In 2022, we began this series with a discussion of the early underpinnings of fetal imagery, John and Barbara Willke (boosted by the moral majority) and their visual pro-life campaign, and later, the use of imagery by Ms Magazine in displaying the horrors of what outlawing abortion can do to women. These visual symbols set the stage for today’s rhetorical battles, where language—laden with fear and control—serves the same end.

In an Orwellian world, politics is where language goes to die. Political rhetoric faces the danger of being reduced to something ornamental; a shiny and hollow stand-in without substance. George Orwell was critical, but he was not a pure cynic. In his treatise, Politics and the English Language, he also lays out a set of rules for avoiding this trap. These include: no stale metaphors or jargon, short and precise words, and fresh speech—all admirable goals to aspire to, president or not. Orwell’s last rule for politicians, and I don’t use this term lightly, trumps the rest: “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.” 

What Orwell was rallying against was not mere political correctness and overly complex words but rather language that conceals meaning, and its darker consequence: the corruption of thought. In this series, we’ve looked at symbols that act as shorthand for thought; images that short-circuit the reflective mind in favor of primal emotion. Today, we’ll look at how language does the same, and how it will continue to shape abortion rights in America.  

Trump uses language in a manner unheard from most politicians. His supporters applaud his apparent lack of pretension. He says what comes to mind. He digresses and repeats. He is long-winded and conversational, but not abstract and certainly not politically correct. His mood shifts as often does a teenage girl’s; he declares his contradictions with confidence and screams absolutisms into the all-consuming cybersphere. His opinions are often simply stated with elementary grammatical structures and vocabulary, i.e. “I love women,” never mind that the opinions themselves are difficult to follow, sometimes changing several times over the course of a few days, and aren’t followed by specific policies. He says his presidency will be “great for women.” In what way has a post-Roe America possibly been great for women? There’s no time to follow up because our drunk uncle has wandered off to grope the women he loves so much or ridicule “Tampon Tim.” 

But I won’t deny that he has captivated the world, fans and critics alike, for one reason: he demands attention because of the sheer peculiarity of his speech. It may be idiotic, but it is new. As evidenced by the election results, it is concrete, simplistic, and for half of America, freeing. Because people do think ugly thoughts, and if they want permission to let their misogynistic desire for control run wild, who better to validate them than the President? If they want to project their thoughts onto a President, who better than someone who changes their mind on a whim without consideration for the consequences? 

At a rally last year in Green Bay, Wisconsin, dressed in a neon orange vest, Trump expanded on his latest talking point. “I’ll protect them,” he said, “whether the women like it or not.” The crowds behind him cheered as they held up Trump Force 47 signs. This kind of speech around women is new; as Trump won over the voters he lost after the Dobbs decision in the summer of 2022 that inspired this series. Trump was initially proud of his hand in revoking Roe, and may still be though it’s difficult to tell where his true intentions lie. 

At the time, he called himself “the most pro-life president ever.” But since then, the shifting political climate around abortion, particularly amongst Republican women, has been well-documented. Non-religious Republican women are favoring abortion more than they ever have in the past, and religious women (in particular, evangelical) seem to be ambivalent now that abortion bans have been implemented in many states. While the procedure became politicized in the 1960s, it’s in recent years that we’ve seen Republicans diverge, primarily on the lines of sex and religion

And so, Trump slammed the breaks. He wavered on the Florida abortion ban, first supporting it, and then calling it too extreme. He has evaded questions on whether he would support a national abortion ban and during a town hall for female voters, called himself “the father of IVF,” presupposing that he gave birth to the idea. (That would actually be Dr. Patrick Steptoe and Sir Robert Edwards, the latter of whom won the Nobel Prize.) He repeated this phrase at a rally in Nebraska. His language leans eerily on that of family, isolationism, and control, and yet because of his casual, meandering style, it’s difficult for many to see. 

Linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff has written about how family models influence political discourse. He looks at what differentiates the way liberals and conservatives think and proposes the Strict Father model as an example aligned with the latter. In this model, moral righteousness justifies authority and discipline. The head of the family protects them from the dangers that lurk outside, as father knows best. In using the language of the family, Trump solidifies this idea in the minds of conservative voters.  

Linguists, psychologists, and political commentators have spent (billions of) hours and (billions of) words dissecting the speech patterns of Trump: Is he bored? Is he delusional? Is he experiencing cognitive decline? Is he smart? Is he a narcissist? 

As much as his linguist gymnastics result in pure confusion, they also allow voters to project their own ideas onto him. He could mean anything, and thus, for the average conservative or moderate voter, he means everything. Trump is the very definition of Orwell’s Big Brother or Lakoff’s Strict Father under the guise of an unrehearsed, no-bullshitter, in the eyes of his supporters. He throws around words like they mean nothing. For a country tiring of authority, this authoritarian—the very type of person they should abhor—has ironically, and smartly, taken advantage of the English language to make-believe, and as president, he’ll do whatever he wants with it.  

As will pro-life supporters, buoyed by his flip-flopping speech. Since the onslaught of state-based abortion restrictions post-Dobbs, the use of abortion medication has increased significantly. The latest data shows that now 60% of all abortions in the United States use this method. Last May, Louisiana successfully reclassified mifepristone and misoprostol, two key ingredients in medication abortions that have been FDA-approved since 2000, as “controlled dangerous substances.” Texas, Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri, are following suit. 

Fear-mongering through legal references to “abortion trafficking” and the “recruitment of minors” shifts public perception and diminishes the likelihood that doctors and pharmacists will prescribe abortion medication. It likens the pills to addictive narcotics. And as in the War on Drugs, this language invokes the same misogynistic, racist, and xenophobic views. American Life League makes the connection explicit, declaring that the “abortion pill cartel is alive and well.” 

Trump has, unsurprisingly, gone both ways. In response to whether he would direct the FDA to revoke access to mifepristone, Trump said, “Sure, you could do things that would supplement. Absolutely.” Although he later told Time Magazine an abortion pill ban would be highly unlikely, his pick of FDA head, Marty Makary, isn’t exactly reassuring. Makary has vocalized his opposition to abortion.

“Here I am,” declared Trump during his inauguration on Monday. Here we are, at the start of his second presidential term. There has been much predicted about the four years ahead of us. Some of the policy changes we may see happen in the first week. Over the course of these years, his speech will land upon the willing ears of those desperate to declare right from wrong, take control, and think in terms of binaries. 

Views are cyclical. We progress, and occasionally regress, though not all the way. As the next four years unfold, look for the signals amongst the Orwellian noise. And who knows? The next president is sure to surprise us.

Divya Mehra is a writer and artist. She teaches at NYU and Parsons and is currently at work on a novel.

Header image by the author.

Read The Semiotics of a Movement series:

Introducing a Visual Exploration of Reproductive Rights

Fetal Imagery and the Lure of the Unseen

How “Pro-Life” Became a Marketing Campaign

Picturing Life and Death: How Gerri Santoro Became a Symbol of Public Outrage

The post The Language of Abortion in Trump’s America appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Manifest Destiny is rad.

In the epilogue of Elijah Wald’s book Dylan Goes Electric—an excellent chronicle of the pivotal moment when the folk music ethos transformed into the rock epoch, as portrayed in the film A Complete Unknown—the author notes inn 1965 there was “a clash of two dreams … the democratic communitarian ideal of a society of equals working together for the common good, and the romantic libertarian ideal of the free individual unburdened by the constraints of rules and custom.” I bought into that interpretation and was hoping it would be the norm for some time to come. Well, it came and went.

Last week I saw the aged leader of the United States sitting behind a grand table in a large D.C. sports arena. The WWE couldn’t have accomplished the stagecraft any better. Before a ceremonial dais, bathed in divine light, Trump tagged dozens of executive orders and decrees instantly expunging many critical progressive-era programs with the broad fever-line strokes of his branded fat-head Sharpie. I was gobsmacked by the obvious truth that progress doesn’t last forever.

Aquarians are on the verge of aging out, and we are being led into the new era of disenlightenment by a false prophet (and fake Village Person), whose forever-young narcissistic personality disorder has been normalized as a merry MAGA band of post-Boomer disciples spreads his mantra that “America First” is über cool. Meanwhile, the all-too-overt self-interested support of Gen X and Millennial tech oligarchs are standing in line enabling Trump to make whatever it is he really wants to make great again.

So, I wondered what the pioneer hippie diehards of m-m-my-my generation have evolved into, and I asked Midjourney—the current AI iteration—to visualize “what’s become of an Aged Age of Aquarius in 2025”. Thanks to Todd Carroll, this is what the computer keyboard prompt spit out. Wavy Gravy would be proud.

The post The Daily Heller: The Twilight of the Aged of Aquarius appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The attack lasted between five and ten minutes, in which the Koachi brothers also killed police officer Ahmed Merabet while fleeing the scene. An intense search ensued, and the attackers would eventually hole up in a print shop before dying in a subsequent shootout.

Chérif and Saïd Kouachi were explicit in their motivations for their heinous act of terrorism. Their bloodlust was inspired by Charlie Hebdo’s publication of cartoons seen as disparaging and blasphemous of Islam and the prophet Muhammad. The Kouachis said they were directed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), a Yemen-based militant group considered a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Nations, and Saudi Arabia, among others.

Charlie Hebdo was no stranger to violent retaliation. Its offices were firebombed, and its website was hacked in November 2011, presumably in response to issue 1011, when it renamed the publication “Charia Hebdo,” a reference to Sharia law, and featured a cover depicting Muhammad.

The brutal and bloody act of terrorism galvanized the L’Hexagone and the rest of the Western world. Not only had the AQAP-directed brothers fired upon Charlie Hedbo, but they had also taken aim at satire itself, a beloved and longstanding form of expression in France, dating back centuries to the days of court jesters with permission to mock the king and others in power. Satirical works mocking the French aristocracy would play a significant role during the French Revolution, with Charlie Hebdo keeping the irreverent and sharp-tongued tradition alive in modern times.

As a show of solidarity, the French took to the streets in the aftermath of the Charlie Hedbo murders and a related attack in a nearby Hypercacher kosher supermarket. Millions took to the streets throughout France, with thousands more in cities abroad. “Je suis Charlie,” French for “I am Charlie,” became a slogan expressing support for the freedom of expression and the press, borne out of a simple graphic designer Joachim Roncin created in response to the tragic events that happened five minutes away from his home.

While the brutal attack targeted Charlie Hedbo specifically, the world saw it as an affront to the notions of free expression, an unencumbered press speaking truth to power, and liberty itself. These are values nations like France and the United States view as paramount and necessary to preserve an often fragile democratic republic, or at least pay a lot of lip service to.

But has the Esprit de Charlie waned in the ten years since those horrific acts of terror? Are cartoonists and journalists like those at Charlie Hedbo still free or safe to ply their satirical craft to shine a light on the actions of those in positions of power and influence? Should it even matter to those devoted to the role of journalist? 

Satire has a virtue that has helped us to go through these tragic years: optimism. If you want to laugh, it’s because you want to live. Laughter, irony, and caricature are expressions of optimism. Whatever happens, dramatic or happy, the urge to laugh will never disappear.

Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau, editor, Charlie Hebdo

Not at Charlie Hebdo. Ten years on, the staff at the weekly newspaper hasn’t stopped being just as acerbic in its critique of those with influence and power, including Islamic fundamentalists and far-right politicians. They commemorated the tenth anniversary of the fatal attacks with a special edition sporting a cover depicting a grinning reader sitting atop a rifle similar to those used by the Kouachi brothers with a headline exclaiming, “Indestructible!”

“Today, Charlie Hebdo’s values, such as humor, satire, freedom of expression, ecology, secularism, and feminism, to name a few, have never been so challenged,” writes Charlie Hebdo editor Laurent “Riss” Sourisseau, who survived the attack. “Perhaps it is because renewed obscurantist forces are threatening democracy itself. Satire has a virtue that has helped us to go through these tragic years: optimism. If you want to laugh, it’s because you want to live. Laughter, irony, and caricature are expressions of optimism. Whatever happens, dramatic or happy, the urge to laugh will never disappear.”

Who are some of those “obscurantist forces” today? In the United States, billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, Elon Musk, and Mark Zuckerberg. These men—because, of course, they’re men—own some of the most prominent newspapers in the country or the largest social media platforms, and they aren’t shy of exerting editorial influence and control to further their financial interests and political ideologies.

The Washington Post, owned by Amazon and Blue Origin founder and weak IRL imitation of Lex Luthor, Jeff Bezos, recently killed a piece by Pulitzer-prize-winning cartoonist Anna Telnaes. The cartoon depicted billionaires Bezos, Musk, Soon-Shiong, Sam Altman (OpenAI CEO), and Mickey Mouse (representing Disney/ABC) making an offering to a yuge statute of Donald Trump. Telnaes’ cartoon is a commentary on the recent pilgrimages to Mar-a-Lago by these billionaires to ingratiate themselves with the incoming president, presumably because their firms have lucrative government contracts they’d like to keep and are acquainted with the capricious and vindictive nature of The Donald.

Telnaes resigned from her position at The Washington Post, a newspaper that adopted the slogan “A Democracy Dies In Darkness.” The resignation follows the newspaper’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate in the 2024 election. Publisher William Lewis said the decision, less than two weeks from Election Day, was a “return to the newspaper’s roots.” However, it’s hard to see this as anything other than a capitulation to Trump, at least for the troves of angry readers who canceled their subscriptions.

It’s hard to imagine the current iteration of the The Post having the metaphorical cojones to go after President Trump in the spirit it went after Tricky Dick.

There was a time when The Washington Post stood up to presidents overstepping the law through investigative reporting by Bob Woodward, Carl Bernstein, and others. They did so despite the risk of retaliation by the Nixon administration. Ultimately, the courage and dogged reporting informed the public of the Watergate Scandal and played a significant role in the toppling of a corrupt president.

