With examples ranging in date from 1871 to the present, Art of the Poison Pens explores more than a century of American political history through the lens of humor. Here we feature the work of Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartoons winners placed alongside several relatively unknown cartoonists who plied their trade in local newspapers.;xNLx;;xNLx;This exhibition was drawn from The Mahan Collection of American Humor and Cartoon Art in the Special & Digital Collections Department at the University of South Florida Tampa Library. Dr. Charles Mahan, Dean and Professor Emeritus in the USF College of Public Health, donated the materials in 2006. Dr. Mahan began collecting political cartoons, animation art, and comic strips from auctions and antique stores in 1950, and the collection grew in depth and breadth to include letters from cartoonists and notes from many personal meetings between the collector and the artists.;xNLx;;xNLx;A version of this exhibit first appeared at the Tampa Museum of Art from August 4 – September 16, 2012, in conjunction with the City of Tampa’s role as host of the 2012 Republican National Convention.
Nast drew a score of political cartoons, the most famous of which were published in Harper's Weekly and exposed the illegal dealings of Tammany Hall, a political machine in New York City headed by politician William M. Tweed. Using his connections as a member of boards and commissions in New York City, Tweed exerted enormous control over the city through the creation of city-related projects and jobs. The Nast vs. Tweed campaign began in 1870 with sporadic cartoons satirizing Tammany Hall and Tweed's campaign for the New York State Senate during the 1871 November elections. By August 1871, the cartoons came on a weekly basis, and each cartoon was more pointed than the previous one. Readers in New York followed the campaign closely, especially as economic conditions deteriorated. In 1871, city workers were denied their wages because the city did not have enough money to pay salaries. On September 30, 1871, there was a strike and a riot. In October of 1871, Nast used the escalating economic tensions to critique the Tammany Hall ringleaders, suggesting that they were responsible for stealing the workers' wages. The cartoon's caption pointedly asks voters, "What are you going to do about it?" Thomas Nast (1840-1902) The City Treasury Published October 14, 1871 in Harper's Weekly Despite Nast's campaign against Tweed and the Tammany Hall ring, Tweed was re-elected to the New York State Senate. There were enough opposition candidates (from both parties), however, than an effective investigation of Tweed could be accomplished, ultimately resulting in a conviction. Tweed appealed the conviction, and in June of 1875 it was overturned. Tweed was released from Blackwell’s Island Penitentiary on June 21 at midnight. He had dinner at Delmonico’s Steakhouse. Then he was remanded to the Ludlow Street Jail to face more charges that were filed against him. At the time that this cartoon was published, Tweed was still in jail facing numerous civil suits. Nast suggests that even though Tweed was in jail, he was not treated the same as the less connected prisoners. While he stands around, well-fed and smoking cigars, other inmates are immobilized and denied necessities. The refrain, “What are you going to do about it?” is a taunt that originated with Tweed when he was at the height of his power as the head of Tammany Hall and was openly stealing from the public treasury. Nast includes the refrain in many of his cartoons satirizing Tweed.
Tweed appealed the conviction, and in June of 1875 it was overturned. Tweed was released from Blackwell’s Island Penitentiary on June 21 at midnight. He had dinner at Delmonico’s Steakhouse. Then he was remanded to the Ludlow Street Jail to face more charges that were filed against him. At the time that this cartoon was published, Tweed was still in jail facing numerous civil suits. Nast suggests that even though Tweed was in jail, he was not treated the same as the less connected prisoners. While he stands around, well-fed and smoking cigars, other inmates are immobilized and denied necessities. The refrain, “What are you going to do about it?” is a taunt that originated with Tweed when he was at the height of his power as the head of Tammany Hall and was openly stealing from the public treasury. Nast includes the refrain in many of his cartoons satirizing Tweed.
Thomas Lawson was a financier who is known both for his efforts to reform stock market reforms and the fortune he earned by playing the market with dubious practices. In 1904, he wrote the book Frenzied Finance: The Story of Amalgamated, an expose which describes how financiers finagled the purchase of Amalgamated Copper and manipulated the price of its stocks. The scheme was headed by Henry H. Rogers and William Rockefeller of Standard Oil Company along with National City Bank, some lawyers, and associates. The New York Times also reported on the scheme, and on December 13, 1904 it reported that the price of stocks had closed at a low point on a flood of “Lawson-grams,” telegrams that were spreading financial rumors about blue chip stocks. Every time the market began to rally, Lawson and his associates would send out telegrams about suspicious behaviors in the financial realm. Their intent was to create a bear market and reduce the wealth of financiers. In this cartoon, Bart depicts Lawson as a Wild West gunslinger, policing the financial practices of major American industrialists by revealing their methods.
