today called “wokeness” is nothing new. Anti-liberal movements in America, whether in defense of the White race or Christianity, and more often both together, have always claimed to be suffering under the expanding hegemony of liberalism. They have always claimed that a liberal government and society were depriving them of their “freedom” to live a life according to Christian teachings and were favoring various minority groups, especially Black people, at their expense. In the 1970s, influential theologian R.J. Rushdoony complained that the Christian in America had “no right to his identity” but was forced to recognize “all others and their ‘rights.’” And he was correct if a Christian’s “rights” included the right not only to lead a Christian life oneself but to impose that life on the entire society, or if a White person’s “freedom” included the freedom to preserve white primacy in society. In the 19th century, enslavers insisted they were deprived of their “freedom” to hold human beings as property; Southerners in the post-Reconstruction era insisted on their “freedom” to oppress Black citizens in their states.

Today, anti-liberals in American society are indeed deprived of their “freedom” to impose their religious and racial views on society, on public schools, on the public square and on the laws of the nation. What Christian nationalists call “liberal totalitarianism,” the Founders called “freedom of conscience.”

Six decades ago, people like Rushdoony were responding not to “woke” corporations or Black Lives Matter but to civil rights legislation. Today, anti-liberal conservatives complain about school curriculums that acknowledge the racism that has shaped America’s history, but even five decades ago, before the invention of “critical race theory,” anti-liberal White people such as Rushdoony insisted that the “white man” was being “systematically indoctrinated into believing he is guilty of enslaving and abusing the Negro.” Nor is it new that many White people feel that the demands of minority groups for both rights and respect have “gone too far” and it is they, the White people of America, who are suffering the worst discrimination. In the 1960s, surveys taken by the New York Times showed that majorities of White people believed even then that the civil rights movement had “gone too far,” that Blacks were receiving “everything on a silver platter” and the government was practicing “reverse discrimination” against White people. Liberalism is always going too far for many Americans — and certainly for anti-liberals. Anti-liberals these days complain about wokeness, therefore, but it is the liberal system of government bequeathed by the Founders, and the accompanying egalitarian spirit, that they are really objecting to, just as anti-liberals have since the founding of the nation. Many of Trump’s core supporters insist they are patriots, but whether they realize it or not, their allegiance is not to the Founders’ America but to an ethnoreligious definition of the nation that the Founders explicitly rejected.

Some do realize it. The smartest and most honest of them know that if people truly want a “Christian America,” it can only come through “regime change,” by which they mean the “regime” created by the Founders. The Founders’ legacy is a “dead end,” writes Glenn Ellmers, a scholar at the Claremont Institute. The Constitution is a “Potemkin village.” According to Deneen and Harvard Law School’s Adrian Vermeule, the system established by the Founders to protect individual rights needs to be replaced with an alternative form of government. What they have in mind is a Christian commonwealth: a “culture that preserves and encourages order and continuity, and support for religious belief and institutions,” with legislation to “promote public morality, and forbid its intentional corruption,” a “forthright acknowledgment and renewal of the Christian roots of our civilization,” “public opportunities for prayers,” and a “revitalization of our public spaces to reflect a deeper belief that we are called to erect imitations of the beauty that awaits us in another Kingdom.”

These anti-liberal conservatives know that bringing such a commonwealth into being means jettisoning the Founders’ obsession with individual rights. The influential advocate of “conservative nationalism,” Yoram Hazony, wants Americans to abandon the Declaration in favor of a nationhood built on Protestantism and the Bible. America is a “ revolutionary nation ,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) insists, not because of the principles of the Declaration and not even because of the American Revolution itself, but “because we are the heirs of the revolution of the Bible” that began with “the founding of the nation of Israel.” There could hardly be a statement more at odds with the American Founders’ liberal, ecumenical vision.