It’s hard to imagine the current iteration of The Post having the metaphorical cojones to go after President Trump in the spirit it went after Tricky Dick.

Los Angeles Times billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong also prevented its editorial board from endorsing a presidential candidate. Like The Post’s move to stifle a Harris endorsement, this move was seen as an abdication of the press’s role in informing the public when many felt American democracy was vulnerable.

It isn’t just legacy media bending the knee out of presumably financial interests to Trump. Since taking over Twitter—I will never call it “X” because that’s a stupid rebrand—Musk has actively manipulated the algorithm to prioritize his musings and other posts aligning with his ideology, seized user handles for his interests, and removed blue checkmarks from people who say mean things he doesn’t like, including calling into question his gaming prowess.

Subscribers canceling their Washington Post and LAT subscriptions, users migrating to Blue Sky from Twitter, and cartoonists and editors resigning in protest show that the piles of cash billionaire publishers can’t snuff out the fire in journalists devoted to speaking the truth despite the real risk of retaliation from the incoming administration and its rich bootlickers. Nor has the appetite for that journalism and criticism been Ozempic’d from the public.

Now, more than ever, je suis Charlie, indeed.

Rudy Sanchez is a writer and product marketing consultant based in Southern California. Once described by a friend as her “technology life coach,” he is a techie and avid lifelong gamer. When he’s not writing or helping clients improve their products, Rudy is playing Rocket League, running laps in Gran Turismo, or deep into a YouTube rabbit hole.

The post Ten Years After the ‘Charlie Hebdo’ Attack, Are We Still Charlie? appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Matt van Leeuwen is a graphic designer in New York with a love for typography and a keen eye for color, his work spans a 20-year career of making bold and iconic work in New York and The Netherlands. He and I recently found ourselves in an animated discussion about the color red—its influence, its meaning, its everywhere-ness.

Try naming ten blue or yellow brands off the top of your head. It’s not as easy as it is with red.

Matt van Leeuwen

The color red is ubiquitous in the world of brands. “Consider this: Ferrari and Coca-Cola. Louboutin and McDonald’s. Prada and Heinz. Red moves seamlessly between luxury and accessibility. It’s a color that brands across the spectrum trust to make an impact,” says van Leeuwen. Countless others appear across all industries: Adobe, Netflix, Target, Lego, UniQlo, Marvel, Levi’s, YouTube, Pinterest, and RedNote (a newcomer hoping to welcome people migrating from TikTok). Somewhere between 20% to 30% of Interbrand’s Best Global Brands incorporate red into their identities. “Try naming ten blue or yellow brands off the top of your head,” van Leeuwen continues. “It’s not as easy as it is with red.”

This ubiquity isn’t accidental. Red commands attention like no other color. Thanks to its long wavelength, it’s one of the most visible hues on the spectrum, second only to yellow. So, it makes an obvious choice for brands wanting to cut through the visual noise of our consumerist lives. That visibility is also why stop signs, fire trucks, and sirens are red. It’s a color designed to make you stop, look, and pay attention. This visibility extends beyond physical warnings. In language, red is used to convey caution and danger: being “in the red” signals financial trouble, and a “red flag” warns of impending issues. Red is fire, blood, and in some cases, poison. It taps into primal instincts, evoking both fear and urgency.

Red’s dominance is rooted in both history and human psychology. Anthropologists Russell Hill and Robert Barton’s 2005 research suggests that, across nature, red is tied to aggression, dominance, and heightened testosterone levels. In the animal kingdom, flushed skin and vibrant red displays signal readiness to fight or mate. Applied to humans, wearing red can subconsciously prime individuals to feel more aggressive and dominant, making it a natural choice for sports teams—and political movements. The red MAGA cap wasn’t just a branding choice; it was a psychological trigger. Imagine that cap in blue—it simply wouldn’t have had the same impact.

This cultural duality underscores red’s remarkable versatility as a symbol, capable of embodying both hope and hostility depending on context.

“Historically, red has been the color of revolution. During the French Revolution, red caps and flags symbolized popular revolt. In 1917, the Russian Revolution solidified red as the color of socialism and communism. For Americans during the Cold War, red wasn’t just a color—it was the enemy,” he says, continuing, “The term ‘Red Scare’ captured the nation’s fear of social ideologies. Maps painted the Soviet Union red, embedding the color deeply into the national psyche as a symbol of danger. Yet today, that symbolism has flipped. Red now symbolizes Republican, and Trump has taken it a step further, commandeering the color red to brand his own movement.”

This shift isn’t just political; it’s profoundly visual. In design history, red was beloved by early 20th-century modernists like Kandinsky, Lissitzky, and Malevich for its bold, disruptive energy. Kandinsky even reserved the central square of his three elementary shapes for red, acknowledging its commanding presence. Red has always been the color of change, of defiance. It’s no wonder it has become the face of modern populism.

But it’s important to recognize that red carries a different significance and meaning in other cultures. In Eastern cultures, red is a symbol of luck, joy, and prosperity. It adorns wedding dresses, envelopes gifted during the Lunar New Year, and temple decorations. It represents vitality and celebration—a stark contrast to the West, where red often signals danger, aggression, or defiance. This cultural duality underscores red’s remarkable versatility as a symbol, capable of embodying both hope and hostility depending on context.

“Western association of political red with Republicans is a relatively recent development. It wasn’t always this way,” says van Leeuwen. “In 1976, NBC’s John Chancellor introduced the first color-coded electoral map, lighting up Democratic states in red and Republican ones in blue. It wasn’t until the chaotic 2000 election that networks standardized red for Republicans and blue for Democrats, etching this visual language into the political landscape. Before that, the colors were interchangeable.”

Populist politics demand a populist color, and red delivers.

As we watch this new wave of red rise, we wonder whether we’re witnessing branding at its most elemental. Trump’s campaign, wrapped in red, taps into centuries of symbolism—revolution, power, defiance. Like the biggest global brands, it’s designed to provoke and polarize, to be both loved and hated. Populist politics demand a populist color, and red delivers.

The question now is how we respond. Will brands pivot away from red to avoid unintended associations? Or will they double down, embracing its boldness despite its political baggage? Perhaps, like every revolution, this one will force us to rethink our symbols.

In design, as in politics, every color choice carries weight. But red? Red carries history, emotion, and power. It remains the ultimate provocateur—bold, commanding, and impossible to ignore.

And that’s why red will always matter.

The post Red: The Color of Power, Passion, and Populism appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Frank Viva is a frequent New Yorker contributor whose work wittily captures the zeitgeist, but he is not acerbic. During President Trump’s first term, he tried pitching some political illustrations without success. Now with Trump 2.0 suggesting the annexation of Canada, Viva, a Canadian, is reconsidering how he can satirically comment on Trump once again.

He is candid about his struggles, and our chat below—featuring covers he has pitched to The New Yorker—sheds some light on how he goes about attempting to sell his graphic commentary.

In your many published New Yorker covers, you do not present yourself as a political artist. Do you have a secret (or not-so-secret) desire to be one?
It’s a secret because I haven’t had much success.

Have you been encouraged to actually take to finish any of the covers you’re showing here?
Sometimes a call for ideas goes out by email that is sent to a group of artists requesting a sketch about a newsworthy story that is unfolding in real time. It can be a story that just happened, or a story that is brewing but may or may not happen, or a story that is happening but might go one way or another. Sometimes the cover has to be turned around in a day or two. They always try to respond to a sketch if they can but you get the sense that it’s pretty hectic when that happens. The typographic “U” cover and the Schulz cover are responses to emails requesting a sketch. The rejection of the Schulz cover came with an encouraging note. I was happy with the typographic idea, if not the execution. Artists are also encouraged to send sketches throughout the year if an idea occurs to them that they think is worth consideration.

You told me that you have an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). We’re showing your unpublished work now because he’s back. How are you coping?
I’m coping better this time. Although I did suffer from TDS during his first term, I seem to have built up some immunity over the last four years.

You also said, “I have inadvertently documented my descent into TDS madness,” and you’re considering re-pitching your earlier political ideas. What happened to your pitches last term?
The political cover ideas I have pitched since the beginning of Trump’s first term are a motley collection—some are rough pencils and others are close to publishable (technically), while the rest are somewhere in between. A few of them deal with Trump-adjacent topics like Ukraine and Roe v. Wade. Many were a reaction to one of the countless outrageous things that Trump said or did, soon forgotten because of the next wave of craziness. Several are more recent and were sent during the current election cycle.

Do you have limits or proscriptions as to how far you will go with your satire?
The toilet image [below] was from the first term, and I can’t see sending anything along those lines now. The Eustace Tilley sketches would never work because Eustace is a beloved mascot. I should have known that before sending them. I’m trying to narrow and refine my focus as I stumble along. Almost all of these suffer from not having had an engagement with [cover director] Françoise Mouly. I always hope that she will see something worth sharpening or exploring further.

You are not a satirist per se, right?
My published covers to date have all been sort of genteel, so I had no reason to expect that I could switch lanes once Trump was first elected. I was obsessed. I can see looking back that most were not good enough. It has been a journey of stubbornness and stupidity. Stupidity because I was risking annoyance at the receiving end.

How do you feel—and what is your strategy, if any—for dealing with Jan. 20 and beyond?
Like most journeys, it was not a complete waste of time. In the last few months I have submitted political cover ideas that were better-received and even considered (if only briefly) for publication. By submitting ideas and then seeing what was chosen week after week, I gained a better understanding of what could work for me. A unique voice is important. In my case this includes the use of typography, or an unexpected approach that the best of The New Yorker’s great political cartoonists would be unlikely to propose.

And what do you think that is?
Perhaps the best typographic sketch is the one with the central ‘U’ in “TRUMP” used to represent a chasm dividing the nation. The most promising reaction I received was the Charlie Brown and Lucy football cover, pitched shortly after Kamala entered the race and was seemingly doing better in the polls than Trump.

Cartoons are not great weapons when your audience, including me, is in an echo chamber. Half the nation loves Trump or MAGA. Another percentage is just settling in for the time being. What is the goal of your satiric politics?
In his first term, I had no goal in mind. Each sketch was just an expression of my exasperation. It’s true that the audience for political cartoons is, as you say, an echo chamber. These days, that’s probably true of most forms of political discourse. I’d like to be among the less-engaged percentage you mentioned and just settle in for a while. That would be the smart way to go. During his first term, I did have an acute case of TDS. Not so much now. The Trump enterprise seems more surreal than menacing this time around. Like a bad sitcom rerun with the same tired jokes and a similar cast of characters chewing up the scenery. I think the recent sketches that I submitted during the 2024 campaign are more measured than the ones from his first term. I feel more capable of providing a detached perspective—and with any luck, a bit of humor. So I do have a goal now: to try to use what I’ve learned. We’ll see how that goes.

Do you feel “good” about these ideas?
I find it difficult to come up with a good idea that also works well as a composition. And I’m up against some of the most talented artists around. A New Yorker cover is one of the most coveted gigs around and everybody wants to have a go. Some days I feel inspired to keep going. Some days I feel tired and inadequate to the task.

The post The Daily Heller: New Yorker Cover Artist Frank Viva Rethinks His Political Content appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Stepping into the installation is akin to entering a metaphorical storm—a sea of dire warnings that forces onlookers to confront the brutal realities faced by refugees.

Sea-Watch, a nonprofit committed to rescuing refugees from the Mediterranean since 2015, teamed up with the creative minds at Mother Berlin to craft this installation. The choice to use warning signs as the medium feels almost too perfect. After all, what are warning signs if not everyday reminders of the dangers we’ve trained ourselves to ignore?

Each sign goes beyond the usual “Caution: Slippery When Wet” fare, instead bearing messages like “Danger: Drowning in Progress” or “Beware of Political Failure.” These words, paired with stark pictograms, pull you out of your comfort zone.

“The collaboration with Sea-Watch gave us the opportunity to raise awareness of the refugee issue in a creative and emotional way. Our goal was to convey a critical message that not only touches people but also mobilizes them and helps Sea-Watch to secure further support for their mission,” explains Amelie Schad, managing director of Mother Berlin. 

Stepping into the installation is akin to entering a metaphorical storm—a sea of dire warnings that forces onlookers to confront the brutal realities faced by refugees. Crafted from repurposed road signs, the orange color scheme evokes the “Refugee Flag,” giving the visuals a cohesive identity tied to Sea-Watch’s mission.

Stefan Wittemann, creative director at Mother Berlin, shared, “Our aim was to find an artistic language that does justice to the urgency of the topic and really shakes people awake.” And for those who aren’t in Berlin, an evocative film directed by Harun Güler captures the raw emotion of the piece.

This collaboration between Sea-Watch and Mother Berlin exemplifies how design can move beyond aesthetics to become a force for change. It’s a reminder of the power of creativity when used to amplify urgent voices and mobilize action. To heed the heavy pause that comes when we confront our own apathy and the lives at stake in the Mediterranean.

Giulia Messmer of Sea-Watch didn’t mince words: “The EU talks about peace while continuing to dig graves at Christmas. With our campaign, we are calling for an end to European ignorance and safe escape routes for everyone.”

The refugee crisis isn’t new, and it’s far from resolved. “Warning Signs” makes one thing clear: the warnings are all around us, and it’s up to us to act before it’s too late.

The post Sea-Watch and Mother Berlin Confront Apathy with a Stark Installation appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

“Where the Truth Lies”, the Fall 2024 semester SVA MFA Design class I teach, was held amid talk and acts of authoritarianism in otherwise democratic societies. I took the opportunity to start a BRANDING DEMOCRACY project, an ongoing demonstration of how designers, artists, filmmakers, and photographers interpret the various facets of democracy and sum up its key ideals – its truths and fallacies. In the spirit of the theme, participants are asked to create, using various expressive and representational media, what democracy means to them in social, political, philosophical, and humanist terms. The door was even open to defining the concept through style, fashion, and just about anything that can be branded.