In 1904, William H. Taft, the newly appointed Secretary of War with a reputation for pacifism, was especially interested in the governance of the America's new territories, The Philippines and the Canal Zone in Panama. While Taft endorsed the emancipation of The Philippines from American occupation, he also worked with Roosevelt to design the Panama Canal, where debates raged over whether the canal should have locks or be dug at sea level, raising costs by $50 million. At the same time, governance of the Canal Zone was in question, and Taft was instrumental in quelling resistance to American involvement. Public sentiment, as illustrated in this cartoon, believed that Taft performed admirably and was a likely successor to Roosevelt as President in the 1908 election.
In the English folk song "John Barleycorn," the character of John Barleycorn personifies the barley industry and the accompanying production of both cereal and alcohol. By 1918, the year this cartoon was published in the New York Journal, the efforts of Wayne Wheeler and the Anti-saloon League were pressing for passage of the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment of the Constitution that would institute Prohibition in the United States. That amendment was passed in October 1919 and instituted in 1920. Murphy suggests that the “wets,” those who support the right of adults to drink, had been fighting a losing battle and that, by the time of this cartoon’s publication, they were exhausted and at the end of the trail.
On December 11, 1919, New York City experienced 60 mile-per-hour winds with lows around 20 degrees, and these conditions prompted the city to open shelters for the homeless. In this cartoon, Opper used the newly opened shelters to explore other issues by personifying the parties asking for American aid. Among Opper's homeless is the League of Nations, which had just taken a beating from the United States Senate. Although President Wilson touted the plan, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge presented 14 “reservations” about the proposal. On November 19, 1919, the proposal to join the League was defeated by a vote of 39 in favor to 55 opposed. The second “bum" in line is “Booze.” Prohibition of alcohol took effect earlier in the year, and the New York Times reported that New York City was 75% dry by December 1919. Third is the Democratic Party, which, in a surprising upset, was defeated in early November by Republicans in state and local elections. Fourth in line are Japanese colonizers, illustrating continued concerns about Japanese colonialism. Finally, although World War I had been over for a year, is Europe, with America questioning moral obligations to aid in post-war recovery efforts.
Pictured here are political runners-up reminiscing about their glory days. William Jennings Bryan is speaking; appearing clockwise around the table are Alton B. Parker, Charles E. Hughes and William Howard Taft; walking into the room is James M. Cox, whose presidential bid ended just six days before this cartoon was published. * William Howard Taft (1857-1930) was the Republican President from 1913-1917, but he lost re-election to Woodrow Wilson after Theodore Roosevelt split the Republicans by forming the Bull Moose Party in 1916. * Alton Brooks Parker (1852-1926) was the Democratic presidential candidate in 1904. He lost to incumbent Theodore Roosevelt. * William Jennings Bryan (1860-1925) is probably best known as the prosecutor of John Scopes in the famous “monkey trials.” He was also the losing presidential candidate for the Democratic Party three times in 1896, 1900, and 1908. He was defeated by Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft. * Charles Evans Hughes Sr. (1862-1948) was the Republican candidate for president in 1916. He was defeated by Woodrow Wilson. * James Middleton Cox (1870-1957) was the Democratic candidate for president in 1920. Incidentally, Cox’s running mate was future president Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
On December 16, 1912, nearly 200 women began a 170-mile hike from Manhattan to Albany to bring attention to the cause of women's suffrage. The hike lasted 12 days and, as this cartoon depicts, was filled with physical hardships as well as opposition. The cartoon's "General Jones" is Rosalie Gardiner Jones, the organizer of the suffrage hike, and a well-known and beloved figure in the suffrage movement. A January 21, 1913 article in the New York Times describes how "Relatives, friends and strangers received the pilgrim leader with open arms." Somewhat ironically, while this cartoon was drawn by a man, women cartoonists led the suffrage crusade and, according to historian Chris Lamb, were instrumental in the passage of the 19th Amendment. Following the 19th Amendment's passage, however, these same cartoonists lost their jobs with newspapers as editors felt their jobs were complete.