Expressing a belief in God is no threat to the Founders’ system, but reshaping society in accord with Christian teachings is. To build the nation Hawley and Hazony imagine would require jettisoning not only the Declaration but also the Constitution, which was designed to protect the Declaration’s principles. The Christian commonwealth would not and could not be a democracy because the majority of people can’t be trusted to choose correctly. According to the Claremont Institute’s Ellmers, “most people living in the United States today — certainly more than half — are not Americans in any meaningful sense of the term.” They are a “zombie” or “human rodent” who lives “a shadow-life of timid conformity.” Only “the 75 million people who voted in the last election” for Trump are true Americans. Instead of trying to compete with Democrats in elections that don’t reflect the will of the people, Ellmers writes, “Why not just cut to the chase and skip the empty, meaningless process?” The “only road forward” is “overturning the existing post-American order.”

For these intellectuals, Trump is an imperfect if essential vehicle for the counterrevolution. A “deeply flawed narcissist” suffering from a “bombastic vanity,” as Deneen and Ellmers note, he has “lacked the discipline to target his creative/destructive tendencies effectively.” But this can be remedied. If Trump failed to accomplish the desired overthrow in his first term, Deneen argues, it was because he lacked “a capable leadership class.” Things will be different in his next term. What is needed, according to Deneen, is a “self-conscious aristoi,” a class of thinkers who understand “both the disease afflicting the nation, and the revolutionary medicine required for the cure,” who know how to turn populist “resentments into sustained policy.” Members of Deneen’s would-be new elite will, like Vladimir Lenin, place themselves at the vanguard of a populist revolution, acting “on behalf of the broad working class” while raising the consciousness of the “untutored” masses. Indeed, according to Harvard’s Vermeule, it will be necessary to impose the common good even against the people’s “own perceptions of what is best for them” — a most Leninist concept indeed.

The Christian commonwealth, then, would require a powerful executive freed from the Constitution’s liberal and democratic constraints. The new state, Vermeule wrote, with its “robust executive,” would “sear the liberal faith with hot irons,” wielding the “authority to curb the social and economic pretensions of the urban-gentry liberals.” The whiff of violence and oppression in such statements is intentional. The anti-liberal intellectuals understand that changing the liberal system will require far more than an election and a few legislative reforms.

Deneen and Vermeule are often dismissed as mere intellectual provocateurs, but their writings stand out because they have the courage to acknowledge that what they seek is incompatible with the Founders’ liberal system. While others conceal their views under a phony fidelity to American liberal principles or claim that what they want accords with the Founders’ true intent, Deneen, Vermeule and other anti-liberals acknowledge that the country they want, a country subservient to the Christian God, a country whose laws are based on the Bible, cannot be created absent the overthrow of the Founders’ liberal and defiantly secular system. Even a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, speaks of the “so-called separation of church and state.” Anti-liberalism at the Supreme Court is nothing new, either.

And the anti-liberals know as well that this year may be their last chance to effect their counterrevolution. The percentage of the population made up of White people (let alone White Protestants) is steadily shrinking. Just as the anti-liberal conservatives of the pre-World War II years closed the immigration gates too late and were overwhelmed by a tide of non-Nordic peoples from Southern and Eastern Europe, so the immigration wave of largely non-White people since 1965 has brought the nation to the cusp of a non-White majority. The anti-liberals thus face the task of engineering the revolution with only a minority of the electorate committed to “regime change.”

Trump’s takeover of the Republican Party makes this possible. Trump is not a unique figure in American history. In each generation, anti-liberal forces have turned to the same breed of demagogue, the flouter of norms, the boorish trampler of liberal nostrums. William Buckley noted that the very “uncouthness” of George Wallace seemed to “account for his general popularity.” James Burnham marveled at how Joseph McCarthy’s “inept acts and ignorant words” had a “charismatic” quality that well expressed the fears and angers of his devoted followers.

What their critics saw as boorishness and malevolence, however, their followers saw as strength and defiance against a liberal system stacked against them. They were rebellious opponents of the system, “wreckers,” unabashedly anti-liberal in both thought and manner, and that is precisely what made them popular among a broad swath of White Americans who felt themselves losing ground in the culture and society — to Black people, Catholics, Jews and immigrants from non-Nordic countries. Today, exactly a century after the most overtly racist immigration restriction in American history, Trump once again calls for more immigrants from “nice” European countries, such as Denmark, Switzerland and Norway.