What is and is not democracy? Democracy is neither black nor white, there are many shades of light and dark democratic behavior. Participants in this project are invited to address one or more nodes along the democracy spectrum.

Throughout 2025, I plan to offer up some examples from my class but also encourage other design and illustration programs to take part.

Assignment:

Design a visual/graphic sign, symbol, campaign, or other visual narrative strategy that speaks to YOUR understanding of democracy as a social/political construct.

Expectation:

Conceive and create representation(s) of democracy in symbolic or narrative form(s).

All media are acceptable.

You do not have to focus on American democracy but democracy as an overarching concept that spans history and has evolved to the present day.  

In short, “What does democracy look like?”

The first example, by You Min Choi, is a blinkered view of democracy as a “work in progress.” Using design symbols and animation as brand elements, her strategy is to celebrate the advantages while highlighting the flaws of democracy, what she calls “Democracy in Progress” (DIP).

The post The Daily Heller: The Shifting Shapes of Democracy appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

This year ThoughtMatter designed a provocative mural adapted from Gustave Courbet’s The Origin of the World, which made clear the tangible impact that public art can have on motivating real-world political action. It encouraged New Yorkers to vote “yes” on Proposition 1, which states, “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws of this state or any subdivision thereof”—an amendment that successfully passed.

I asked ThoughtMatter Managing Partner Jessie McGuire, who has been vigorously engaged in social and political action, about the project and whether ThoughtMatter’s art interventions have truly made a quantifiable difference in 2024.

Can you provide a summary of your most impactful projects to date?
ThoughtMatter is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year, marking a decade spanning three national elections, nearly four presidential administrations, and two New York City mayors. For our team, art and politics are inseparable when it comes to branding. It’s where stories are shaped, movements are sparked, and change begins to feel possible.

Over the past decade, everyone who has walked through the doors of ThoughtMatter has contributed to harnessing the power of design to ignite critical conversations and inspire action through public art projects. In 2016, we created over 15,000 posters for the Women’s March, capturing a nationwide spirit of resistance and rallying voices across the U.S. and beyond. The following year, our For the People and We the People poster exhibit reimagined the U.S. Constitution as an artistic dialogue on civic engagement and democracy. Yes, the Constitution was made better with millennial pink paper and risograph printing!

In 2018, following the Parkland high school shooting, we mobilized design to support young activists, providing free posters and hosting a cross-generational workshop at The Metropolitan Museum of Art for March For Our Lives. Then in 2019, Shit House transformed our studio into a cheeky yet critical examination of borders, privilege and what people are willing to accept as “normal.” Most recently, at the 2023 NYCxDESIGN festival, our WHO IS NYC FOR? exhibit turned a sharp lens on who really benefits from New York City’s systems. Installations like WHY CAN’T WE SIT? and WHOSE MONEY TALKS? weren’t just art—they were calls to question.

These projects, some of which are now preserved by institutions like Poster House and the New York Historical, embody our belief that design isn’t just decoration, it’s a tool for questioning power, inspiring people and pushing the world toward something better.

ThoughtMatter’s public art is more than just something to look at; it’s a nudge, a spark and, sometimes, a much-needed wake-up call.

Do you believe that such things as the mural adapted from The Origin of the World actually influence people to vote?
Without a doubt! The mural was intentionally provocative in every way. We designed it to grab attention and demand reflection. It wasn’t just a shocking visual for the sake of shock, it was a statement. It asked a powerful question: What’s more dangerous, a painted wall or the erosion of reproductive rights? Turns out, a painted wall with too much vulva is actually more dangerous.

Our original design drew heavily from Gustave Courbet’s artwork, but as we climbed the chain of approvals from landlords to media buying agencies and their general counsel, more and more of the image got censored. Turns out, a bold VOTE message is less risky than a woman’s body; kind of the ultimate metaphor for this election, don’t you think?

This mural wasn’t just a piece of art, it was a call to action. A way to make people stop in their tracks and think about what’s at stake. At ThoughtMatter, we believe the role of art and design is not just to beautify or sell, but to challenge, provoke and connect. Choosing The Origin of the World, a work steeped in controversy, was an intentional move to confront New Yorkers with the urgency of protecting bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. Won’t lie, I also loved that we got to sneak a little art history into the conversation.

This led us to partner with Colossal Media, whose team brought our vision to life through six days of hand-painted work. Recreating a piece by Courbet, the “father of European realism,” with a company known for hand-painting contemporary ads, often for liquor and fashion, felt like the perfect continuation of our concept: that a commitment to craft, executed on a massive scale, can make messages impossible to ignore.

The feedback we got confirmed this. People stopped, talked, and even registered to vote right there on the street. The mural became a physical tool—it turned the abstract idea of “reproductive rights” into something immediate and visceral, reminding people that voting isn’t just a civic duty, it’s self-advocacy.

What’s more, it kept the urgency of Proposition 1 on the New York ballot top of mind, helping connect the dots between personal freedoms and the power of their vote. Art like this is more than a moment, it’s a message: a symbol of resistance. A reminder that believing in something is powerful, but acting on it is transformative.

I hope our work serves as a reminder of what’s possible for designers. Sure, the work we do might get painted over, censored, or ignored, but the change it sparks lasts longer than any election cycle.

How extensive have your campaigns been? And what are the limitations?
Our campaigns have ranged from something as simple as a poster series to something as ambitious as redesigning the U.S. Constitution, distributed to thousands of students in NYC. There’s a certain freedom in that range, and while it might seem like we’re trying to cover all the bases, the limitations we face, whether it’s time, budget or the fear of pushing too far, are often what shape the most interesting work. We’ve learned to use those constraints as fuel to engage more people and make our ideas more impactful and far-reaching. Our posters have even made their way around the globe and into permanent collections of international institutions.

But here’s the thing, could the drive to make things feel or seem big actually make us smaller? In art and design, impactful work seems to only break through when it’s optimized for digital clicks or grand gestures that get attention. It’s as if the only way to succeed now is to be loud, viral and constantly scaling. For me the problem is, in that pursuit, intimacy and true reflection get lost. Platforms that were meant to connect us now reward the superficial, the big, the flashy.

Value in today’s landscape is measured by fleeting impressions, and small community-building initiatives are often dismissed because they don’t create that shiny digital footprint. But what if the culture we’re chasing has strayed too far from our instincts for intimacy, subtlety and generative good?

At ThoughtMatter, we focus on the message, not the method. We don’t tick the boxes of traditional tactics or follow perfectly optimized marketing plans designed for clicks. What drives us is answering two key questions: who are we talking to, and how do we want them to think, feel or believe? This mindset has led us down some unexpected paths, whether it’s creating a public art installation, organizing a rally or producing a podcast.

Some campaigns, like Covidity (creativity in the time of COVID), were fleeting, digital graffiti on four walls in four locations, on one night during lockdown. Others, like For the People, focus on democracy and (hopefully) continue to evolve over time. Our work shifts with the needs of the moment. The work we create is part of a bigger ongoing story, and the limits of that story are still unfolding.

If you can’t tell, we don’t like limitations. As a studio, we’re ready to roll up our sleeves, embrace the limits, and keep producing the unexpected in hopes it moves people.

Now that the majority of Americans have voted to reelect Donald Trump—a tyranny of the majority, so to speak—what is on your schedule for future art actions?
I’d never heard of “tyranny of the majority” before, but now that I have, I can proudly say: ThoughtMatter isn’t retreating, we’re recalibrating!

That’s an interesting spin …
This fractured moment demands more than reaction; it calls for vision. At ThoughtMatter, we’re channeling our belief in the radical power of design into actions that quietly disrupt, provoke and unite. Sure, we’ve seen how frustration has dulled the energy of movements like the Women’s March, but we know that change doesn’t always roar—sometimes it whispers. It starts in overlooked spaces like a local library, a front porch, even a coffeeshop conversation. Our next chapter isn’t just about protests in the streets, it’s about planting seeds that eventually crack through the pavement.

We’ll continue partnerships with art museums, cultural institutions, community building organizations and nonprofits, creating access to art in engaging ways. And we’ve got our eyes on new collaborations that will empower us to expand our reach.

We’re designing projects that invite people to pause, reflect and feel. Spaces where the noise fades, and what remains is raw. We’ll continue to challenge the status quo in ways that defy easy categorization, with projects that refuse to play by the rules of performative activism. No, we’re still not following traditional tactics or clear marketing plans, but our next actions will be rooted in defiance and hope. They’ll whisper truths, amplify unheard voices, and slowly but surely, shift the tide. Because if the majority insists on power, we’ll insist on something stronger: possibility.

Do you see art protests bearing fruit in any shape or form?
I sure hope so. I went to art school at Pratt at the turn of the century thinking I could convince people that art and design aren’t just about making things look pretty, but about purpose.

Art protests? I do believe they pay off, just not in the predictable “bear fruit” nonsense people want to hear. It’s never as clean-cut as that. It’s not going to fit in a neat little spreadsheet, and that’s exactly what makes it beautiful. It’s messy, it’s disruptive, and it’s nearly impossible to measure. But it does something deeper. Art, unlike design, doesn’t yell for attention, it sneaks up behind you, whispers in your ear and makes you think and feel. In a world obsessed with noise and spectacle, art is the slow burn—the intimate conversation you didn’t realize you needed. It challenges your assumptions, throws uncomfortable questions in your face, and then kicks you in the gut with real human connection. Then design comes in to make you feel better, and maybe it helps you buy stuff.

Art also has this magical way of bringing stories to light that are too often ignored or buried. A single image, performance or design can slice through the noise in ways a tweet or meme simply can’t. It connects us to other people’s lived realities on a level that sticks—deeply personal, raw and transformative. Those moments of connection spark empathy, and empathy is how real, lasting change starts.

At ThoughtMatter, we see art protests as a vital tool for shifting culture. While they are probably not going to make immediate political or bottom-line change, they help people feel seen, heard and understood. Art’s quiet power to challenge, to connect and to inspire leaves an impression that lingers. And for us, that is the kind of power that has the potential to reshape how we think, how we act, and what we believe the future can be.

Has this election encouraged or discouraged further action this year? Or should we wait and see?
This election has reinforced the urgency of pushing for change. Every day without action is a missed opportunity to shape the future. The power of collective action, especially when amplified by art, has never been more evident. At ThoughtMatter, we’re ready to respond by creating work that inspires, challenges and shifts the conversation. Waiting to act risks losing momentum, but the real challenge is balancing urgency with strategy.

That said, it’s a tough question to answer definitively. Urgent action will undoubtedly be necessary, but we also need clarity on what we’re up against. The next four years will demand a new level of focus and tactical thinking for protests and advocacy to be effective. Anger and disappointment can fuel movements, but without a clear strategy, protests risk creating the wrong narrative or losing their impact.

For all my talk about protests being vital for culture, I’ll say it: protests for protest’s sake won’t cut it. What’s required is thoughtful, purposeful action that carries a powerful, unambiguous message. As a design studio, our role is to ensure the work we create doesn’t just react, it resonates. It should move people to engage, reflect and act meaningfully.

Do you see art as a viable option for advocacy?
Absolutely. Art is not only a viable option for advocacy, it’s often one of the most effective tools we have. We believe all art is political, and designers, as artists, have a responsibility to use their skills and mediums to amplify important messages. Advocacy through art isn’t just about making statements; it’s about creating work that moves people, ignites action and becomes part of a larger dialogue for change.

Art has a unique ability to transcend boundaries and reach people on an emotional level, speaking directly to the heart in ways that words alone often can’t. At ThoughtMatter, we’re energized by this potential and proud to be a team of creatives ready to drive forward the power of design to meet the challenges of the world ahead.

Through partnerships with organizations like ARTE, Girl Forward, MAMA Foundation, and Studio Institute and REIA, we’ve seen how art can amplify critical issues like incarceration, refugees, music and art education, and healthcare. Whether it’s creating zines, designing spaces, or crafting campaigns, art often provides a platform for voices that might otherwise go unheard. Sometimes, art is the only viable option for advocacy. It spurs conversations, and those conversations nurture understanding. Understanding, in turn, inspires action. We believe art has the power to shape the future, and we’re committed to using it to create meaningful, lasting change.

I’m curious: Did you read The New Yorker story “The Americans Prepping for a Second Civil War?” What are your thoughts/reactions?
I hated it. The article highlights how extreme ideologies are being framed as “the new normal” in media narratives, and that’s both depressing and dangerous. The people they highlight have chosen isolation and fear, preparing for violence while those they claim to fear are simply advocating for peaceful protests and expanded rights. The difference is stark. This situation underscores how the media amplifies fear-based thinking instead of fostering community-minded dialogue. It’s crucial to call out misinformation and lies for what they are, and shift the focus toward fostering conversations that build connection, not division.

As artists and designers, we have a unique responsibility in moments like this. Art has always been both a tool of propaganda and a weapon against it—against censorship, hero worship and nationalism. Today, it’s more critical than ever to be responsive and thoughtful. Art education, particularly for children, is more than the finger-painting classes of our childhoods. It’s a key practice in preparing future generations to engage with the world through critical thinking and empathy.

At ThoughtMatter, we make space for diverse perspectives and emotions in our work. It’s how we ensure the solutions we craft foster understanding, not division. Art confronts the narratives of fear and extremism by encouraging dialogue, challenging assumptions and imagining alternatives rooted in community and compassion.

The article might paint a bleak picture, but it’s a call to action. We have to double down on using creativity as a force for connection, resisting fear-driven narratives and reframing the conversation to build a society that values collaboration over division.

The post The Daily Heller: Democracy, Where Art Thou? appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

But, his political satire only scratches the surface of his full oeuvre.