On August 1, 1921, the New York Times ran an opinion essay charging municipal judges with shirking their duties—especially during the summer. The essay quotes I. Montefiore Levy, Chairman of the Municipal Court Committee of the New York County Lawyers Association, who said that judges "are a capable and honest body of men. The complaint against them today is that they do not perform a full day’s work.” Levy goes on to challenge the judges’ 2-½ month vacation schedules: “Notwithstanding this, they frequently do not live up to their Summer assignments, even although their assignments so provide, with the result that practically they have a vacation of three months each, in addition to Saturday and legal holidays and an occasional day off.” Levy suggests that the judges forsake their summer vacations and concentrate on reducing their dockets. Levy also addresses the issue of courtesy in the courtroom. He states, “Many Judges refuse to make announcements. At about 10:00 in the morning the Judges have a fair idea as to what business can be transacted that day, and it would seem reasonable for them to announce what cases will probably be tried.” Those who are on the docket, but for whom the judge will probably not hear, are inconvenienced by having to sit through a day of court instead of going to work, as depicted in this cartoon.
Prior to World War I, Germany had an annual birth rate of 36 births per 1,000 citizens. During the Weimar Republic (1919 to 1933), the birth rate declined to 14.7 per 1,000. According to Lisa Pine in Nazi Family Policy, Nazis claimed that “Weimar governments had encouraged egocentricity and independence, with taxation laws that showed a hostility to marital and family life.” Beginning in 1933, the Nazis encouraged marriage, monogamy, and prolific motherhood and discouraged bachelorhood. Eugenics also played a part in the Nazi family plan. Marriage and procreation were to be carried out between those of the same race and ethnic background. Moreover, sterilization was legislated in order to combat undesirables. According to the New York Times, “The law is aimed at congenital feeble-mindedness, hereditary insanity, epilepsy, St. Vitus Dance, blindness, deafness, serious bodily deformities, and chronic alcoholism.” In addition, “No marriage permits will be granted from now on unless both applicants are able to measure up to the eugenic standards of the Third Reich.” By 1938, the eugenics policy was expanded: “It was decided to train boys and girls physically and to lend young, eugenically desirable, responsible couples 1,000 marks without interest from municipal funds so they could marry.” Stipends encouraged families to have five or more children. In Whom Adolph Hath Joined Together Let No Man Put Asunder, published in the 1930s in the New York Word-Telegram, Rollin Kirby suggests that in Nazi Germany, marriage had fallen so far within the sphere of the state that there were no religious artifacts in the marriage service, only representations of the Nazi government.
Without knowing what year this cartoon was published, it is difficult to ascertain which October policy inspired it. In 1933, Roosevelt considered ending a mandatory 10% mark-up on retail groceries. The New York Times reported that allowing merchants to drop below 10% mark-ups “would mean ‘financial ruin within three or four months’ for thousands of retail merchants.” While smaller businesses found this regulation life-saving, larger businesses perceived it as meddlesome. In October of 1935, debates were held to determine the extent to which the government should be able to protect labor over the interests of business. Pennsylvania Governor George H. Earle backed the President’s defense of the Guffey Coal Bill and argued “that the miners of southwestern Pennsylvania were worse off than chattel slaves before the Civil War.” That issue was before the Supreme Court, and the various pundits were speculating on the impact of the Court’s eventual decision. By October 1936, political rhetoric moved away from the conflict between business and the administration and towards the conflict between European nations. Kansas Governor Alf Landon spoke rather vociferously that the United States “mind its own business” in international politics. Regardless of the specific policy, Berryman's cartoon suggests that FDR and U.S. Business had an adverse relationship in which each could be “startled” by the actions and the mere sight of the other.
In Dictators Speak from High Balconies: Out of Range, “dictators” are shown in high windows above their subjects. Mussolini waves to unseen constituents. Hitler gives a Nazi salute from a distance. Dollfuss appears far shorter than his bodyguards and was in fact only 4’ 11” tall. Although the European dictators are pictured from a low angle, and the subjects of the dictator are assumed to be at the same level as the eye of the artist, the American dictator is shown from an angle above the window in order to depict her “subject” (her husband) at the door beneath her. We are not told why she is angry, but the reader is led to believe that the wife will hit her husband when he arrives in his flat. Powers suggests that while Europe has its dictators as heads of state, in America the dictators are the women who are heads of their households. This further suggests that the subjects of the European dictators are, unfortunately, as compliant as the American husband.
