I walk by it every day -- A cartoon drawn by legendary editorial cartoonist Doug Marlette who died 8 months ago in a car accident. When I first saw it in November, I chuckled and shrugged “that’s good” to myself. Now, 4 months and 40 primaries later, when I walk by the cartoon, I think -- Holy cow! That could have been drawn yesterday!
Yet, the cartoon was drawn in 1987 and ran in the Atlanta-Journal Constitution in 1988, under the Pulitzer-prize winning watch of editor Bill Kovach who went on to found the Committee of Concerned Journalists. Its purpose was to illustrate the futility of Jesse Jackson’s bid for the Democratic ticket.
The cartoon is portrait size and hangs in the hallway of our offices, along with other framed editorial cartoons given to Bill throughout the years. It’s slightly faded, oxidized by time, yet still sharp in its illustration.  A note is scribbled in the corner: “For Bill Kovach, 07-06-88, with friendship, Doug Marlette.”
1988? I still can’t believe the foresight of it. The cartoon depicts a grandfatherly African-American man sitting in a rocking chair with a young boy sitting earnestly on his knee. The caption reads: “President? ... No Child, But you can grow up to be front-runner!”
Gasp! Yes, this was written 20 years ago, but it remains completely contemporary, given Barack Obama’s success, Hillary Clinton’s inviting Barack to be on HER ticket, and Geraldine Ferraro’s controversial assertion that Obama’s success is due merely because of his skin color. Could Marlette’s pretty picture still paint a very ugly part of our cultural reality? But how it is that this simple cartoon is suddenly making me reflect deeply on our own human nature? Isn’t it just a cartoon?
The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University dedicated the winter 2004 edition of its Nieman Reports to the impact of editorial cartoons. Most of the articles expressed the frustration many editorial cartoonists have with the lack of support from editors. Chris Lamb writes in an essay that “the sad state of editorial cartooning is a result of the current economics of the newspaper industry and of editors who have little appreciation for political satire.” Lamb also allows that editors are afraid to stir up controversy for fear of a backlash, hence, loss of readership. This preoccupation with economics and politics causing the exclusion of editorial cartoons was reiterated throughout the report and as I read on, I grew heartsick at the realization that this amazing art form could soon become as rare as paintings on a cave wall. 
Marlette’s drawing is not just a cartoon to cause trouble or take up space. In that same issue of Neiman Reports Marlette writes, “Cartoons are the most accessible window into the character of the paper and its town.” I would go further. It’s a window into the soul of American society. Marlette’s wry caption is a picture of a time in the ’80s when racism and politics were seemingly inseparable. As well in the report, Marlette goes on to say that “cartoonists reach the reading public in a place where words cannot go.” And he’s right, because if it would, it would probably read something like, “What the @#$!?”
It’s with that kind of candor that editorial cartoons – especially this Marlette cartoon – attempt to capture the truth about the world and about ourselves. How many times have you picked up the paper, glanced at a cartoon and then found yourself chuckling because you knew it to be true? You could relate. You could affirm. You could understand it because it had a bit of truth in it. People understand truth. We know truth, even partial truth.
Editorial cartoons are designed to share a bit of truth with everyone. They express what the artist sees, sometimes quite exaggerated or satirized at times. Cartoons can be downright infuriating but their mission is to communicate a possible truth about a possible reality.  And instead of writing about it, as I would, they draw. Cartoons close the space between words and color it in with real shapes and shades. We don’t live in a world of letters. We live in a world of images, of faces, things, colors, sounds, smells, and that’s real, that’s true.
From the start, humans did not reflect the world through words; they did it through pictures. Our ancestors shared what they visually encountered through little pictures drawn on the walls of ancient caves. It’s completely prehistoric, but it’s also completely contemporary. That’s how we begin to learn the world as babies. Infancy is the land of images. And these same images do not end there. They continue into adulthood helping us along the way, taking us by the hand and leading us to a place that often times reflect the very nature of things. Sometimes, these images are disturbing. Some people don’t like to encounter that kind of truth upfront and personal, which would explain why editorial cartoons can bait passion.
Poking fun? Taking serious matters too lightly? Not really. We should actually be thanking our editorial cartoonists for their satirical humor, because after all, they’re simply cushioning the blow the truth sometimes has to offer.
The possible extinction of editorial cartoons may depend on whether we as a culture are able to look truth straight in the face. Marlette’s timeless cartoon conveys a part of our cultural reality that we don’t want to think is true. It’s troublesome, it’s inconvenient to realize that racism is still a force in society. But only if we go to that place of truth can we decide we don’t want to be there anymore, and therein lies the chance for change.
When I walk past Marlette’s cartoon, I’m reminded that we may not have progressed as much as we like to think. Barack Obama might have grown up to be only a frontrunner and it might be because he’s black. However, we all know that what was true then might not be true today. It might actually be because he’s not the best candidate.  So for now, I’ll walk past either possibility every day, and frankly I won’t mind looking at it.