Rodriguez’s work spans from painting and sculpture to film posters, portraiture, children’s book illustrations, and on and on. Steven Heller recently wrote about his illustrated book covers for two Cuban sci-fi titles in a recent The Daily Heller. He also wrote and illustrated his American experience in Worm, a graphic memoir that spans his fleeing from Castro’s Cuba as a young child on the Mariel boatlift to watching the insurrection unfold on January 6, 2021. If you missed our PRINT Book Club with Rodriguez about Worm, it’s definitely worth a watch.

Rodriguez is the subject of a new documentary, Freedom is a Verb, now screening at DOC NYC from Nov 13 through Dec 1, and airing on PBS in the coming months. Directed by Adrienne Hall and Mecky Creus, the film explores the reckless pursuit of freedom inherent in all of Rodriguez’s work. Watch the trailer here.

With the election decided, Rodriguez’s work takes on layers of prophetic meaning. We look forward to Edel Rodriguez’s truth-telling in the near future, reminding us of the power of artists and creatives in times of chaos and despair.

Below, we’ve highlighted some of his stellar work over the last few years.

Left: Latino voter engagement illustration for The Washington Post; Latino vote 2024 poster

Covers for Stern (Germany, two at top left), La Croix (France, top middle), and Time (US, top right and bottom two).

Imagery courtesy of Edel Rodriguez.

The post Four More Years! (…of Edel Rodriguez) appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Fittingly, a group of artists sought to memorialize the end of this bilious presidential campaign cycle. This past weekend, the Australian studio Bear Meets Eagle On Fire helped take the trash out in New York. Here is their justification:

The creative studio Bear Meets Eagle On Fire has partnered with independent artists in the New York City area on an anti-Trump design protest project.
The result is a series of orange “DUMP TRUMP” garbage bags emblazoned with the contentious political figure’s face. The swollen orange bags, strewn across the city streets in Manhattan and Brooklyn just days before the election, are a visceral metaphor for a candidate who’s run one of the most divisive and contentious campaigns for president in U.S. history.
“The most consequential presidential election in our lifetime is taking place in the U.S. this week; we just felt even a minor satirical statement was worth making,” said Micah Walker, founder of Bear Meets Eagle On Fire. 



In a sign of the ever-increasing political temperature in the U.S., Bear’s creative and production partners in the U.S.—designers, printers, photographers and even the volunteers who helped place the bags across the city—have asked to remain anonymous around their involvement in the project.
“It just gives you an indication of how fearful so many people are of a second Trump presidency,” Walker added. “I hope after next week it’s something none of us have to worry about ever again.”

The post The Daily Heller: Weaponizing Garbage appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

For deeper insight into this evolution, I turned to some of the branding industry’s most prominent voices to explore how gender and identity are shaping political branding today. These design leaders shared their take on everything from the challenges of timing to the balance between visual consistency and policy focus to the future of branding for women in politics.

Our lineup includes Jessica Walsh, founder of the creative agency &Walsh (top left), Jolene Delisle, founder and head of brand creative at The Working Assembly (top middle), Holly Willis, founder of Magic Camp (top right), Ruth Bernstein, CEO of Yard NYC (bottom left), and Jaime Robinson, founder and CCO of JOAN (bottom right).

We asked, and, wow, they delivered! Their responses have been condensed and lightly edited for length and clarity.

How does the increasing alignment between political candidates and personal brand strategies, especially in the cases of Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, reflect a shift in how voters perceive leadership qualities?

Jessica Walsh: The way political candidates are now using personal branding is a lot like how companies build their brands to connect with customers. Candidates like Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris are doing more than just talking about policies—they’re creating a narrative around who they are, their values, and their image to really connect with voters on a personal level. It’s similar to how brands tell a story to make you care about their product.

“Clinton’s pantsuits, for example, became a symbol of her identity, just like Harris’s story as the daughter of immigrants and her career as a prosecutor became key parts of her brand. This shift shows how candidates are using personal storytelling and visual cues, not just policy, to create trust and stand out in a crowded political field, much like a company would build loyalty with its customers.”

— Jessica Walsh

Jaime Robinson: Personal brand has always been huge for presidential candidates. Who can forget the Camelot visions of JFK and Jackie Kennedy?  The old Hollywood glamor of Ronald Reagan? Bill Clinton’s “cool guy prez” saxophone and sunglasses moment? 

What we’re seeing today that IS exceptional is that the personal brands of presidential candidates are being absorbed by their audiences as part of their OWN brands and identities….  who in turn reflect their own versions of the brand… which in turn influences the candidate’s brand, and so forth.

Donald Trump has become more blustery and right-wing as his audience paints him that way.  Kamala Harris has become more BRAT with each passing meme. And their fans – because that’s what they are, fans, not constituents  – become even more entrenched in the brand narratives that the candidates are spinning and reflecting back.

Ultimately, it’s showbiz, where Brand reigns supreme.

Jaime Robinson

Jolene Delisle: Personal branding is more important than ever, and as we see in almost every industry, it bleeds into your professional reputation as well. Especially as women, it has the power to shape the narrative, good or bad.

Holly Willis: The alignment of personal branding with political strategy speaks to a broader evolution in how voters perceive leadership. Today, candidates are expected to resonate not only through policies but also through personal narratives and cultural fluency.

One trend we’re seeing, particularly from millennials and Gen Z, is an expectation for leaders to be culturally aware and socially attuned. For many in these generations, cultural literacy in a candidate signals empathy and adaptability, qualities seen as essential in navigating today’s rapid social shifts. Harris has engaged with this expectation by leaning into modern cultural references—such as “brat summer” or her appearance on Call Her Daddy—to connect with younger audiences. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s appearances on podcasts like Theo Von’s reflect an appeal to a younger, more skeptical demographic, reinforcing his base while broadening his reach.

This approach raises an important question: if candidates are not engaged with the cultural zeitgeist, does that make them less attuned to future generations’ needs? For political leaders, balancing generational appeal is no small feat. In contrast to brands that target Gen Z for long-term loyalty, political campaigns must manage the tension between Gen Z’s social influence and the reliable voting power of older generations.

Leadership perception is increasingly shaped by empathy, cultural understanding, and relatability. As candidates integrate personal narratives within broader sociopolitical contexts, it underscores a shift toward leadership that prioritizes genuine connections with diverse communities, moving beyond policy alone.

Does focusing on personal identity as part of a candidate’s brand strengthen or dilute their political message, and how can candidates ensure their brand resonates without alienating key voter demographics?

Walsh: Yes! Focusing on personal identity as part of a candidate’s brand can strengthen their message by making them more relatable and authentic to voters. However, it can also dilute the focus on their policies if not handled carefully as they need to integrate their personal story and brand in a way that complements their political platform rather than overwhelming it.

“In today’s world, I don’t think a candidate can even be heard unless they develop a brand, and remain true to it. And while Kamala Harris might risk alienating voters when she dances or belly laughs at a joke, the WAY bigger risk is being boring. This has been true for a few decades. Who can forget snoozy John Kerry or Al Gore? (or maybe you CAN forget them, and that’s the problem?)

But I’ll even go a step further…

Today, personal brand IS the political message.” 

— Jaime Robinson

Jaime Robinson: Kamala’s converse and meme-ified social presence signals she’s for a younger, more progressive future. And Donald Trump, shutting down his town hall after four questions and then swaying awkwardly to a 1990s Andrea Bocelli ballad, says he’s content looking backwards.

Delisle: We are in unprecedented times where running for political office is like running in some ways in a popularity contest, and it has less to do with the political objectives and policy and more with how people “feel about someone.”

It’s alienating to me as a voter because these are public service jobs, and the fact that most of the commentary online and on television is about someone’s likability is really sad.

Jolene Delisle

Willis: The integration of personal identity into political branding has become a more sophisticated exercise, reflecting a shift in both strategy and voter expectations. Modern candidates face the challenge of weaving their identity into their campaigns in ways that resonate authentically, yet don’t overshadow the substance of their policies. This balancing act is increasingly crucial as younger generations, especially Gen Z and Millennials, value leaders who are socially and culturally engaged while also addressing issues with depth and relevance.

In recent years, political figures have embraced subtler forms of identity politics—where their personal stories, values, and cultural touchpoints are integrated naturally into their campaigns rather than positioned as the primary focus. This approach allows candidates to embody key aspects of their identity in ways that enhance relatability without detracting from the core message.

This evolution underscores a strategic shift: instead of directly emphasizing aspects of identity like gender or ethnicity, candidates increasingly use cultural moments and platforms to convey these elements implicitly.

Holly Willis

This approach reflects a larger trend where identity becomes a part of the fabric of a candidate’s brand without dominating it, allowing for a broader, more inclusive reach. By engaging with diverse media channels, like podcasts that resonate with distinct demographics or tapping into trending topics, candidates can address different voter needs without isolating any particular group. It is also reflective of a deeper understanding that leadership is not solely about direct representation. It’s about showing an awareness of and alignment with the broader cultural landscape.

For future candidates, the challenge will be finding ways to make personal identity resonate across various voter demographics. To achieve this, candidates can look at how consumer brands blend authenticity with relevance — using personal stories to establish a connection, but grounding that connection in the shared values of their audience.

Harris’s campaign appears to subtly embody modern feminism without directly emphasizing gender, unlike Clinton’s more explicit feminist branding. How does this reflect the changing role of identity politics in shaping brand strategy, and how might this influence the future branding of female candidates?

Walsh: Kamala Harris’s subtle embrace of modern feminism, without directly emphasizing gender, reflects a shift in how identity politics shape political branding. Unlike Hillary Clinton’s more explicit feminist messaging, Harris integrates her identity in a way that feels natural and resonates with a diverse yet increasingly scrutinizing voter base. This approach signals a new trend for female candidates, where they can highlight their identity without making it the focal point of their campaign, allowing them to appeal to a broader audience. By focusing on qualifications and policy, while still embracing their personal story, candidates can balance the celebration of diversity with the need to connect on issues that matter to a wide range of voters.

Robinson: It’s smart that Harris isn’t playing on gender, and also a sign of the times. Hillary Clinton was running during a cultural moment where gender identity and struggles were front-page headlines. They were the big news.

That moment has passed, and it would seem outdated if Kamala Harris leaned on being a woman. In fact, today, Harris has a better chance of getting elected if she doesn’t go into gender identity. She knows she needs to dial up a more relevant aspect of her personal demographics  – that she’s younger than her opponent by 20 years, with a spirit to match.  She’s leaning into the memes, the BRAT, the inside jokes. She is signaling that she’s for the future, not for the past.

When she wins, we’ll celebrate that she’s a woman. Not a second before that.

Jaime Robinson

Bernstein: Kamala running for President as a woman isn’t seen by the American public as such a big deal because Hilary already did it. Hillary comes from a different generation. Her feminism was defined by needing to play in a man’s world. She had to play by men’s rules and ‘man up.’ She broke the glass ceiling in her run for President. Her feminism was about fighting for women’s rights and the need to show a woman could do a man’s job.

Kamala comes to a Presidential race by not having to play the same game that Hillary did.  She embodies another generation – GenX vs Boomer. She understands that to win as a brand, she needs to be defined relative to her competition. Being a woman is irrelevant. Her brand is “not Trump.” And her age is more important than her gender – it’s what also separates her from Trump and Biden.

Running on one’s identity now – and in the future – is not enough. Voters today are not choosing a candidate based on gender alone.

Ruth Bernstein

This is a different race. This is a changing of a generation. These are the moments when choice can’t be defined by identity. This is a race that is bigger than that.

“It’s interesting in the summer of Brat/Demure we almost have that prime example of the shift with the two candidates. Hillary was definitely in her demure era; she was trying to play nice and stick to the typical playbook. Harris’s campaign has definitely embraced the Brat vibes and is decidedly more on the offense, and is really embracing social, memes and culture. It’s been cool to see how fast her team can create response content and immediately jump into the conversation. It’s an incredible brand strategy, and I think it will definitely influence how candidates, both male and female, activate and strategize their social in the future.“

— Jolene Delisle

Willis: Kamala Harris’s campaign underscores a shift in how gender is integrated into political branding. Where Clinton’s explicit feminist messaging highlighted her role as a groundbreaking figure for women, Harris embodies a more subdued form of feminism. She integrates her identity into her platform in a way that feels authentic and organic rather than overt. This approach allows Harris to resonate with voters who value diversity and representation without risking the perception of identity politics overwhelming her platform.

This progression mirrors the changing cultural landscape, where diversity is increasingly celebrated but must be balanced with a broader message that appeals across demographics. As diversity becomes a more central expectation, female candidates may have more freedom to weave their identity into their political brands subtly. They can express modern feminism not as a standalone brand pillar, but as one of many facets that make up a well-rounded candidate. This more nuanced approach could help future female candidates navigate an increasingly scrutinized political arena by resonating with voters who see their identities as a natural part of their brand narrative, rather than its primary focus.

Clinton’s pantsuits became a symbol of her campaign, often diverting attention away from policy discussions, while Harris’s fashion choices seem to escape such scrutiny. How crucial is it for candidates’ brands to balance consistency in their visual identity with the need to focus on substantive policy?

Walsh: In political branding it’s all about balancing consistency in visual identity while keeping the focus on substantive policy. Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits became an iconic symbol, but that could distract from more important policy discussions. While visual branding creates a recognizable and cohesive image, there’s a risk when it becomes the story rather than supporting it. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, has managed to maintain a strong visual identity without her fashion choices becoming the center of attention, allowing her policies and leadership to take the spotlight.

Robinson: Visual identity is everything and these candidates know that. Picture Trump –  what is he wearing? Not a leather jacket or some True Religion bootcut jeans. He’ll be in a dark suit with a red tie or golf whites and a MAGA hat. Picture Kamala Harris. She’s in a blazer and skinny jeans and Converse, or she’s in a modern designer suit.