During World War II in America, there was a need for employees to work in plants supplying the war effort. Since a large percentage of young American men were fighting in the war, the government encouraged women to work in the manufacturing plants through the “Rosie the Riveter” campaign. In America, the traditional family construct was that the husband earned the money and the wife kept the house and raised the children. As a result of the war, this concept changed. One example of how women went to work to help the war effort was at the Bendix Scintilla Magneto Division in Sydney, New York. The New York Times reported that in December 1942, one year after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, 625 of 1,000 new hires at the plant were women.
World War II victory gardens provided a way for citizens to reduce the amount of gasoline used to transport fruits, vegetables, and herbs by planting gardens in their own yards, vacant lots, apartment roofs, and public parks. People on the home front aided the war effort by allowing more resources to be used on the battlefield. Warring governments endorsed victory gardens, and they were prevalent in America, Canada, Great Britain, and Germany. Some estimates put the amount of produce grown in victory gardens during the war at up to 40% of the national product. A cold snap occurred in America in early April, 1945. The New York Times reported that Las Vegas, New Mexico recorded -2 degrees on April 3. Heavy snow was reported through much of the Great Plains, and seventeen inches of snow was reported in Minnesota. New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Missouri all reported crop damage. In Chicago, where this cartoon originally ran, the high temperature dropped from 64 on April 3 to an expected 30 degrees on April 4, prompting fears that victory gardens would freeze. In Battle to Save the Beachhead!, Charles Werner compares keeping victory gardens with establishing a beachhead against the enemy and encourages readers to keep their gardens warm as a way for stateside citizens to continue to aid the war effort.
In 1941, the Soviet Union and Great Britain invaded Iran in an attempt to expel Axis troops during World War II. This opened a route, called the “bridge of victory,” for Americans to supply Russian troops. On January 29, 1942, a treaty formalized the occupation of Iran by the British, Russians, and, eventually, Americans. The treaty assured that the occupiers would leave Iran within six months after a cessation of hostilities. Iran recognized the end of hostilities as V. E. Day, March 8, 1945. However, Soviet troops were still in Iran in January of 1946. Josef Stalin, in his quest to continue occupying Iran, cited an earlier doctrine, the Russo-Iranian Treaty, which allowed “temporary Russian occupation in the event of other Powers using Iran as a base for attack on Russia.” Stalin had declared capitalism to be a threat to Russia. Iran protested the procrastination of Russian withdrawal. With western powers gone, American and British diplomats backed the Iranian protest. According to the New York Times, this occupation was the United Nations’ first serious test. The New York Times reported that there was continued antagonism between Britain and Russia over the Iran issue through the remainder of the 1940s.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower was a retired World War II General and a very popular president, so it was hard for Democrats to get much traction in criticizing him. Senator Neely, a long-time Democratic Congressman from West Virginia, frustrated by Ike's popularity, tried in vain to tarnish his reputation by saying publicly that he and Mamie only went to church every Sunday "for show," not because they were in any way religious people. The American people met this with ridicule.
On March 12, 1958, the New York Times reported that Eisenhower’s economic plans would cause inflation. Investors bought stocks in companies that were more resistant to inflationary pressures. The unemployment rate of 6.7% was the worst that the country had experienced since 1941. The article states, “One economist remarked that stories of pump-priming at last were beginning to take hold. There is a lot of money around, he felt, and much of it will be going into the market for good building stocks, tobaccos and foods.” However, the next two months did not provide this economic relief. The New York Times reported on May 7, 1958, “Glints of good news sparkled in the somber business picture yesterday. There, with the expectation that whatever measures the Government takes will produce more inflation, sent stock prices up on the New York Stock Exchange.” In June there were still economists who questioned whether prosperity would remain; in retrospect, by the time this cartoon ran the recession was already over.
According to the Wall Street Journal, on June 18, 1958, the United States economy was heading toward an inflationary spiral: “Credit expansion born of deficit financing will fuel a new, more destructive round of inflation that will reduce the dollar’s value to new lows.” This followed the recession that lasted from August 1957 to April 1958. Economists expected business to pick up, employment to increase, and wages and prices to rise--all factors that would lower the value of the dollar. This situation would increase the marketability of domestic goods overseas, but reduce the ability of Americans to buy foreign-made products or to travel abroad. In all, the national debt would increase causing more dependence on foreign countries. Congress was expected to raise the debt ceiling to $300 million. Bureau of the Budget director Maurice Stans said that he saw no “possibility of balancing the budget for several years.” The Journal quotes an unnamed economist saying, “I don’t blame anyone for being frightened at what’s ahead.”