Trump did not just stumble into leadership of this movement of White rebellion. He summoned it. He made his debut as presidential aspirant on an unabashed white supremacist platform, championing the birther conspiracy that America’s first Black president was not in fact an American. Riding that issue alone, he catapulted to the front of the Republican pack, according to polls in 2011, before bowing out to continue his hit show, “The Apprentice.” Whether his debut as a white supremacist was opportunism or sprang from conviction hardly matters — it certainly has not mattered to his followers. The fact is, white supremacy has been his calling card, and millions have responded to it to the point where white nationalists have become the core of his movement. Many Christian nationalists already see him as a suffering Christ, and in this bizarre sense it is true that the prosecutions have “helped” him: The more adversity he faces, the more court battles he must wage, the more allegations that are slung at him, the more devoted they are to him.

No other group can be counted on for such absolute loyalty. While some Republicans wobble when asked if they would support Trump if convicted of a crime, White Christian Evangelicals overwhelmingly say they will support him no matter what. Trump needs that unshakable loyalty because he is fighting for his life. The thought that he might end up in jail has given him every reason to hew as closely as possible to the people who will stick with him even if he is convicted. These are also the people he will need to back him unconditionally in challenging the results of the election should he lose. If he wins, he will need them in what are sure to be titanic fights with Democrats and the legal system and to keep the Republican Party in line.

This is one reason Trump has so far shown no inclination to reach out beyond his base, to Nikki Haley voters, to more moderate suburban Republicans, to those who are made uncomfortable by his statements and actions. He may show flexibility on the important issue of abortion to secure his own election, but since clinching the nomination, he has only hardened his Christian nationalist message. His “poisoning the blood” campaign, his “dictator-for-a-day” comments, his release of the Trump Bible, his claim that, upon taking office, he will create “a new federal task force” to fight “anti-Christian bias to be led by a fully reformed Department of Justice,” are all aimed directly at his white Christian nationalist base without much concern for how millions of other Republican voters feel about it. Christians are “under siege,” he claims in hawking his Bible. “We must make America pray again.”

Besides, his hard tack toward white supremacy and Christian nationalism has cost him little among the broader Republican electorate.

Why not? Why is there so little resistance to Trump even as he commits ever more deeply to a Christian nationalist program for undoing the Founders’ liberal project?

For many, the answer is simply narrow self-interest, either a positive interest in supporting him or a negative interest in not opposing him or being seen to oppose him. This seems to be the answer for corporate America. Having first followed marketing data to appeal to the broadest cross-section of Americans by embracing communities only recently enjoying more of the full panoply of rights, businesses learned the hard way that Trump and his movement will not tolerate this and have mostly retreated to silence and neutrality. But they have also gone further, making clear as much as possible that they will not be a problem for him — either before he is elected or after.

This was the message JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon sent, from Davos, Switzerland, of all places, early this year when he declared that Trump was “kind of right about NATO, kind of right about immigration,” that he “grew the economy quite well.” There is no reason to doubt that he spoke for many of the richest Americans and for other corporate leaders. There was no outcry among them that anyone could hear. The truth is, they have no financial reason to oppose Trump. They know that Trump’s White working-class followers don’t have to be paid off economically because most care chiefly about the culture wars. Trump can still cut taxes and reduce federal regulations and other obstacles to corporate profit. The rich and powerful will always have some purchase in a Trump administration if only because he needs and respects money and will want to make deals for himself and his family, as he did in a first term. Whatever moral or political qualms business leaders may have about Trump, the bottom line dictates that they get along with him, and if that means turning a blind eye to his unconstitutional actions — Dimon’s favorable recounting of Trump’s first term notably ignored his attempt to overthrow the government — then so be it.

We already know that little or no opposition will come from the Republican Party ecosystem. Among elected officials, the few willing to stand up to Trump have either been driven out of the party or are retiring so fast that they cannot even bear to finish out their terms. Those who remain have accepted Trump’s iron rule and therefore now have an interest in his success.