These are brand moments—sartorial choices that are picked because of the policies the candidates are endorsing, not despite them. Donald Trump is projecting the image of the rough businessman cutting taxes for the rich. Kamala Harris is the image of the cool aunt who is gonna kick someone’s ass for taking away your reproductive rights.

But the good news? These branding elements are really not the focus.

We’re not talking about the clothing choices, unlike Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits, which is a great thing. A lot has happened since 2016, and we don’t have time for that shit.

Jaime Robinson

Bernstein: For most candidates, it is important to build a visual identity that is inclusive and contrasts with that of your opponent. Obama had one of the strongest visual identities of any modern politician. It let him own the idea of ‘Hope and Progress.’ While that is not substantive policy, it provided a platform for him to put forward ideas that lived up to that visual promise such as healthcare for all.

Delisle: I think millennial voters were much more into political branding – I think in the time of Obama and his Shepard Fairey prints, it was much more about visual identity shaping the campaign. Now because things have shifted so much away from printed collateral, the visual identity piece to me seems less important in this election. Obviously, with MAGA, they had a very strong visual thread that was helpful for them in the last election and likely this one, too, but I think it’s smart that the Harris campaign isn’t putting as much significance on her logo or graphic elements and putting much more effort on social media like video and UGC.

“Misogyny in American culture has often resulted in undue focus on female candidates’ appearances, on both sides of the aisle. This was seen in Clinton’s campaign, where her pantsuits became a symbol that sometimes distracted from her policy platform. In contrast, Harris’s style choices are less scrutinized, reflecting a shift in the way voters and media perceive female candidates. However, this shift doesn’t imply that the biases have disappeared—they’ve just evolved.”

— Holly Willis

Holly Willis: A candidate’s brand is enhanced when visual identity serves as a subtle extension of their narrative, reinforcing their platform without distracting from the policies they champion. For example, a well-coordinated wardrobe choice can be strategically symbolic, drawing connections to the communities they represent without being explicitly gendered or politicized. It’s essential to maintain this balance to ensure the conversation remains focused on their vision and substance.

Can too much focus on visual elements risk diminishing a candidate’s brand? How can they avoid this?

Robinson: I think the conversation around Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits was problematic – it made her more lovable to her core demographic, who were finally seeing themselves represented and loved her boss bitch vibes.  But the sensible pumps and pantsuits served to “other” her to her detractors, who found her power dressing off-putting for the same reasons that her core loved it. 

But today, unless that visual element is a negative or unattractive thing, it’s not a problem. Even the infamous “orange” hue of Donald Trump’s skin is just as accepted and in some camps, celebrated as part of his brand.

Willis: An overemphasis on visual elements can indeed dilute a candidate’s brand, potentially reducing their persona to superficial traits and drawing focus away from their platform. Visual identity should be a strategic tool, enhancing the message and helping convey a sense of strength, consistency, respect, and relatability, but not becoming the focal point. Political figures can avoid this pitfall by aligning visual identity closely with their core values, reinforcing it as an extension of their messaging rather than an attention-grabbing element on its own.

For candidates today, the goal should be to integrate these elements as part of a comprehensive brand that resonates with voter segments. By thoughtfully choosing elements that reflect broader narratives—such as inclusivity, relatability, and authenticity — they can create a memorable visual presence that supports, rather than overshadows, their policies. This balance is especially important in a media environment that often emphasizes imagery, where strategic visual choices can enhance a candidate’s connection with voters.

Clinton faced relentless negative media coverage, while Harris appears to have avoided similar levels of personal scrutiny. How should political candidates handle the branding impact of personal attacks? What strategies from the private sector can help create resilient brands that can withstand media controversies and misinformation?

Walsh: Political candidates can handle personal attacks by focusing on consistency, transparency, and staying true to their core message—much like successful brands in the private sector. Just as companies respond to negative press by controlling the narrative, candidates should address false claims directly, clarify their stance, and reinforce their values without letting attacks overshadow their campaign. By using crisis management strategies from the business world—such as clear communication, proactive messaging, and staying authentic—candidates can build resilience and maintain focus on their leadership and policy goals, ensuring that negative media doesn’t dominate or derail their brand.

Robinson: If you’re running for president, criticism from someone (or many someones) is part of the job description. The key is, no matter the heat, to stay true to the brand. Candidates must stay authentic, and not waver just because they ruffled some feathers. They likely also strengthened some feathers, and if they change course because of the criticism, everybody will register them as fakes. 

As with marketing brands, you can’t be everything to everybody. And the most vital thing is to be “on brand” to yourself.

Willis: One key strategy is to establish a clear, positive narrative around their identity, consistently highlighting their values and achievements. This creates a “brand foundation” that can anchor public perception, making it more challenging for opponents to erode their credibility. In the face of attacks, it’s also effective to address issues head-on when appropriate, deflecting distractions but responding thoughtfully to misinformation.

Resilience also comes from transparency and trust-building. Private-sector brands often use authenticity to connect with audiences, and candidates can similarly counteract negative coverage by being candid and accessible. Misinformation is a constant threat, and successful brands emphasize fact-based storytelling, engaging directly with audiences to set the record straight and offer a counter-narrative that reinforces their values.

Directly addressing a baseless claim not only clarifies their stance but also builds credibility with voters, showing an alignment with the facts over spin.

Holly Willis

With Kamala Harris benefitting from the cultural groundwork laid by Clinton and Shirley Chisholm, how important do you believe timing is in a candidate’s branding success?

Walsh: Timing is critical in a candidate’s branding success, and Kamala Harris’s rise is a great example. She built on the groundwork laid by figures like Clinton and Shirley Chisholm, and her campaign’s timing was key. As many grew weary of Biden’s traditional leadership, Harris brought fresh energy and hope, representing diversity and progress. The joy surrounding her candidacy was not only about her qualifications but the emotional response to seeing a leader who people were excited to get behind. Harris’s timing allowed her brand to resonate at a moment when the public craved new, dynamic representation.

Robinson: Timing – for candidate brands and brand brands – is everything. Is the world ready for what your brand has to say?

“Timing is very important to a candidate’s ability to brand themselves. There are moments like the one we are in today, when it is a coming of age, or generation. It is an inflection point that speaks to a readiness to embrace something new. We saw that with Obama. And I believe we are seeing that now.”

— Ruth Bernstein

Bernstein: Kamala’s womanhood is not as important as other factors. Her age, for one, is a more important factor than her gender. With Kamala, we are seeing her flex her GenX attributes more than her femaleness. And that is relevant to the moment we are in – the age of Biden and the age of Trump and the desire for a new generation of leadership.

Willis: Timing is a critical factor. Harris, for example, is benefiting from the cultural groundwork laid by earlier trailblazers who helped shift societal perceptions of female and diverse leadership. These predecessors opened the door for a more complex, intersectional understanding of identity in politics, allowing Harris to subtly embrace her own diverse background while focusing on policy-driven messaging.

Furthermore, Me Too shifted public consciousness around gender, power, and representation, allowing the political landscape to adapt. Harris’s ability to incorporate her identity without making it a constant focal point reflects this change.

A candidate’s success depends on how aligned their brand is with the public’s evolving expectations and the cultural zeitgeist. As society increasingly values diversity and inclusion, candidates like Harris are better positioned to capitalize on this shift, embodying leadership that resonates with a multi-dimensional, multi-generational electorate. Today, aligning personal identity with policy is as important as having the right message—it’s also about delivering it at the right moment, in a way that feels timely, authentic, and relevant.

In what ways do you see candidates balancing their personal narratives with the evolving societal context during their campaigns? Take Harris’ approach to highlighting her gender, for example.

Walsh: Candidates today must align their personal stories with the shifting cultural zeitgeist, where representation and authenticity are highly valued. Kamala Harris’s nuanced approach to highlighting her gender reflects a broader trend of political figures adapting their identity strategies to align with the cultural moment. Rather than making her gender the sole focus, Harris weaves it into a larger narrative of competence, experience, and representation, allowing her to connect with diverse groups without being reduced to a singular identity.

Robinson: Harris is smart. She’s not taking the gender bait, for either the positive or the negative. Even more interestingly, nobody else really seems all that concerned with it. We’re all so entrenched in our political sides that either party could run a hippopotamus and still get votes. In fact, Moo Deng would probably crush it.

Willis: Harris’s approach illustrates a broader trend in which political figures integrate aspects of their identity into their brand strategies without necessarily making them the centerpiece. This allows candidates to connect with voters on shared values, using their identity as a touchpoint that builds relatability while focusing on policy. In today’s social climate, where identity is often deeply intertwined with political beliefs, this balanced approach enables leaders to reflect the diversity of their constituencies without alienating key voter demographics.

As societal expectations evolve, political candidates are finding ways to weave personal narratives into their campaigns subtly. They leverage cultural references, such as Harris’s allusions to trending topics like Beyoncé or Taylor Swift, to underscore their connections to various communities. This nuanced branding strategy suggests that candidates can benefit from staying attuned to cultural shifts and adopting a flexible approach that allows them to resonate across generations. At the same time, it acknowledges that while identity politics remains a powerful tool, it must be wielded thoughtfully to avoid alienating groups with different priorities.

However, aligning with cultural trends in this way carries risks. In today’s fast-paced media environment, one misstep can lead to accusations of inauthenticity or pandering, undermining the intended connection. Voters, especially younger generations, are highly attuned to authenticity and quick to call out anything that feels disingenuous. Therefore, it’s a delicate balance: candidates must lean into their personal experiences and core values to connect with cultural topics and trends genuinely, rather than opportunistically.

We are less than a week away from Election Day, Tuesday, November 5. For all of our futures, this election is critical and your voice matters. If you need any voting registration help or info finding the nearest polling booth to you, learn more here.

Campaign imagery © KamalaHarris.com and Harris campaign social feeds.

The post Five Design Leaders on the Evolution of the Female Presidential Candidate appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Recently, designer Andy Outis collaborated with journalist David Margolick on a series of posters and memes highlighting how Donald Trump’s vile rhetoric would have been directed at earlier immigrant groups—Jewish, Irish, Mexican, Japanese, and others.

“David’s intent is to provoke Trump-leaning voters to question whether their own forebears would have been subjected to the same bigotry and hate, and reconsider how supporting or voting for Trump is a wise decision,” Outis explains.

After the horrific rally on Sunday (where J.D. Vance accused Americans of being “too sensitive”), this message is all the more urgent and necessary.

“There are nine posters in the series; a 10th featuring Trump’s own German immigrant grandparents was cut,” Outis says, “so as not to cheapen the core message with the distraction of invoking his own heritage.”

The posters were produced in two sizes: letter-sized PDFs for printing, and Instagram/Facebook vertical variants for social media. They are available in two sizes here.

The post The Daily Heller: ‘Who Are The Real Americans?’ Takes Center Stage appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The term fascist has become a catchall for repression, state terror and political evil—a counterpoint to Democracy—and has also become a description for ideological conservatives of all right-wing stripes. So often is it used for the slightest infraction of the liberal position that some critics have argued that it has become trivialized. But as of this national election, candidate and former president Donald Trump has invited opponents to label him fascist or fascistic, and the description has stuck; critics have been forced to agree that if it talks like a fascist, acts like one and spews the bile of one, then it is one.

The board game Secret Hitler is not specifically a critique of Trump’s overt sympathy with dictators and dictatorial power, and it’s decidedly not the first game to address political, social and economic issues. Table games pitting Marxism against Capitalism, the U.S. against Castro, and such general war games as Strategy and Battleship have been popular since the Cold War, but this is the first such game that has used the hot button of “Hitler” in the title. Which contributes to an overwhelming fear that democracy is indeed in danger. (Witness the rhetoric of last night Madison Square Garden Trump rally, seeped in divisive, racist, vulgar and hate-filled rhetoric)

Some historians believe that fascism cannot happen here in the United States—but it is undeniably clear that many of the paths to tyranny are being espoused in the current election rhetoric.

Here is the official product description for the game that brings our dangerous polarization into the spotlight:

Secret Hitler is a dramatic game of political intrigue and betrayal set in 1930’s Germany. Players are secretly divided into two teams—liberals and fascists. Known only to each other, the fascists coordinate to sow distrust and install their cold-blooded leader. The liberals must find and stop the Secret Hitler before it’s too late.

Each round, players elect a President and a Chancellor who will work together to enact a law from a random deck. If the government passes a fascist law, players must try to figure out if they were betrayed or simply unlucky. Secret Hitler also features government powers that come into play as fascism advances. The fascists will use those powers to create chaos unless liberals can pull the nation back from the brink of war.

The video below provides detailed instructions on what an insurrection in a liberal democracy can look like …

The post The Daily Heller: The Board Game Where the Whole Nation is the Loser appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Identity Politics is a column written by veteran journalist Susan Milligan, covering the big issues in the socio-political ether as they intersect with design, art, and other modes of visual communication.

Hillary Clinton has a long career of being first. First female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978. The first woman to be made a partner at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock the following year. First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the country (and first First Lady to hold a law degree), the first woman to be elected a US senator from New York (and first First Lady elected to the Senate). The first woman to win the Iowa caucuses and, of course, the first woman to win a major party nomination for president.

The ultimate first – making it to the Oval Office job – was beyond her grasp. And her 2016 loss had all the elements of the frustrations women have endured in less-publicized employment struggles: she won the popular vote but didn’t get the job because of arcane rules that are the election equivalent of old boy’s club practices that keep women out of the room where it happens. And the presidency didn’t just go to any man, but a man who was notorious for his misogynistic remarks, a man not stopped even when a recording emerged the month before the election in which he bragged about being able to “do anything” to women, even “grab ’em by the pussy,” because he was famous.

Such is the painful conundrum of being a trailblazing woman. You often get burned.

Now, Kamala Harris is trying to be the first woman president. And she’s avoiding some of the pitfalls that beleaguered Clinton because Harris is not actually branding herself as the would-be first woman president – let alone the first Black and Asian woman president.