While at the Post-Dispatch, Bill Mauldin published this cartoon critiquing Richard Nixon's and Lyndon B. Johnson's stands on the growing civil rights movement. Richard Nixon was a proponent of civil rights, but, according to the New York Times, “He cannot provide the leadership in a campaign for new policies without seeming to criticize present programs that President Eisenhower regards as perfectly adequate.” However, “adequate” civil rights legislation was not what the American people and the Supreme Court demanded. Equality was the standard, and the House voted more than 2 to 1 to pass the bill. On the other hand, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson efficiently maneuvered civil rights legislation through Congress despite the fact that he was a southern Democrat. Johnson teamed with Everett Dirksen of Illinois to prompt the Senate to affirm the House’s civil rights bill without amendments that would significantly change the bill.
Unlike most editorial cartoons, this tribute by Mauldin to John F. Kennedy ran on the back page of the Chicago Sun-Times on November 22, 1963. In his 1965 memoir, I've Decided I Want My Seat Back, Mauldin remembers that he was done with his cartoons for the weekend when he got the news of Kennedy’s death. He chose to return to the Sun-Times studio and draw this cartoon. He states: I started the drawing at 2:15 and finished at 3:00—the fastest I had ever worked….I almost threw it away because I couldn’t get the hair right. No matter what I did with it, it looked more like Kennedy hair than Lincoln hair….The Chicago Sun-Times engravers did a record job, and so did the press room. Our first edition was on the street at 4:45 P. M., November 22, 1963. The cartoon was on the back page, and later I was told that most Chicago news dealers sold the paper that side up. That Mauldin put Kennedy’s hair on Lincoln in this cartoon is just the beginning of the comparisons that historians and pop culture enthusiasts have made between the two presidents since Kennedy’s assassination.
This poster indicates the concern for pollution in 1970. Despite laws that attempted to prevent roadside littering, it was customary for many people to throw trash out of their vehicles. As litter is a very visible form of pollution, it often stood as representative of all pollution in the environment. During the 1970s, America stopped using lead in most gasoline and moved from an industrial to a technical age. According to the New York Times, New York mayor John Lindsay spoke to the National Municipal League about pollution concluding, “It is wrong—wrong for ourselves, wrong for our children and wrong for the nation—to spend $80-billion for defense and war abroad and less than 2 per cent as much for survival in a decent environment here at home.” The article stressed the positive reception of the mayor’s presentation as controlling pollution was such a major issue at the time and the War in Vietnam was declining in popularity. Other articles stressed that pollution was a national blight that could be eradicated on the personal level. All one had to do was dispose of trash responsibly, use cleaner gasoline, and reduce energy waste. “Adopt-a-Road’ projects are an outgrowth of this effort.
On November 5, 1968, Richard Nixon defeated Hubert Humphrey in the presidential election after the incumbent, Lyndon B. Johnson, refused to run again. As America had been fighting in the Vietnam War since 1959, and was still at war in 1968, the State Department was one of the more critical areas in the presidential transition. While Johnson’s aides left the State Department, Nixon’s aides were entering. By November 8, the two administrations were already working together to make the transition smooth. The New York Times reported that Nixon supported Johnson’s efforts in Vietnam at the time. Nixon also said that he would not be involved in policy decisions until he had the power of the presidency. In regard to Vietnam policy, on November 13, the New York Times reported incoming President Nixon saying, “Over the next two months, President Johnson would be speaking for the Nixon Administration as well as its own.” From other related articles, it was clear that the courtesy was also extended to State Department diplomats.
The January 17, 1971 New York Times reviewed Jill Freeman’s 1970 book, Old News: Resurrection, which recounts the march on the Pentagon and the encampment of Resurrection City. Both events protested the administration’s failure to end poverty and hunger among America’s poor. President Lyndon B. Johnson introduced a war on poverty on January 8, 1964. On August 20, 1964, Congress passed the Economic Opportunity Act, which initiated many social programs intended to advance the economic conditions of America’s poor. By 1968, the SCLC and its protesters complained that the efforts had failed. Resurrection City was a shantytown that was erected by protesters on the Mall in Washington D. C. for two weeks beginning May 12, 1968. The effort, organized by the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), failed to get Congress to pass an economic bill of rights. According to the Times review, both the march on the Pentagon and Resurrection City “demonstrated with abundant clarity just how remote our obsessively bureaucratic government has become from the people it no longer seems to serve.” Payne suggests that Washington bureaucracy spends far too much money studying poverty and malnourishment and far too little money correcting the problem.
