Puzzlingly violent illustration on NYT op-ed criticizing Trump's judicial nominees.

What is this supposed to mean?



I haven't read the column yet. What I see in the the illustration (which is by Chris Kindred) is a large hammer — a judge's gavel — slamming into a man's face and cracking it up. The cracked up face seems to have been fragmented even before the hammer hit. Perhaps the pre-smash fragment is intended to look like the state of Kentucky. The man seems to have the Confederate stars and bars in one eye, and he has some other symbol in front of his other eye, perhaps crossed swords or some kind of cross. I simply do not understand connecting the idea of face-shattering with this issue. Who is supposed to be wielding the gavel?

The column is titled "William Barber II: Trump’s Terrible Choice for Judge," so I'm guessing the man with the shattered face is William Barber II, and the idea is that he's a Trump nominee and he's terrible, presumably because of something connected to the Confederacy. I suppose the column argues that he shouldn't be confirmed, but does that mean he should be bashed in the face with a hammer? Why would you want to associate your opinion with murderous violence?

Now, who's the author of this piece? Oh! It's William Barber II. He's not "Trump’s Terrible Choice for Judge." Somebody else is. Ha ha. Eventually, I'm going to read this piece, but I've gone from being outraged by the depiction of violence to amused by the horribly ambiguous headline.

All right. I'm reading it. The "terrible" nominee is Thomas Alvin Farr, and he's from North Carolina, so that shape really is a state, and the shattering interfered with my state-shape perceptions. The "tails" — the unshattered parts — are very similar. The front ends differ, but North Carolina is the one with the straight-edge on top. Kentucky has the straight-edge on the bottom.

Barber connects Farr to Jesse Helms and Helms to "white supremacist causes." Helms was a Senator from 1973 to 2003, and you can look at his long career and pick out some terrible things (and also some good things), but the question now is what do we think of Farr?

When Mr. Farr graduated from law school, Mr. Helms and [lawyer Thomas] Ellis brought him into their fold. Mr. Farr joined the small law firm of Maupin, Taylor & Ellis, where all of the named partners were openly hostile to civil rights....

Most recently, Mr. Farr has carried on Mr. Helms’s legacy by helping North Carolina’s Republican-led Legislature create and defend in court discriminatory voting restrictions and electoral districts, which were eventually struck down by numerous federal courts that found them to be motivated by intentional racism. In fact, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that the state’s 2013 voter suppression law was aimed at blacks with “almost surgical precision.”

Put on that abstract level, it does indeed sound terrible, but a balanced presentation would specify that the subject is mostly voter I.D. laws, which have been upheld by the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see whether the confirmation hearings on Farr will rest heavily on the voter I.D. issue. Polls have long shown that the great majority of Americans support voter I.D. laws. But you can tell all these people they're racists — deplorables! — and see how that works.

Senators from both sides of the aisle must condemn the experience Mr. Farr brings with him... Every senator who condemned the racism on display in Charlottesville must vote to prevent it from having power in the federal judiciary.

So the illustration means that the Senate holds the gavel and it "must" smash Thomas Alvin Farr in the face with it. I understand it now. It's very crude, violent, and ugly. And somebody at the NYT decided it belonged on that column.