Even though she is facing the same general election foe Clinton did (and Trump has actually escalated his misogynistic rhetoric this time around), Harris doesn’t draw attention to her gender or to the historic possibilities of her candidacy. It’s just there, without her remarking on it.

Hillary Clinton made her femaleness a part of her campaign – sometimes awkwardly so: in her first run, in 2008, she needled primary opponent Barack Obama for being a bit too sensitive to criticism. “I’m with Harry Truman on this,” Clinton said at a Pennsylvania rally that year. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Just speaking for myself, I am very comfortable in the kitchen.”

Harris, meanwhile, unironically talks about her favorite method of preparing collard greens: washing them in the bathtub and cooking them with bacon fat, garlic, and chili peppers. But it’s not in the reassuring context of – don’t worry; I still cook for my husband and kids even though I want to have my finger on the nuclear button. It’s just foodie talk.

Hillary Clinton’s pantsuits were a consistent topic of media conversation, despite the fact that the pantsuit was designed to serve as an unremarkable campaign uniform, much like a man’s suit. Harris wears pantsuits – sometimes with fashionable heels, sometimes with comfortable kicks – but there’s nary a mention of it in stories about her rallies. And while there have indeed been comments about Harris’s looks (Trump seems particularly obsessed with it, complaining about descriptions of Harris as a “beautiful woman,” and insisting he’s better looking than she is), it was Clinton who was the subject of a Washington Post story about displaying “cleavage” on the Senate floor (she didn’t, really, unless you looked very closely). And it seems an absurd observation now when we have a US senator content to wear hoodies and cargo pants on the Senate floor.

Harris has been sexualized, to be sure, with the right-wing suggestion that she “slept her way to the top” because she once dated former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown (never mind that she was a district attorney, state attorney general, and U.S. senator). But the slurs haven’t filtered into the mainstream media coverage of her, even on a sanitized or wink-wink level. Clinton, meanwhile, always had the albatross of her own marriage around her neck – blamed for staying with a straying husband.

Harris’s gender is an asset this year in a way that has zero to do with any kind of “first.” With reproductive rights a central issue in the election, Harris has an inherent credibility on the issue even the most pro-choice man in politics can never have. Her candidacy underscores the perverse contradiction this fall: can we really be ready to elect our first female president, even as women’s bodies have been increasingly under the control of the state? She doesn’t have to talk about how personally insulting it is to her, as a woman. It’s obvious.

And Harris has Clinton to thank for taking the front-line assault in the presidential gender wars. To be sure, Shirley Chisholm took the worst of it in 1972, when the idea of a woman (especially a Black woman) running for president was so anathema to American politics and culture that she wasn’t even allowed to participate in televised primary debates (only after legal action was she allowed to make one speech). She simply wasn’t taken seriously as a candidate for the highest office in the land.

Clinton was taken seriously, making the attacks on her more personal and arguably more vicious. And it paved the path for Harris, who could not have run a campaign so remarkably un-gendered if Clinton had not taken the hits first. Some of it is the times – people are more used to women leaders, making the possibility of a female president more normal and arguably inevitable. Clinton, too, reads more like a 1970s-era feminist, Wayne State University associate professor Janine Lanza, an expert on gender and politics, observed to me – and younger women can’t relate to that as much. Harris epitomizes a more modern kind of feminist. She doesn’t talk about it directly; she just lives it. And thanks to the advance work of trailblazers like Chisholm and Clinton, she just might end up living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

For added commentary, PRINT’s Amelia Nash reached out to design industry leaders for their take on the topic of gender, identity, and brand as they intersect in politics and electioneering. Read their responses here.

More topics in this series:

What the Age-Old Campaign Against Childfree Cat Ladies Doesn’t Get

Susan Milligan is an award-winning veteran journalist covering politics, culture, foreign affairs, and business in Washington, DC, New York, and Eastern Europe. A former writer for the New York Daily News, the Boston Globe, and US News & World Report, she was among a team of authors of the New York Times bestseller Last Lion: The Rise and Fall of Ted Kennedy. A proud Buffalo native, Milligan lives in northern Virginia.

Header image composite by Debbie Millman.

The post Kitchens, Pantsuits, and Cleavage Oh My! Running for President While Female appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Kamala’s Recipes isn’t just another culinary website—it’s a fun blend of politics, pop culture, and delicious bites designed to activate voters through their love for food. With under 50 days to go until the election, People People launched this playful project to celebrate Kamala Harris as a leader and as someone who knows her way around the kitchen.

From the “Purple Powersuit cocktail” to dishes inspired by her viral moments, Kamala’s Recipes is an interactive celebration of Harris’s star-studded YouTube cooking show, her memorable quotes, and iconic outfits. But it’s not all just fun and food—the site smartly integrates voter registration links and encourages donations, making it as much a rallying cry for political action as it is a culinary adventure, both online and through the project’s Instagram page.

Design-wise, People People leaned into Harris’s collection of power pantsuits, drawing inspiration for a color palette that’s as bold as she is. But what truly brings the site to life is its grounding in home-cooked memories and our universal connection through food. The typography and illustrations channel the charm of family recipe cards and cherished cookbooks, while the overall design is reminiscent of bustling farmer’s markets and the communal joy of food festivals. Playful sticker-like callouts and lively layouts capture the energy of conversations shared over a meal, a tasty nod to grassroots activism.

If ever there were a recipe for bringing people together, this is it. Food and politics? Yes, please.

The post People People Serves up a Culinary Adventure with a Side of Activism appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

This rare booklet published by the International Workers Order excerpts portions of a 1942 speech by FDR’s vice president, Henry A. Wallace. As the poet Carl Sandburg wrote in the foreword, “His speech transcends partisan causes and petty ambitions. As a speech, it deals with living history and may long be remembered.”

What’s interesting about Wallace’s arguments (which can be heard here), each highlighted by illustrations produced by the social realist-idealist Hugo Gellert, is that they attempt to tie the United States more closely to the Soviet Union in the face of a common enemy, Nazi Germany. “It is no accident that Americans and Russians like each other when they get acquainted,” Wallace said. “Both people were molded by the vast sweep of a rich continent.” He further noted that “thanks to the hunger of the Russian people for progress, they were able to learn in 25 years that which had taken us in the United States a hundred years to develop.” The quintessence of liberal thinking.

The speech further addressed the issue of “ethnic democracy,” which Wallace insisted was vital to the “new democracy, the democracy of the common man … the different races and minority groups must be given equality of economic opportunity.” And he continued, “President Roosevelt was guided by principles of ethnic democracy when in June 1941 he issued an executive order prohibiting racial discrimination in the employment of workers by the national defense industry.”

An additional point: “From the Russians we can learn much, for unfortunately the Anglo-Saxons have had an attitude toward other races which has made them exceedingly unpopular in many parts of the world. … We have not sunk to the lunatic level of the Nazi myth of racial superiority, but we have sinned enough to cost us already the blood of tens of thousands of precious lives.”

Gellert (1892–1985), who was born in Hungary, underscored Wallace’s theme through graphics that echoed other lithographic work he did for progressive causes. (I had the pleasure of being on a panel about political art with Gellert a year before his passing—he was committed to “ethnic democracy” until the end.)

The images here are selected from the 1943 booklet Century of the Common Man, with points in Wallace’s speech illustrated and titled by Gellert.

The post Social Ideals and Social Realism, Gellert Style appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Jeff Gates is angry, and reasonably so. “I’m angry at those who manipulate our cultural zeitgeist for their own aspirations,” he says. Creating political posters that visually ooze contempt through take-no-prisoner images, each poster in Faces of the Republican Party is executed with emotional intensity. Each politico’s face is captioned with a simple indictment for crimes against the nation. His targets are the fervent MAGA men and women in Congress and those opportunists who are just along for the ride.

Make no mistake, this work is not gratuitous trashing, but heartfelt protest. “To govern effectively, we need people who listen to each other,” Gates says, “especially those from different parts of the political spectrum.” The congressional representatives for whom he shows no mercy aren’t interested in governing. “The Republican Party,” he insists, “isn’t interested, either.” They want raw power. And Gates’ images reveal this as vividly as he can.

His images are neither caricatures nor portraits; let’s call them character traits. In the tradition of German polemicist John Heartfield, the acerbic Weimar photomontage executioner, Gates’ raw material comes from public photographs. “I will often alter their faces just enough to emphasize the emotions and attitudes they’re already conveying.” They are arguably exaggerated portrayals and decidedly vicious in their intent. Gates takes exception: “If we’re going to use the word ‘vicious,’ these people’s rhetoric and actions are vicious. As a visual critic, I’m just pointing it out.”

Jeff Gates’ biography reads like a testament to the First Amendment and the tremendous power of political commentary. In the late 1980s, he founded Artists for a Better Image (ArtFBI) to study stereotypes of contemporary artists. With a political science and graphic design background and living in Washington, DC, he found a critical voice by addressing political causes. Early on, he understood the social ramifications of the web, which influenced his choice to join the Smithsonian American Art Museum. As lead producer of New Media Initiatives for 22 years before retiring in 2018, he helped shepherd the museum into the online world. He is the founder of the Chamomile Tea Party, where he’s created over 300 posters on the hypocrisy of American political discourse. Just before the 2012 presidential election, he was the first artist to buy ad space in in the DC Metro, hanging posters about the effects of legislative partisanship on platform signs. From 2018–2020, Google Arts & Culture published an eight-part online exhibition of this work, allowing Gates to create a visual history of American politics, from the rise of the Tea Party to the election of Donald Trump. And his bête noir is the onerous gang of ultra-right agitators, including Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Paul Gosar. They “deserve to be taken to task for their lack of civility, their unwillingness to compromise for the betterment of Americans’ lives, their belief in conspiracy theories, and their desire to disrupt our institutions instead of helping their constituents.”

Gates is nostalgic for saner times when “the purpose of our government [was and] is to solve problems so we can survive and flourish. It’s not a place for personal vendettas or manufactured cultural wedge issues.” His “Faces” reflect frustration with this existential perverse transformation of American beliefs.

Gates’ earlier work began as remixes of 20th-century propaganda posters. He’s always been an ardent observer of advertising. “I’m interested in how to ‘sell’ an idea using images and text in very economical ways to increase their impact.” His philosophy for making agitprop art has deep personal roots. “Western and Eastern philosophies show us two different ways we deal with power and anger,” he explains. “Think of the West’s boxing versus the East’s martial arts. In boxing, it’s who hits hardest and longest: direct power against power. In martial arts, one uses their opponent’s energy against them—taking the oncoming force and redirecting it. I’m more of a martial arts guy in my interactions with others. I grew up in a house where whoever yelled the loudest won. Later, I learned to disable my father’s ‘boxing’ by redirecting his anger. It was fascinating and compelling.”

His art is a psychological release. “I’m redirecting their power to give voice to my opinion.” As a visual political critic, Gates understands the limits of his power as an artist. “I make these images for myself. It’s a way of countering the powerlessness I feel these days. I’m not a political powerbroker. The success of my work is getting it out into the public where people can react to it and even use it (this is why I offer all my digital images as free downloads).” He hopes the people depicted in these images might see and react to them. But Gates has no illusions. “They won’t inflict pain on people so self-absorbed. If anything, they feed on criticism.”

Throughout history, artists have often faced penalties for their opinions. Among other banned graphic commentators of the 1920s, Georg Grosz was put on trial for libel and “sacrilegious” work for protesting militarism and caricaturing key military leaders. In this country, Gates has the freedom to be contentious. “The First Amendment protects my right to comment on [our leaders’] behavior unless I am inciting violence, which I’m not. There are no religious or social edicts against visually depicting Congresspeople.” Libel means to defame. Merriam-Webster defines defamation as “communicating false statements about a person that injure that person’s reputation.” There is nothing false about these images or the words they utter. Gates either quotes them or describes behavior that has already been documented. “Any defamation of their character is self-inflicted,” he says. But he’s anxious about losing that freedom.

Gates believes that artists like Hieronymus Bosch, Francisco Goya, Honoré Daumier, Pablo Picasso, Romare Bearden and William H. Johnson, and more contemporary artists like Ai Weiwei, Banksy, Nan Goldin and Kara Walker have “documented their times in their work.

“As we refine our history to include previously obscure events or marginalized people and their experiences, art creates and enhances expanded worldviews.”

And where does his current commentary fit into the body politic? “Many see my work as part of the left critique,” he explains. “But I find some things very illiberal about the far left. This isn’t an issue of ‘bothsidesism,’” he insists. “The GOP is much more destructive. It keeps churning out cultural wedge issues, such as teaching critical race theory. They ban important books that tell a more realistic history of the American experience. And they often attempt to rewrite history.”

There can be no mistaking Gates as non-partisan. His work to date has focused on Republicans. Yet he describes his position as not being on the political spectrum but outside it. “I consider myself a humanist and learn from the wide breadth of others’ stories. I can work with traditional conservatives who value order and tradition,” he says. “But I can’t accept Republicans who live their lives in constant opposition … and their attempts to lock history into a narrow paradigm.”

Visual commentary, Gates argues, reflects and comments on destructive currents in our culture. “I reject our status quo, and my art reflects this. To quote the sixth-century Buddhist Sent-ts’an, ‘If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between ‘for’ and ‘against’ is the mind’s worst disease.’” Jeff Gates believes, “Whether visual or written, art attempts to keep our history elastic. We can fill it with as much lived experience as we want.”

The post The Daily Heller: When MAGAs Roamed the Republic appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Launched on Voter Registration Day (September 17) and running through Election Day (November 5), the campaign provides a one-stop resource for voters at readyforroevember.com. The site allows visitors to register to vote, prepare for the upcoming election, and dive into key ballot measures and races focused on reproductive rights. Hey Jane will donate $1 to abortion-related ballot measure organizations for each visitor, transforming engagement into direct support for reproductive access.