During the early 1970s unemployment was near 5%, and the economy was nearing the point where wage demands would push prices higher. Even George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, endorsed regulatory controls on wages and prices out of concern for the U.S. economy. Coupled with low unemployment was the concern that the Vietnam War would end. The end of the war would mean a rise in unemployment: arms producers would have to lay off employees, while soldiers returning from service would be looking for jobs. This would cause a sharp rise in unemployment and cause more uncertainty in the economy. In early 1971, the inflation rate was only about 3.6%, but economic pressures were starting to push that number up, and there were concerns about inflation growing at a faster pace. Warren suggests that with low unemployment (the caricature of the undersized arms) and rising inflation (the bloated abdomen), the national economy in 1971 was not a pretty sight.
Will Rogers (1879-1935), comedian, actor, and social commentator, was famous for saying, “All I know is what I read in the papers” as a preface to making fun of news items. From 1972 to 1974, the Nixon administration took several measures in an attempt to control media reports about the Watergate Scandal. In late 1972, Clay Whitehead, director of the White House Office of Telecommunications Policy, drafted a bill that would allow the revocation of licenses for media that engaged in “ideological plugola, consistent bias, and elite gossip.” This policy became known as the Whitehead Bill and was never enacted. Furthermore, on April 9, 1973, the New York Times published an article by Edmund Muskie that outlined measures the administration would like to take to prevent leaks of information to the press. The bill was called “The Official Secrets Act” and included punishment for disclosing “almost any kind of defense and foreign policy information, whether or not its disclosure would endanger national security.” The law would enforce administrative secrecy no matter how pernicious the actions. It, too, never passed. Conrad responds to these perceived threats to the freedom of the press by suggesting that if the news media is censored, the public will know nothing because nothing will be reported.
In January and February 1978, President Jimmy Carter negotiated with Egypt and the Sudan to sell them 50 to 60 F-5E fighter jets. This was a part of a larger proposal to offer military help to moderate Middle East governments. He also offered the 12 fighter jets to the Sudan and 60 jets to Saudi Arabia. However, on January 23rd, according to the New York Times, “If President Carter accepts this plan, it would probably arouse controversy in Congress, which is legally required to approve purchases of this size.” Among the more controversial aspects of this proposed deal was whether the Israeli Air Force would retain its superior position in the region. In January 1978, relations between Israel and its Arab nations were fairly cordial, but by August things cooled a bit. By then, Congress ratified the arms deal. The Times reported, “The Carter Administration was able to marshal its joint Israeli-Arab arms package—sophisticated jet fighter planes for Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia—through the Senate, a place where only a few years ago a huge majority scuttled President Ford’s plan to put the thumbscrews on Israel.” It helped that Carter brokered a peace deal between the former foes, Israel and Egypt, but even with that, the relations between the two countries were still strained. MacNelly suggests that it would take a bit of tricky maneuvering for the Arab pilot to get his arms sales proposal through the doors of Congress, and in order to do so, the proposal included sales of jets to Israel as well.
On November 12, 1998, the St. Petersburg Times reported that MedPartners would be getting out of the business of running private medical practices. The concept of MedPartners was to run the business end of a medical practice while doctors focused on patient care. However, the Times reports, “Increasing numbers of those doctors became disenchanted--while they wanted someone to handle their administrative burdens, many felt they were losing control over everything from what computers they could use to which health plans they would deal with.” MedPartners and its investors began losing money, prompting them to reconsider their business plan. Since Addis depicts the doctor as unable to reach the patient because the businessman is in the way, he suggests that “Medicine as Business” is a hindrance to a positive doctor-patient relationship.