But what about the average Republican voter, the “normal” Republicans who happily voted for George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney? Do they not see the difference between those Republicans and Trump — or do they not care? They, too, may feel their narrow interests are served by a Trump victory, and although they may not be Christian nationalists themselves, their views as White Americans make them sympathetic to the complaints of the anti-liberals. They, too, may feel they — or their children — are at a disadvantage in a system dedicated to diversity and wokeness. Their annoyance with a liberalism that has “gone too far” makes them susceptible to Trump’s appeal, and, more importantly, unconcerned about the threat he poses. Left to their own devices, they would not be interested in overthrowing the regime. But neither are they inclined to stand in the way of those who are.

Are these voters and GOP power players right to believe that they, like Dimon, will be just fine in a system no longer faithful to the Founders’ liberal ideals? Perhaps so. They will not be the first to suffer from a shift back toward a 1920s America. White Americans tolerated the systematic oppression of Black people for a century after the Civil War. They tolerated violence in the South, injustice in the courtrooms, a Supreme Court that refused to recognize the equal rights of Black people, women and various minorities. Will they rise up against a second Trump term infused by Christian and white nationalism, or will they acquiesce in the gradual dismantling of the liberal gains of the past eight decades?

The shame is that many White people today seem to have conveniently forgotten how much they and their forebears have depended on the Founders’ liberalism to gain their present status as fully equal members of American society and to enjoy the freedoms that they take for granted.

Most White Republicans, after all, do not have the “legacy European” lineage that Tucker Carlson praises. They do not have ancestors who stepped off the Mayflower or fought in the Revolution. The ancestors of the great majority of “White” Americans today were not considered “White” when they first set foot on American shores. Irish Americans may no longer remember that the Thomas Nast cartoons of the late 19th century depicted the Irish as apelike creatures. Many Italian Americans may not recall that a riot made up of “New Orleans’ finest” lynched and murdered 11 Sicilian immigrants and were never charged.

Many Catholics seem to have forgotten that they were once the most despised group in America, such that one of the Founders, John Jay, wanted them excluded from citizenship altogether. Most White Americans were at one time members of despised immigrant groups. They were the victims of the very anti-liberalism they are now voting back into power. They climbed to equality using liberalism as their ladder, and now that they have reached their destination they would pull away the ladder and abandon liberalism. Having obtained their equality using the laws and institutions of liberalism, their passion for liberalism has faded.

The Founders understood, and feared, that the fervor for rights and liberalism that animated the Revolution might not last. Writing in 1781, two years before the end of the war, Thomas Jefferson predicted that once the war ended, “we shall be going down hill.” The people would return to their quotidian lives, forgetting their passionate concern for rights, intent only on “making money.” They might never again come together “to effect a due respect for their rights,” and so their government would stop being solicitous of their rights. Over a half-century later, Lincoln, in his famous Lyceum address, lamented that the original spirit of the Revolution had dissipated with time, leaving Americans with only the normal selfishness of human beings. The original “pillars of the temple of liberty” had “crumbled away.” A little over two decades later, the nation fell into civil war.

If the American system of government fails this year, it will not be because the institutions established by the Founders failed. It will not be because of new technologies or flaws in the Constitution. No system of government can protect against a determined tyrant. Only the people can. This year we will learn if they will.

• Opinion | The special counsel made a dangerous argument about Trump immunity May 1, 2024 Opinion | The special counsel made a dangerous argument about Trump immunity May 1, 2024
• Opinion | The ideal number of kids in a family: Four (at a minimum) April 30, 2024 Opinion | The ideal number of kids in a family: Four (at a minimum) April 30, 2024
• Opinion | Amy Coney Barrett is no handmaid to the Supreme Court’s conservative majority May 1, 2024 Opinion | Amy Coney Barrett is no handmaid to the Supreme Court’s conservative majority May 1, 2024

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Disappearing migrants and street revolts. Sunak’s Rwanda round-up is just the mess we knew it would be

The policy has always been a sordid theatre of cruelty, and it is unravelling in ways that were entirely predictable

H andcuffed and surrounded, faces pixelated for the video as if they were dangerous criminals, one by one they were bundled into vans. Doors slammed. Keys clicked in locks. The crude political message from this disturbing eve of election video , showing men and women being rounded up for deportation to Rwanda, couldn’t have been clearer – despite Whitehall rules precluding partisan activities so close to polling day.