In a country where reproductive rights are increasingly threatened, Ready for Roevember is designed to do more than just encourage voter turnout — it’s about driving informed action on an issue that’s critical for many. For women under 45 in swing states, abortion has overtaken even the economy as the top voting concern, according to The New York Times. And national surveys show that eight in ten Americans oppose federal abortion bans, emphasizing the broad support for protecting reproductive choice, per The Associated Press.

A key moment in this campaign is September 28, which marks both International Safe Abortion Day and the Ready for Roevember Day of Action. On this day, supporters nationwide are encouraged to share why they’re “ready for Roevember” on social media. They can use the campaign’s free toolkit to amplify their messages and guide others to the campaign website. Hey Jane has created phone screens, social media templates, yard signs, posters, postcards, and more, all available in the toolkit to help spread the word.

Hey Jane, a New York-based telehealth provider specializing in reproductive care, is driving this initiative with a clear goal: to ensure voters are equipped with the knowledge and tools they need to make informed decisions at the ballot box. For years, Hey Jane has been at the forefront of expanding access to safe, affordable reproductive healthcare through its telehealth services. Now, with Ready for Roevember, the organization is linking healthcare advocacy with civic action.

This year’s election is pivotal for the future of reproductive freedom in America. With state and federal legislation increasingly threatening to roll back rights, voters have the opportunity to send a clear message that reproductive autonomy is non-negotiable. Ready for Roevember aims to channel this energy into concrete action, ensuring voters are not only showing up at the polls but also fully aware of the issues at stake.

Visit readyforroevember.com to register, learn about key races, download your Roevember assets, and prepare for the election. In 2024, every vote counts—and with Ready for Roevember, your voice will make a difference.

The post Hey Jane Casts its Vote for Reproductive Freedom with Roevember appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Featuring more than 550 artist billboards created between 2016 and 2023, it marks one of the largest public creative collaborations in American history. By appropriating an advertising medium normally used for political campaigning, these billboards showcase how art can urge communities into greater participation and action, and foster nuanced discourse.

Organized chronologically, the book is divided into seven sections that commemorate the organization’s socially prescient campaigns: Make America Great Again; Bring People into Play; Visionary, Not Reactionary; Provoke Bigger Questions; Build, Do Not Destroy; Listen Until We Hear; and Bridge Binaries. Featured artists include Derrick Adams, Sadie Barnett, Gina Belafonte, Sanford Biggers, Cassils, Shepard Fairey, Theaster Gates, Jim Goldberg, Shyama Golden and Tanya Selvaratnam, Guerrilla Girls, Jeffrey Gibson, Jenny Holzer, Alfredo Jaar, Rashid Johnson, JR, Christine Sun Kim, Jesse Krimes, Sarah Elizabeth Lewis, Mike Mandel and Larry Sultan, Marilyn Minter, Koyoltzinlti Miranda-Rivadeneira, Sofía Gallisá Muriente, Gordon Parks, Kameelah Janan Rasheed, Maggie Rogers, Kamal Sinclair and Takaaki Okada, Carrie Mae Weems, Deborah Willis, Amelia Winger-Bearskin and Ai Weiwei, among many more. The book also surveys important partnerships with organizations and movements over the years including AAPI Solidarity, Landback.Art, INDIGENA, NDN Collective, Times Square Arts, XQ Institute, and brands including Converse.

The post The Daily Heller: Beautify America With Billboards appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Welcome to a new column we’re affectionately calling, Identity Politics. Written by veteran journalist Susan Milligan, we’ll be covering the big issues in the socio-political ether as they intersect with design, art, and other modes of visual communication.

“You’ll change your mind.”

I first heard those words when I was still a teenager, having just informed adults that I had no interest in having children. Such declarations were seen as a radical – and temporary – flirtation with Women’s Liberation and a misguided rejection of All Things Normal and Natural for females. At that age, I was treated with a patronizing kindness by those whose smug smiles conveyed their assurance that, of course, I would be overcome by baby fever, settle down, and consent into a life where I might well have a career, but of course would reproduce and always, always put my children first.

As I got older, my childless state became a source of perplexity, judgment, alarm, and finally, pity, as it became clear to others that the time had passed for me to fulfill my expected role as a mother. How could I have missed the memo, waved frantically in my face by myriad sources – older adults, media warnings about my ticking biological clock, advertisements, and marketing that celebrated marriage and parenthood? The sappy engagement ring ads, food sold in family-sized packages, the pregnancy test commercials that overwhelmingly featured married couples hoping so much for the little blue line that reveals that she – oops, “we,” in the couple-centric vernacular that erases the one thing a woman can do that a man can’t – is/are pregnant.

Decades later, despite dramatic demographic and social changes, we’re still in the same place. It’s arguably worse, since American politicians, opinion leaders, and marketers have had decades to adjust to the new reality of American households but haven’t. A first-of-its-kind 2021 Census Bureau report on childless older Americans found that nearly one in six adults age 55 and older are childfree. In 2023, 47 percent of adults under 50 said they were unlikely to have kids—a big jump from just five years previous, when 37 percent felt that way, according to the Pew Research Center. Another Census study found that 58 percent of households are childless (though this figure likely includes empty nesters), up from 7.7 percent in 1940.

The anger and outright hatred towards the childfree among us has been ugly and mounting. The silly (and suspiciously manufactured-looking) videos of “trad wives” on social media underscore the idea that a “traditional” wife, wearing a spaghetti-strapped tank top on her ballerina body, is so much happier staying home all day, making homemade Oreo-style cookies for her kids and waiting for her husband to get home from his paying job. A popular meme online contrasts drawings of two women—one, described as an “Established and Complete Woman,” in a flowy dress and smiling as she holds her husband’s, who is carrying one of their four children. The other depicts a scowling single woman with a cat, a sex toy, a glass of wine, a sorry-looking slice of pizza, and a tally of “men I’ve whored myself out to.” The moniker for this woman? “A Victim of Feminism.”

And now, the crusade against childfree women has become part of the presidential campaign. Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance in 2021 excoriated the “childless cat ladies” who are unhappy and “want to make the rest of the country miserable too.” Asked about the audio, unearthed after Vance became his party’s nominee for vice president, Vance snipped that he had nothing against cats. Another audio clip of Vance, discovered in August, features him castigating the head of a teachers union for not having children. “If she wants to brainwash and destroy the minds of children,” Vance says, “she should have some of her own and leave ours the hell alone.”

Newsweek, which wrote a mea-culpa story in 2006 countering its own 1986 cover story warning single women that their chances of getting married after age 40 were lower than the chance of getting killed by a terrorist, hasn’t evolved. It’s just modernized the line of attack. An opinion column in the magazine this summer piously informed readers that wealthy and uber-successful Taylor Swift – one of the most effective brand ambassadors in the world – is a terrible role model for girls. Why? Because she is unmarried, has no children, and has had a lot of boyfriends.

And that’s the root of the anger and renewed backlash: it’s not (just) that women are remaining single and childfree. It’s that they’re happy that way. And that has provoked a range of reactions from incomprehension to out-and-out rage.

Sure, you won’t see ads anymore like the 1930s pitch for Listerine, noting of a halitosis-afflicted female: “And as her birthdays crept gradually toward that tragic 30-mark, marriage seemed farther from her life than ever. She was often a bridesmaid, but never a bride.” However, as Jess Lloyd, head of strategy at the advertising firm Hill Holiday, noted in a 2018 column in Adweek, single women still felt the judgment. In a study conducted by the firm, nearly half of single women felt “virtually nonexistent” in advertising, and when they were portrayed, it was often as “hyper-sexualized, desperate or lonely.”


Entertainment and food establishments offer “family days” and family discounts irrelevant to single and childless consumers. And while people drive alone more than three-fourths of the time (even more so for single drivers), vehicle advertising tends to show families and groups driving together, behavioral economist Peter McGraw wrote in a column for Contagious, a creative and strategic agency.

The underlying premise of political campaigns, media, and advertising is that singlehood and childlessness are temporary—states that people universally want to escape. That explains why Republicans – seeing the overwhelming electoral advantage Democrats have among single women – haven’t responded by crafting policies to appeal to that voter group. They’ve just tried to get them married. And more insidiously, shaming them into having children (or making it hard to end an unwanted pregnancy).

Good luck with that. According to the Census Bureau, women (and men) are marrying later. The Pew study found that the childless are not mostly reproductively challenged: 57 percent of the adults under 50 who said they are unlikely to have kids said a major reason is that they don’t want them. The side-by-side meme of a happy wife and mother and a miserable single woman means to insult unmarried, childless women. But it misses the point: very many women would prefer to be the female on the right than the one on the left. You can get over a hangover. There’s no recovering from a frontal lobotomy, as the woman on the left appears to have been given, in a caricature that’s arguably as insulting and reductive as the one depicting the single woman.

It will get nastier before the childfree cat ladies take their rightful role in politics and the consumer market. Eventually, candidates, advertisers, and the media will figure out that if they want our votes, our money, and our attention, they’re going to have to accept us as we are. In the stump speech slogan of Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, we are not going back.

Susan Milligan is an award-winning veteran journalist covering politics, culture, foreign affairs, and business in Washington, DC, New York, and Eastern Europe. A former writer for the New York Daily News, the Boston Globe, and US News & World Report, she was among a team of authors of the New York Times bestseller Last Lion: The Rise and Fall of Ted Kennedy. A proud Buffalo native, Milligan lives in northern Virginia.

Header image background by Marlene Stahlhuth / Death to Stock

The post What the Age-Old Campaign Against Childfree “Cat Ladies” Doesn’t Get appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

In honor of Labor Day this year, let’s take a look back at Labor Day 1882 and beyond. According to the U.S. Department of Labor:

The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, Sept. 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. In 1884 the first Monday in September was selected as the holiday, as originally proposed, and the Central Labor Union urged similar organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a “workingmen’s holiday” on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in 1885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.

The form that the observance and celebration of Labor Day should take [was] outlined in the first proposal of the holiday—a street parade to exhibit to the public “the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations” of the community, followed by a festival for the recreation and amusement of the workers and their families.

Since then, labor has been celebrated in many ways—not least of which is through the arts. The arts have promoted the nobility, struggles, triumphs and importance of labor in the United States. The documentary organization Labor Arts (located at the Bobst Library of New York University) is a resource for all things labor (including the images here). It was created in 2000 by Donald Rubin, Evelyn Jones Rich, Moe Foner (1915–2002), Henry Foner, Esther Cohen, Rachel Bernstein and Debra E. Bernhardt (1953–2001), with “skilled help” from Ami Palombo, Keri A. Myers, Jeff Watt, Keith Bush, Angela Powell, Milton Glaser and others. The virtual archives are well worth exploring.

As the site details, “LABOR ARTS is a work in progress—a virtual museum designed to gather, identify and

The post The Daily Heller: The Arts for Labor appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The Norman Rockwell Museum has launched The Unity Project 2024, a poster campaign to motivate people to vote. Distributed primarily through social media, the campaign features striking images and messages from six top contemporary illustrators who reach a wide range of audiences: Monica Ahanonu, Lisk Feng, Timothy Goodman (above), Edel Rodriguez, Gary Taxali and Shar Tui’asoa/Punky Aloha.

The campaign went live on Aug. 23 with the launch of the first image on Instagram, to be “followed by a cadenced release of images, messages and voting resources leading up to election day,” say the organizers. The original artwork will also be on view as a featured installation in the Norman Rockwell Museum’s lobby through election season.

The Unity Project draws inspiration from Rockwell and reflects the museum’s public mission to foster civic engagement and participation through art. “Nonpartisan and action-oriented, the Unity Project encourages Americans to embrace our shared constitutional right and privilege to elect a government of, by, and for the people,” the organizers add. “It reflects the belief that when we come together as a nation to vote, we affirm our commitment to democracy, our communities, our nation and each other.”

The post The Daily Heller: Don’t Let This Be Your Last Chance to Vote! appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

“Quiltmaking is a tradition and a mode of expression that is both intimate and esteemed,” says Mazloomi on the power of the medium. “Every human being has an intimate relationship with cloth. It is the first thing we are swathed in at birth, and the last thing that touches our body upon our death. Through the nuance of textile, difficult stories can reach audiences across identities and generations from a place of care, hearth, peace, and nurture.”

The Claire Oliver Gallery in Harlem is set to present a solo exhibition of Mazloomi’s work from September 3 through November 2 entitled, Whole Cloth: Narratives in Black and White. Marking Mazloomi’s first-ever gallery exhibition, Whole Cloth features a collection of her large-scale quilts that recount the oft-overlooked impact of Black civil rights activists, leaders, and revolutionaries on American history. Mazloomi reflects on her practice as a quilter, the power of the medium to address tough subject matter, and the Whole Cloth exhibition below.

Through the nuance of textile, difficult stories can reach audiences across identities and generations from a place of care, hearth, peace, and nurture.

How would you describe your ethos as an artist?

 I am committed to using quilting as a means of storytelling and cultural expression.

You were trained as an aeronautical engineer before becoming a quilter. How did that major career pivot come about?

I was trained as an aviation engineer and was very unhappy with my work. I worked with no one who looked like me, and most importantly, working took me away from my three small boys. I wanted to do something that would keep me close to my children; I didn’t want them with a nanny or in a nursery. My first obligation in life is to my children and my role as a mother, and everything else must fit around that parameter.

My brother and sister were artists, so I decided to give it a try. Instead of paints, I use textiles. Making art afforded me the opportunity to work at home and be with my children. I made the decision to become an artist 55 years ago, and I have no regrets.

What does quilting offer you as a medium that other art forms don’t?

Quilting offers an endless variety of materials and techniques available to create work. Most people are familiar with quilts. Since I like to make work that revolves around social and political issues, using quilts to tell a story makes way for a soft landing for difficult subjects. Issues dealing with race are particularly difficult for people to accept. Viewing a narrative quilt makes it a bit easier.