Since the 1980s, Florida TaxWatch has reviewed the annual Florida legislative budget and published a list of “turkeys” that the governor should veto. Turkeys are self-serving line items in the budget that help a legislator acquire more votes or more donations in his/her next election campaign. According to The Tampa Tribune, Florida TaxWatch identified 43 turkeys worth about $36.5 million in the 1995 budget proposal. As Lawton Chiles was in office from 1991 through 1998, this cartoon probably represents the budget cutting authority during his governorship. Florida TaxWatch identified a minimum of zero turkeys for Chiles’ veto in 1991 and 1992 to a high of 380 turkeys, worth $266.4 million, in 1998. Packwood suggests that Chiles will kill the turkeys as the legislators bring them to him one by one. Through the mouse in the embedded panel, he also suggests that a line-item veto would be a good tool for the U.S. President to have in order to control federal spending.
During 1995, the U.S. Congress talked of abolishing a national welfare program and replacing it with block grants for states to run their own welfare programs. Chiles opposed the program because of the disadvantage to Florida. According to the Tampa Tribune, Chiles said such a program “would kill us in Florida,” where people needing welfare services continued to stream in from other areas of the country. Depending on the final formula, Florida could lose billions of dollars, while slower growth states such as Illinois and Wisconsin--where Republican governors were pressing the plan--would actually gain. At odds with his own party on this issue, Chiles also referred to the program as “draconian.”
On November 21, 1999, the New York Times wrapped up the legislative session with an article on the lack of cooperation between Democrats and Republicans. Each party blamed the other for partisanship. Republican Representative Dick Armey of Texas accused House Democrats of stopping every piece of legislation whenever possible so that they could run against a “do-nothing” Congress: “They disclaim partisanship as if they’re perfectly innocent.” Missouri Democrat Richard Gephart responded, “The answer to that is ‘rubbish’…” He “ticked off a list of Democratic priorities, from overhaul of the campaign finance law to regulation of health maintenance organizations to gun control. He then accused the Republicans of intransigence.” This article illustrated the rancor between the parties through quotations of the congressional leadership. As each side sniped at the other, it proved its point. MacGregor suggests that Republicans reached out to work with Democrats who were intent on not just killing any conservative proposition, but killing the party. Although Democrats were not the majority party in the House, they did have the veto power of a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, to fall back on.
While the traditional caduceus features two snakes coiled benevolently around a winged staff, MacGregor’s caduceus has five tying up John Q. Public, biting both the donkey and the elephant, and threatening one another. This drawing critiques the rancor between Republicans and Democrats over healthcare reform. On March 27, 2010, Congress recessed after passing healthcare reform legislation. Opposition to the healthcare law was both vocal and physical. The New York Times reported, “Republican lawmakers proudly took to a House balcony to fan the anger of a throng, some of whom spit on Democratic members and shouted racist and homophobic jeers.” Threats of assassinations prompted the Senate sergeant-at-arms to caution those returning to their home states to “remain vigilant.” After characterizing the mood of the nation as “Armageddon,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said of the emotional fall-out, “I know many Americans are angry over this health care bill.” In addition, Tea Party activists stated plans to confront Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in his hometown of Searchlight, Nevada in order to express their displeasure with the vote. MacGregor suggests that at the time of the healthcare reform vote, there was significant rancor by both sides over the issue, and in the middle of the fracas is the “everyman” John Q. Public. Moreover, two years later, and after the Supreme Court upheld the reforms, support for each side was still evenly divided. On July 4, 2012, the Times stated that Americans were just as divided over healthcare reform as they had been when it passed in 2010.
On June 9, 2002, the New York Times reported another suicide bombing by Palestinians, this time of an Israeli public bus transporting adults to work and children to school: “The political aftermath was also routine for this, the 70th suicide bombing in the last 21 months. The Palestinian authority condemned the bombing and then various Palestinian officials asserted that it was a result of Israeli occupation.” The Oslo Accords of August 1993 were supposed to have laid the groundwork for a peaceful solution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Palestinians considered Israelis occupiers; Israelis considered Palestinians murderers. By the middle of 2002, the tension in Israel was high. Israel insisted on protecting its interests by occupying the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. Palestinians wanted the Israelis out of their territories, and the Israelis wanted to be sure that they would not be attacked by Palestinians. On June 30, 2002, the New York Times advised, “The only hope for Israel is to get out of the territories—any orderly way it can—and minimize its friction with the Arab world as the Arabs go through a wrenching internal adjustment to modernization.” Ten years later, that process is still in the works. Stein suggests that both the Jews and Palestinians have legitimate claims to the former Trans-Jordan region. And, like the two peoples that call Israel home, the two heads of the turtle will either kill each other fighting over their home, or they will learn to live with each other, if not contentedly, at least peacefully.