But hey, what’s a row over election purdah, given the amount of souls sold to get this far? All that matters to this government now is getting someone on a plane to Kigali in front of the TV cameras, a tunnel vision that has so far spectacularly failed to woo back lost voters, while costing the country years of parliamentary and legal wrangling, roughly half a billion pounds, and now yet another rift with friends and allies.

This week it emerged that while the Rwanda bill may have forced several hundred clandestine asylum seekers to leave the country, they haven’t actually gone to Rwanda: instead, they’ve fled across the Northern Irish border into Ireland to avoid deportation. Despite years of Tory ministers grumbling that the French don’t do enough to stop migrants reaching Britain, Rishi Sunak is now refusing demands to take anyone back from Ireland.

That people who risk everything to reach Europe may then risk everything to stay should have surprised nobody. The Home Office must have guessed that once the Rwanda bill finally became law, its targets wouldn’t all meekly wait around to be rounded up, just as it must now realise that arresting migrants who dutifully attend their Home Office appointments (as happened this week) may only encourage others to stop complying and disappear. Stiff resistance is also likely in the courts and also on the streets, judging by the hundreds of protesters who blocked attempts yesterday to move migrants from a south London hotel to the controversial Bibby Stockholm barge.

Which made it all the more surreal to have heard the business secretary, Kemi Badenoch, claim on Wednesday that really the plan was working brilliantly . If people were frightened enough to abscond to Ireland, she told the BBC, that proved the threat of going to Rwanda was a real deterrent. How this squared with the argument she herself had just made for Rwanda being a delightful holiday and/or gap year destination, she couldn’t say; but more strikingly, she seemed oblivious to how astonishingly high-handed that sounds in Dublin.

It was a perfect illustration of this government’s obsession with proving itself right over Rwanda at any cost, even as reality keeps on proving it wrong. That day 711 migrants reportedly sailed across from France, the highest number on a single day this year, confirming that summery weather predicts Channel traffic much more reliably than anything politicians say.

Meanwhile, Sunak’s other main strategy for stopping the boats, a ban on people who cross the Channel claiming asylum no matter how genuine their case, has not only failed as a deterrent but risks trapping an estimated 94,000 people in taxpayer-supported limbo : unable to settle here, but with nowhere safe to send them.

Thankfully, Keir Starmer this week denied reports that a Labour government might temporarily continue with the Rwanda scheme at least until it has its own preferred arrangements in place, insisting that he was “not going to be scheduling flights to Rwanda”. He’s also committed to working with rather than against our neighbours on a shared challenge that is increasingly preoccupying the entire EU. But a certain haziness lingers over some of Labour’s plans, too.

Can it really secure deals quickly to return migrants to safe European countries, as it has promised, on terms acceptable to Britain? If not, then Starmer’s promise to implement a “plan to stop the boats on day one” may end up being as much of a millstone round his neck as Sunak’s, even assuming that it’s one of those phrases – like saving the NHS, taking back control and winning the war on drugs – meant more figuratively than literally.

In reality, probably the best Labour can hope for is that processing both asylum claims and removals or returns speedily, alongside cracking down on smuggling, will be enough to ease public concern about Channel crossings, if not conclusively to stop them happening. It’s not a cheap, quick or foolproof strategy. But it beats the hollow, performative cruelty of rounding up a few dozen poor souls for the cameras in the run-up to polling day. They can’t legally be detained for more than a few weeks and they therefore look likely to be quietly freed in June – with a warning that when the flights are actually ready, the vans will return to collect them. If, that is, they’re still waiting patiently to be found.

Gaby Hinsliff is a Guardian columnist

Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here .

• Immigration and asylum
• Rishi Sunak
• Kemi Badenoch
• Home Office
• Conservatives
• Keir Starmer

Most viewed

Advertisement

Supported by

Campus Protests Give Russia, China and Iran Fuel to Exploit U.S. Divide

America’s adversaries have mounted online campaigns to amplify the social and political conflicts over Gaza flaring at universities, researchers say.

