Political
Cartoon Rhetorical Analysis
Drew
Sheneman has been an editorial cartoonist for the Star-Ledger in Newark, NJ since 1998. His work is frequently
published on the website gocomics.com.
With the remarkable ability to display the thoughts and emotions of characters
through subtle facial expressions and witty dialogue, he frequently portrays
America’s popular opinion precisely. He recently created a political cartoon
showcasing the recent BP oil spill crisis.
In
this political cartoon, a grim disaster is portrayed comically, as is often the
case with political cartoons. Sheneman appears to relate to the reader quite
well, as he assumes the reader has previous knowledge of the BP oil disaster
depicted in the cartoon, otherwise he may have needed multiple frames to set
the story for the unaware audience. His only indication of the location he is cartooning
is a noticeably illustrated sign, which reads “Gulf Coast”. He also assumes that most of the American
public is familiar with the Political Party symbols; a donkey representing Democrats
and an elephant representing Republicans. He does this by using a man with an
elephant’s head as a character in his illustration.
His
claim for this cartoon is to show that members of the Republican Party in the
United States legislature are fonder of profits than the environment or the
people an environmental catastrophe has affected. This is one way in which he
has utilized the strategy of persuasion, pathos, or convincing readers through
emotional appeal. The Republican portrayed is indifferent to the environmental
poisoning effecting the Gulf Coast population, but thoroughly concerned with
lost profits. This appeals to the reader’s sense of outrage and disbelief,
enticing them emotionally to accept Sheneman’s perception of the oil spill.
He has also used pathos in his depiction
of the woman stating, ”What a terrible tragedy.” creating emotional sympathy in
the reader.
This
is meant to appeal to the American public, who most likely, is decent enough in
heart and mind to see that people, and the environment, must come before oil
and profit. Pathos is also present
when interpreting the subtle facial cues of the woman and Republican elephant.
The woman has a look of pity mixed with anger about her face.
The
elephant appears to be uncaring, and perhaps even bored out of his wits while
saying, “I know. Look at all that wasted oil.” This one line effectively sums
up Sheneman’s view of the Republican Party’s rationale, while providing an
extremely effective rhetoric for such views in as few words as possible. This
appeals to the emotions of the reader as well. The reader may be left to feel
disgust for the Republican Party, which is most likely what Sheneman was aiming
for.
Unfortunately,
within a cartoon, some logical fallacies may occur. It may be considered
stacking the evidence, wherein the comic portrays the Republican Party as
solely to blame, without displaying the Republican Party’s defense to such
argument. But, as a comic consisting of only one frame, the rules may be
somewhat lax. The fallacy does not weaken the overall effectiveness of the rhetoric,
as it is not overly apparent that a rebuttal should be made. Political cartoons
generally illustrate one side of an argument due to space limitations and the
desire to convey one key point as quickly and effectively as possible.
Also,
it should be acknowledged, that the elephant, while well dressed, is over
weight, wrinkled, and has drooping eyes; a characteristic stereotype of Republicans
the author wishes to relay to the reader: the big, fat, rich guy. This creates the logical fallacy of
sweeping generalization, in which oversimplified characterization of a group of
people is present. Again, the presence of such a fallacy does not weaken the
effectiveness of the rhetoric. On the contrary, political cartoons generally
oversimplify many aspects of the situation depicted in order to quickly convey
an argument. If the republican elephant had been dressed similarly to the
sympathetic woman, the blurring of personalities would have weakened the
rhetoric. For many political cartoons, it is important to illustrate bold
differences in characters to more effectively convey identities. The elephant
is well dressed, showing affluence and authority, while the woman is dressed
casually, with sleeves rolled up, shorts, and flip-flops. This helps the reader
associate with the woman as a common person. It also demonstrates Sheneman anticipated
the common person as his primary audience. Choosing or anticipating a primary
audience is an important characteristic of any effective rhetoric writer,
including political cartoonists.
The
job of a political cartoonist requires lampooning and exaggerating reality, to
make light of what is often terrible news while effectively communicating
rhetoric. In a way, it can be an admirable profession. Often, the truth is far
more comical than fiction, and, in a world inundated with bad news; sometimes
one simply needs a good laugh. Sheneman has helped readers do just that with
his featured carton’s rhetoric. With one frame of illustration and two lines of
dialogue, he just may have helped brighten thousands of readers’ days.