On January 30, 2003, after the United States had invaded Afghanistan in order to dismantle al Qaida, Paul Szep drew a cartoon identical to the one displayed here of George W. Bush throwing a tantrum and demanding “I want my war….Now!”. On February 16, 2003, the New York Times reported that millions of people protested the upcoming invasion of Iraq by the United States. 700,000 people demonstrated against the war in London. That is significant in that Britain was the closest ally of the U.S. in the invasion. Many people in the U.S. and around the world did not want Bush to attack Iraq. At issue was a question of Iraqi compliance with United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq. Hans Blix, chief inspector, had reported that despite earlier concerns of Iraqi attempts to circumvent the efforts of the United Nations, “Iraq’s cooperation with his team had increased, deepening the aversion of countries like France, Germany and Russia to the readiness of the United States and Britain to go to war.” However, on March 19, 2003, the United States military invaded Iraq. The invasion was over in May, but hostilities between the U.S. occupiers and the Iraqi people continued for years. During that time, other nations, including Iran and North Korea, showed enmity toward America. Szep suggests that while the U.S. was engaged in two wars, Bush still wanted to attack another country.
With the United States entering a recession after the mortgage meltdown that began in 2006, the auto industry was experiencing considerable difficulty by 2008. General Motors was the closest of the big three to bankruptcy, followed by Chrysler. Ford weathered the storm a bit better than its two rivals. In November 2008, GM approached Congress and asked for a “bridge loan” to help the company return to profitability. GM needed $10 billion immediately, $25 billion for the short term, and $700 billion overall to stay in business. Democrats were generally on board while Republicans were skeptical. The most skeptical of the Republicans was Alabama Senator Richard Shelby. On November 17, the New York Times quoted him from an interview on Meet the Press, “I don’t believe the $25 billion they’re talking about will make them survive. It’s just postponing the inevitable.” The following day, the Times quoted Shelby again, “I do not support the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers.” According to usdebtclock.org, the U.S. national debt was over $10 trillion in 2008 and steadily growing. Therefore, government’s mismanagement of the public treasury is far worse than the management of the auto companies. The United States government eventually gave loans to both Chrysler and GM, and both car-makers returned to solvency. The U.S. government continues to receive loans and has not balanced its budget since the Clinton Administration. Hall suggests that Congress accusing industry of being bloated, over-extended, and out of touch is “the pot calling the kettle black.”
At the behest of Tea Party members, some of whom call themselves ‘birthers,” President Barack Obama released his long form birth certificate. Among the most vociferous birther was Donald Trump, who demanded that the president prove he was a citizen of the United States. On April 30, 2011, the New York Times reported that the number of Americans who rated the Tea Party as “‘unfavorable’ was up to 47%. At the same time, the approval rating for Congressional Republicans was at 15%. The author did not specifically name the entity that was driving the Republican downturn, but by inference, he fingered the Tea Party faction. Margulies suggests that the Tea Party snake, an appendage of the Republican elephant, used enough of its influence to frighten the Republican Party as a whole. This would prove prophetic a little over a year later when long-time Republican Senator Richard Lugar was defeated in a primary by a Tea Party Republican named Richard Mourdock.
Before she began a career as an editorial cartoonist, Ann Telnaes, the second woman ever to win the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning, trained in character animation at the California Institute of the Arts and worked as a designer for Walt Disney Imagineering. Telnaes' early editorial cartoons, including her Pulitzer prize winners, were produced with pen, chalk, and ink on paper for eventual print publication.
More recently, Telnaes has joined her animation training with her well-known reputation for editorial cartoons, producing animated editorial cartoons for the Washington Post website every Wednesday and Friday. Like her print cartoons, her animations explore hot-topic issues. Featured here are two animations from 2012 about health care: the first illustrates state requirements for ultrasounds before abortion, the second the very vocal debates over health care reform legislation.
We'd love to hear from you. Please send questions or feedback to the below email addresses.
Before contacting us, you may wish to visit our FAQs page which has lots of useful info on Tiki-Toki.
We can be contacted by email at: hello@tiki-toki.com.
You can also follow us on twitter at twitter.com/tiki_toki.
If you are having any problems with Tiki-Toki, please contact us as at: help@tiki-toki.com
Close