• Share full article

By Steven Lee Myers and Tiffany Hsu

An article on a fake online news outlet that Meta has linked to Russia’s information operations attributed the clashes unfolding on American college campuses to the failures of the Biden administration. A newspaper controlled by the Communist Party of China said the police crackdowns exposed the “double standards and hypocrisy” in the United States when it comes to free speech.

On X, a spokesman for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nasser Kanaani, posted a cartoon of the police arresting a young protester in the guise of the Statue of Liberty. “Imprisonment of #freedom in the U.S.A.,” he wrote.

As protests over the war in Gaza have spread across the United States, Russia, China and Iran have seized on them to score geopolitical points abroad and stoke tensions within the United States, according to researchers who have identified both overt and covert efforts by the countries to amplify the protests since they began.

There is little evidence — at least so far — that the countries have provided material or organizational support to the protests, the way Russia recruited unwitting Black Lives Matter protesters to stage rallies before the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.

Nonetheless, the campaigns have portrayed the United States as a country rived by social and political turmoil. In the past two weeks alone, state media in Russia, China and Iran have produced nearly 400 articles in English about the protests, according to NewsGuard, an organization that tracks misinformation online. The countries have also unleashed a wave of content through inauthentic accounts or bots on social media platforms like X and Telegram or websites created, in Russia’s case, to mimic Western news organizations.

“It’s a wound that our adversaries are going to try to spread salt on because they can,” said Darren Linvill, a director of the Media Forensics Hub at Clemson University, which has identified campaigns by all three countries. “The more we fight amongst ourselves, the easier their life is and the more they can get away with.”

Researchers are concerned that some foreign influence operations are also pivoting toward the presidential election in November, seeking to inflame partisan tensions , denigrate democracy and promote isolationism . All three adversaries have unleashed a deluge of propaganda and disinformation ever since the war over Gaza began in October, seeking to undercut Israel and, as its principal ally, the United States while expressing support for Hamas or the Palestinians generally.

The campus protests, which gained momentum in recent weeks, have allowed them to shift their propaganda to focus on the Biden administration’s strong support for Israel, arguing that it has undermined its international standing while not reflecting popular sentiment at home.

“The policies of the Biden administration are complicating the situation inside the country,” the article on TruthGate, one of a handful of websites that Meta said last year were created by a Russian information operation known as Doppelgänger to spread propaganda under the guise of an American news outlet, said on Wednesday. “In the rush to help our controversial allies, they have completely forgotten about domestic affairs. Now the situation seems irreparable.”

The influence efforts have been tracked by researchers at Clemson and NewsGuard, as well as the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and Recorded Future, a threat intelligence company.

One covert Chinese influence campaign known as Spamouflage , which was first linked to an arm of the Ministry of Public Security in 2019, has also turned its attention to the protests. Some posts on X claimed that the United States was “DISPLAYING TOTALITARIANISM.” Similar language — such as “how could there be such rough police officers in the world” and “expulsion, arrest, suppression!” — echoed across several accounts identified by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a research organization in Washington focused on national security.

Max Lesser, a senior analyst for the foundation, described the “high volume” of protest-related content as “a clear example of a foreign adversary actively exploiting an ongoing domestic crisis.”

Many of the accounts linked to Spamouflage share similar content. One on X, with nearly 18,000 followers, retweeted a post from a Chinese diplomat in Pakistan that criticized the police response to student protesters and featured Mandarin-subtitled footage of the campus demonstrations. Its profile photo was an image of Winter, the South Korean pop singer. It listed its location as the United States but typically posted during Asia’s day, while its content frequently included grammatical errors.

Another account on X, which according to Mr. Linvill of Clemson was also linked to Spamouflage, an operation sometimes known as Dragonbridge, reposted a message by a prominent pro-Palestinian organization in New York City calling on protesters to “flood the encampments” at the city’s universities.

The researchers, however, have not detected a direct effort to organize protests or provoke violence. The focus, rather, has been to highlight the divisions that the war in Gaza has exposed in public opinion in the United States — and the potential effect that has on government policy.

