Long-time readers here know that I believe political cartooning has outlived its usefulness, and now, not all the time but most of the time, such cartoons on editorial pages of newspapers are just excuses to make misleading generalizations with which the cartoonist, who typically has the political sophistication and depth of comprehension of your average rioter, grossly exaggerates one crude point, usually using gross stereotypes, in a manner that could only be amusing to a partisan. Political cartoonists virtually always rely on reader bias as their sharpest hook.

The cartoon above, by Las Vegas Review and Journal editorial cartoonist Michael Ramirez, was published in the Washington Post. I was shocked to see an editorial cartoon that a current day Republican would applaud. The Post’s grotesquely unfair, hyper-partisan (guess which party) political cartoons have been a regular feature of the paper since I was a child. For decades, Democrat ideologue Herb Block was regarded as brilliant by using such lazy cliches as portraying conservatives as cavemen and “big business” as a fat white guys puffing on cigars. Naturally, Block regularly won Pulitzer Prizes for this juvenile junk, which was usually about as objectively funny as a “Kick Me!” sign, like this witty example…

Later, a succession of Block’s successors at the Post were equally restrained; here’s how Tom Toles portrayed the President of the United States:

Somehow, I suspect some Republicans and others found that caricature less than adroit and amusing. The Post never pulled a political cartoon because the groups or positions it attacked complained.

And yet when Hamas supporters, Arab-Americans and the kind of Democrats who chant “From the river to the sea” sent complaints to the Post about the anti-Hamas cartoon this week, here is how the paper responded:

As editor of the opinion section, I am responsible for what appears in its pages and on its screens. The section depends on my judgment. A cartoon we published by Michael Ramirez on the war in Gaza, a cartoon whose publication I approved, was seen by many readers as racist. This was not my intent. I saw the drawing as a caricature of a specific individual, the Hamas spokesperson who celebrated the attacks on unarmed civilians in Israel.

However, the reaction to the image convinced me that I had missed something profound, and divisive, and I regret that. Our section is aimed at finding commonalities, understanding the bonds that hold us together, even in the darkest times. In this spirit, we have taken down the drawing. We are also publishing a selection of responses to the caricature. And we will continue to make the section home to a range of views and perspectives, including ones that challenge readers. This is the spirit of opinion journalism, to move imperfectly toward a constructive exchange of ideas at all possible speed, listening and learning along the way.

How ironic: now Ramirez can draw a similar cartoon about the Washington Post’s hypocrisy. I dropped my home delivery subscription to the Post, my local paper, because the New York Times was less biased than the Post was. Imagine that. The paper has never apologized for the outright lies and mischaracterizations of Republicans routinely offered by its hacks like Dana Milbank and Philip Bump; it hasn’t even apologized for its years of representing Donald Trump as colluding with Russia, or the censoring the Hunter Biden laptop revelation until it was sure to do no damage to the prospects of inflicting Joe Biden on the nation. But if the kind of readers who might fly a Palestinian flag from their car (as I witnessed yesterday) accuse the Post of being mean to terrorists, well, that warrants a full grovel and the sending of the triggering cartoon down the memory hole to oblivion.

Weirdly, the collection of letters Post readers sent in regarding the cartoon makes the paper’s weenie-ism particularly indefensible. The positive reactions are swamped by the negative ones; they also are accurate. Here, in contrast, is a representative sample of the criticism that the Post found so persuasive that it justified taking down the cartoon:

• “Yes, what Hamas did is a terrible crime against humanity. But it seems Israel feels justified in killing the terrorist by shooting innocents as well. How many dead Palestinian children will it take to pay back for the dead Israeli children? This cartoon had no redeeming value. We all know how evil Hamas is with its way of waging war. Israel is not doing enough to avoid the slaughter of innocents. More than 10,000 dead Palestinians vs. 1,400 Israelis. And the butcher’s bill is still mounting up. And that’s not counting the noncombat deaths that will result from the humanitarian crisis.”

Ah, yes, the “proportional response” fallacy. The concept of “starting a war” escapes these people. The U.S. should have agreed to a cease fire with Japan after 3,000 Japanese were killed. Even-Steven! All is forgiven. (And a population that elects and supports a terrorist organization to be its government is not “innocent.”)

• “What a statement Michael Ramirez made in his Nov. 8 editorial cartoon. I wonder whether he would try to caricature the brutal killing, land dispossession, ethnic cleansing and apartheid oppression that Israel has perpetrated over the past 75 years and continues? Let’s see some real bravery, not this self-indulgent, self-righteous parroting of the Israeli government’s line and craven mainstream media miscoverage. Yeesh.”

Reader “Squidoo” deftly swatted away that recitation of pro-Hamas talking points, writing, “He might not be able to do that, because he might have read the actual history of the past 75 years of the conflict, in which the Arabs have initiated multiple wars to destroy Israel.”

• “Depicting Arabs with exaggerated features and portraying women in derogatory, stereotypical roles perpetuates racism and gender bias, which is wholly unacceptable.”

…because cartooning never involves using exaggerated features and stereotypes…