BLAMING BUSH

Abstract

Hurricane Katrina was one of the deadliest natural disasters in the history of the United States. Employing the taxonomy of Medhurst and DeSousa (1981), this essay examines the cartoons that attacked President Bush and were generated in the month following Hurricane Katrina. These cartoons made two basic claims: (1) that Bush's personal and policy decisions were detrimental to the relief efforts and the victims and (2) that he was lacking the intelligence and integrity necessary for the successful handling of the situation. An examination of these political cartoons demonstrates cartoons functioned to construct a national kategoria, or speech of accusation. The graphic strategies of size, placement, and relation of text are particularly suited to construct immediate indictments on policy choices and attacks on personal character. Finally, some conclusions as to the potency, both argumentatively and visually, of the political cartoon form are offered.

Keywords:

• accusation
• Hurricane Katrina
• kategoria
• political cartoons
• rhetoric

Notes

1. The recent turmoil which erupted over a series of controversial political cartoons in Denmark also speaks to the significance of the political cartoon in its ability to argue and to evoke emotional responses. See Berkowitz and Eko, 2007 (in this issue).

2. Other instances of blame included: the hurricane herself was blamed (increased oil/gas prices); “big oil” was blamed (for looting); citizens not directly affected were blamed (for being insensitive or overly materialistic); and even the act of blaming was itself blamed (for wasting time and hurting victims).

3. In a separate article, the authors present a codification of the seven functions of political cartoons and use Hurricane Katrina to illustrate these functions (Kelley-Romano and Westgate, 2006).

4. Arguably, this is an example of what Bostdorff (1987) would identify as perspective by incongruity.