Brian Liston, an analyst with Recorded Future, said that in the case of Russia, the campaign “was attempting to stoke tensions on both sides of the protest argument,” alternately praising the protesters and denouncing them as antisemitic.

In many instances, the campaigns are simply amplifying sentiments expressed by the protesters and their supporters. Chen Weihua, an outspoken editor and columnist for China Daily, the official state newspaper in English, has recently reposted messages on X from people like Jill Stein, the presidential candidate of the Green Party, and Cynthia Nixon, the actress from “Sex in the City.”

For China, the scenes of American police officers in riot gear arresting young protesters have particular resonance because of the sharp criticism the Communist government faced from the United States and other democracies when its security forces clashed with protesters in Hong Kong for months in 2019 over the reversal of political freedoms that the government had promised to preserve in the former British colony.

“When Hong Kong students destroyed schools, blocked roads, and threw gasoline bombs, the United States told the Hong Kong government to exercise restraint and not disrupt reasonable demonstrations,” one account linked to Spamouflage declared. “Now facing American students, the police take direct action and arrest them!”

Melanie Smith, the director of research for the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a research organization that studies online disinformation, polarization and extremism, said China’s efforts had become notably more aggressive toward the Biden administration.

Her organization and others previously identified an incipient effort to undermine President Biden’s re-election prospects. That effort has included creating fake accounts posing as those run by Americans critical of Mr. Biden’s policies.

“Their content is relatively aggressively talking about how young people are unlikely to vote for Biden over this as an issue,” Ms. Smith said of the Chinese response to the protests.

Bret Schafer, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund who studies information manipulation, said China, Russia and Iran had different motivations for getting involved. They all, however, benefited from highlighting narratives that damage global perceptions of the United States. State media in Iran, which has long supported Hamas, has posted more about the protests than Russia or China and amplified criticism of the police response from American commentators such as Jackson Hinkle , he said.

The emphasis on the protests follows similar efforts to criticize the $95.3 billion foreign aid package for Israel, Taiwan and Ukraine that Congress passed and Mr. Biden signed last month.

The Information Epidemiology Lab, a research group that studies malign influence campaigns, said the Russian information operation Doppelgänger had been posting content critical of the aid package or focused on the political debate surrounding it. The goal is to portray the United States as an unreliable global ally — some posts claimed that it had abandoned Israel.

Instead, the posts suggested, Israel and other countries should seek new partnerships with Russia and China. Another series of posts shared an article from a website masquerading as Fox News, which claimed that former President Donald J. Trump would “stop the plundering of the U.S. budget.”

Steven Lee Myers covers misinformation and disinformation from San Francisco. Since joining The Times in 1989, he has reported from around the world, including Moscow, Baghdad, Beijing and Seoul. More about Steven Lee Myers

Tiffany Hsu reports on misinformation and disinformation and its origins, movement and consequences. She has been a journalist for more than two decades. More about Tiffany Hsu

Our Coverage of the U.S. Campus Protests

News and Analysis

The most recent  pro-Israel counter demonstration was at the University of California, Los Angeles, home to large Israeli and Jewish populations. More are planned in the coming days , stirring fears of clashes.

An officer whose gun went off inside a Columbia University building fired it accidentally  as the police were removing pro-Palestinian protesters from the campus, the New York Police Department said.

A union representing academic workers said it would file unfair labor charges  against the U.C.L.A. and potentially walk out over the handling of protests this week.

Exploiting U.S. Divide:  America’s adversaries have mounted online campaigns to amplify  the social and political conflicts over Gaza flaring at universities, researchers say.

A Year Full of Conflicts:  The tumult in Bloomington, Ind., at Indiana University where large protests have led to dozens of arrests and calls for university leaders to resign, shows the reach of the protest movement .

Seizing Hamilton Hall:  Some of those arrested during the pro-Palestinian demonstration at Columbia were outsiders  who appeared to be unaffiliated with the school, according to an analysis of Police Department data.

A Collision Course:  Desperate to stem protests that have convulsed campuses across the country , a small number of universities have agreed to reconsider their investments in companies that do business with Israel. But how?