Using quilts to tell a story makes way for a soft landing for difficult subjects.

What themes do you address in the Whole Cloth: Narratives in Black and White exhibition? What was your process like for assembling this show?

Most of the work in the show deals with Black history— the good, the bad, and the ugly. The work is pulled from my sketchbooks and notes. Over 30 states have placed restrictions on teaching Black history, making it so important that these stories be told, otherwise they would be unknown. There will be 55 quilts in this series and I plan to write a catalog. I also hope the exhibition will travel.

Over 30 states have placed restrictions on teaching Black history, making it so important that these stories be told.

What experience do you hope viewers of the exhibition have?

The exhibition is about educating the public on aspects of American history they may not be familiar with, and raising awareness around social justice issues. I want viewers to understand and challenge social injustices so we might alter oppressive systemic patterns of racism in this country.

What legacy do you hope to leave in the art world? 

It’s my hope that the quilts I’ve made will be a catalyst for social change, raising awareness, challenging norms, and fostering dialogue. As the Founder of the Women of Color Quilters Network, the oldest and largest organization of Black quilters in the country, I have played a major role in documenting and preserving the history of African American quilts, ensuring these stories and traditions are recognized and valued. 

Through the books I’ve written and exhibitions curated over 40 years, I’ve fostered a sense of community among Black quilt artists. The Women of Color Quilters Network has become their home, and the network is my legacy.

Header image:
Hands Up … Don’t Shoot #2
2024, Poly-cotton fabric, cotton thread, cotton batting, fabric paint.
58 x 102 inches | 147.32 x 259.08 cm

The post Carolyn Mazloomi Uses the Power of Quilting to Honor Black History appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The U.S. presidential race has officially commenced and the time to get to work is now, as Vice President Kamala Harris said at the outset of her DNC acceptance speech. (Which I took to mean the quest to end Trump’s excruciating brand of mind control once and for all.) The battle has begun. The weaponry and machinery of politics—including persuasion and manipulation—will soon reach warp-speed levels, even more now than a month ago. Media platforms have revved up herds of stampeding experts, pundits, commentators, “fact” checkers and fiction enablers, from countless perspectives and of all stripes. Partisan soothsayers have been champing at the bits and bytes to get their voices heard and faces booked on every conceivable outlet with as much frequency as breathing and blood flow will allow.

Now, don’t misunderstand, I’m not anti-pundit; I spent the entire DNC week watching two screens simultaneously. On one, PBS’ gaggle of pundits translating what I had just heard and/or missed coming from the main stage; on the other, PBS’ stream of back episodes from the drama “Grantchester” (incidentally, it is surprisingly good). Really astute pundits are enlightening and essential (PBS has some of the good ones), but the worst (and there are many) are like black mold. Some of their toxicity comes from prejudiced misrepresentation that goes viral. Or, as England’s late-nineteenth-century Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli is quoted as saying, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Which segues into my own punditry regarding candidate Donald J. Trump’s employ of all three.

As long as Trump’s gnarly attack style continues to dominate the current campaign vernacular, there is no way to have substantive debates on any issues. Perhaps there is not a chance in hell, anyway, that he can discuss true policies, because he either doesn’t know or understand them. Well, I’ve got a solution that might appeal to his character (and add to his incredibility): Learn to statisticulate. (Don, it will provide a simulacrum of knowledge.)

The word comes from statistic (late 18th century: from the German statistisch (adjective), statistik (noun, “analysis of numerical data for political reasons”) and the suffix ulate (derived from the Latin ulus, which means small or minute). Trump knows a little something about small things. So why tax him on taxes or burden him with economics or healthcare or any science, for that matter? Instead of spewing his bile and lying about things that do not matter, his campaign should pivot to statisticulation.

This “classic” term coined by Darrell Huff in his 1954 book How to Lie With Statistics (illustrated by Time and Fortune‘s infographic artist Irving Geiss) refers to the distortion of statistical data that can be “twisted, exaggerated, oversimplified and distorted” and passed off as truth.

Trump might, for example, argue that, statistically speaking, he has more people in his extra-large rallies wearing, say, MAGA merch, than Harris has at hers. And he’d be statistically correct because not many in her increasingly larger crowds wear Trumpware. Likewise, he might argue that, statistically, he has lowered middle-class taxes … along with taxes on the rich, and he’d be telling the statistical truth because when statisticulating, numbers don’t lie—they just don’t always add up.

As Huff wrote, “In my experience, [I’ve not seen many economists giving] the customer a better break than the facts call for, and often they give him a worse one.”

As a flim-flam man, Trump’s lying with statistics is as easy as counting to 10. I know he learned how to count (they teach it at military school). He needn’t be a brainiac to statisticulate. And memorization is not necessary. Just make it up—a skill he has definitely mastered—and then just keep it up (an act that is in dispute).

The post The Daily Heller: Liar, Liar, Numbers on Fire appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Simple: He said he wanted to see more party options. Two major parties did not offer broad enough platform choices (which sounded like his complaint about certain restaurants). The Dems were usually his candidates, too, but he felt strongly that even they had many bad apples. (After all, historically Democrats were pro-slavery and adamantly Jim Crow.)

On the occasion of my first vote, I reflexively voted Liberal, too. I voted for Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey. I did not enthusiastically do so, but I did not want to see the infamous red-baiter Richard Nixon assume the presidency. In 1960 he had already come a hair away from beating John F. Kennedy, who I had worked for as a 10-year-old volunteer at the local Democratic Club and the main headquarters across from Grand Central Station.

While most of my friends and co-workers working with me on underground papers (I was art director of the New York Free Press) were angry at Lyndon Johnson and the Democrats for prolonging the Vietnam War, and many took part in the 1968 Chicago DNC demonstrations, I was convinced that my first-ever vote should not go to waste. In principle I supported the Peace and Freedom party, but to vote for its candidate, Eldridge Cleaver, would be one less stone to throw against the real enemy: Richard Nixon.

Watching the love- and joy-fest that was last night’s opening ceremony of the 2024 Chicago DNC, I was reminded how angry, violent and lost my side was in 1968. I didn’t go to Chicago to demonstrate, but rather was tasked with laying out the Free Press pages devoted to the convention and police riot as our reporters phoned in stories of the rampage that bloodied protestors and bystanders alike. Like millions of others, I watched the Chicago melee on television. It was a defining moment in the history of the era.

After the dust and tear gas settled, the rift between old and young had become a canyon. My cohorts who could vote cast meaningless protest votes. But being on the left did not mean I was impractical. I held my nose and voted for Humphrey with the solace that he wasn’t the unthinkable Tricky Dick and just maybe he would live up to his otherwise solid liberal credentials and end the war.

So my first vote ever was not up and down the Democrat ballot, but the Liberal one—as was my father’s, and his immigrant father’s, too. We all lost that one.

The post The Daily Heller: Why I Didn’t Vote Democrat … appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain, 1835–1910) and Seymour Chwast (pronounced Kwast, b. 1931) have more in common than their initials. They share a profound antipathy for war, and each has employed his talents for acerbic commentary in waging war on war—Twain through his writing and stagecraft, Chwast through his illustration, drawing and painting. Now, these two maestros of wit and satire come together for the first time in the book Mark Twain: The War Prayer (Fantagraphics), illustrated and designed by Chwast.

As massive numbers of people are killed, maimed and displaced in too many strife-torn regions of this already fragile planet, The War Prayer, Twain’s tour de coeur, is more resonant than ever. This prose poem—written in 1905, rejected by his publisher and unpublished until many years after his death—is as relevant as ever. Chwast’s startling imagery shares the same human poignancy of this mocking, though heartfelt, prayer.

In 1898, Twain was despairing over the hypocrisy of the manufactured Spanish-American War, which was started by the U.S. to wrest valuable territories (and notably the Philippines) from Spain. Using gunboat diplomacy, under the pretext of helping Filipinos win their independence from Spain, the U.S. forced the Spanish crown to sell the Pacific islands to the American victors. Once accomplished, the U.S. turned against and bitterly fought Filipino insurgents who resumed their fight for independence. Twain believed that U.S. war policy abridged American principles and decried this expansion of “manifest destiny” (a precursor of American exceptionalism) as bald-faced imperialism. During the bloody counter-insurgency, Twain joined the Anti-Imperialist league.

Twain was incensed when American soldiers slaughtered a group of 600 Filipino men, women and children who had taken refuge and were trapped in a volcano. In his autobiography, he wrote scathingly of the hypocrisy and brutality of America’s actions. From this evolved his anti-war stance and his only means of retaliation: the caustic solemnity and wit of The War Prayer.

Chwast’s take on the poem adds another dimension to this timely work. He has introduced varied styles to telegraph Twain’s uncompromising commentary targeting one war as emblematic of the horror of all war.

In “The Lowest Animal,” a separate essay used as a foreword to contextualize this new edition, Twain writes, “I have been scientifically studying the traits and disposition of the ‘lower animals’ (so-called) and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result profoundly humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one … one to be named the Descent of Man from Higher Animals.”

More than half a century before the Vietnam War and the anti-war movement it spawned—a movement that Chwast marched in and made protest art for—Mark Twain protested American aggression overseas. The Philippines was America’s first step toward an international policy of controlling foreign lands. The Philippine-American War was an affront to Twain’s American beliefs, just as Vietnam was to Chwast’s.

The spreads below comprise the first part of The War Prayer, where Twain exposes the “holy fire of patriotism” to ignite firestorm in the American people for the “great and exalting excitement” of the nation up in arms. A rousing newspaper headline style, typical of the era, is Chwast’s leitmotif.

Chwast will be reading a passage from The War Prayer and talking about the book with me on Aug. 14 at the Society of Illustrators, New York. Please join us.

The post The Daily Heller: Mark Twain and Seymour Chwast on War appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

In 2008, during the Obama v. McCain election, I was writing a blog for The New York Times—and although the campaign had quite a lot of negative advertising back and forth, the meme-o-verse had not expanded from anti-matter into the black hole it is today. Sarah Palin was ready-made for ridicule, yet the satires and insults were, in retrospect, more “civil” than they’ve become today. The word meme had not yet taken over the vernacular, and social media was not yet overrun with deepfakes (as opposed to shallow fakes?).

Back then, renderings of candidates in absurd or embarrassing situations were distributed via email or on websites dedicated exclusively to Photoshop hijinks. By the 2016 presidential election, memes had migrated from listservs and email to the internet and the cloud. Now memes go viral with epidemic fury.

I blame this on Donald J. Trump. His brand of insult campaigning certainly gave many others license to verbalize and visualize malicious idiocy more than during previous electoral brawls. Dirty tricks were not invented by Trump, but the critical mass of Trumpist rhetoric arguably ignited more rabble-rousing vitriol than I can ever recall. Nonetheless, feel free to challenge my (perhaps myopic) historical overview or oversight.

Today, anything can be a meme. I’m still not a fan of memes, per se, but I am a fan of Adrian Wilson’s mischief. He is an A+ trickster, parodist and satirist. He effectively gloms onto a current phrase, word, notion or idea and transmutes it into gags. So, from time to time, I’ll publish his more memorable memes in this space as they strike my (soon to be more discerning) fancy, if only as momentary zingers. These, below, he calls “no-brainers.”

The post The Daily Heller: Some No-Brainer Memes appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Breaking News: Flora and Fauna joined the Democrats’ reinvigorated 2024 presidential campaign this past Sunday when a team of creative professionals from Portland, OR, launched “Creatures for Kamala,” a grassroots effort designed to energize voters around Vice President Harris.

“We asked ourselves: Who benefits if Kamala is elected president?” said Joshua Berger, chief design officer of Creatures for Kamala. “The answer is every living thing. All of nature needs a habitable planet, so we’re giving nature a voice through this campaign.”

The group is offering a selection of free downloadable artwork that features a wide variety of nature’s own showing their support for Kamala, starting with birds, trees, fish and butterflies. New artwork for everything from buttons to lawn signs, in both English and Spanish, will be released between now and Election Day (Nov. 5).

“Vice President Harris has a strong track record on the environment and doesn’t think the climate crisis is a hoax,” said Mark Jacobs, chief strategy officer and co-creator of Creatures for Kamala. “We need her in the White House to continue our transition to clean energy and restore the health of the planet.”

The Creatures for Kamala team consists of volunteers across the country, including a chief bird officer, chief tree officer, and chief fish officer.

All of the campaign typography is hand-painted by Niko Courtelis, chief art officer, who came up with the original concept and designed each poster. Courtelis and Berger are partners and creative directors of Plazm, a Portland, OR–based design agency.

The post The Daily Heller: Nature for Kamala appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Memes are symbolic, metaphoric, sophomoric and literal reminders of extraordinary, tragic, comical, memorable people, things, events, etc. In the “www” from which they emanate, they mutate through countless iterations and result in various interpretations. Memes, from the word memetic, are idea-viruses, sometimes propagating in spite of truth and logic. Some are funny; others are cruel. There’s nothing funny about a human firing an AR-15–style weapon at anybody—no less with murderous intent.

Since the attempt on Donald J. Trump’s life (in which a bystander was killed and two others critically wounded), memeticists zeroed in like a fly on poop with a new trope. At last week’s RNC, the most viral meme was “fake ear bandages.” Per Time, “The unusual accessory is sweeping the convention hall, where delegates and supporters, in a tribute to the former President and party nominee, are showcasing their own versions of his wound dressing, ranging from cotton pads to tape to folded pieces of paper.” Others have referred to these symbols of support as “ear pillows.”

And so commences the season of political memes, as if that season ever ceases. And now Biden has stepped down as a candidate, giving rise to even more memes.

Within moments of most globally publicized events, Adrian Wilson, a satirist with an acute eye for memes, ear for puns, better than average Photoshop skills and poor spelling, gets the memetic machinery rolling. I present a few of my favorites from his recent output.

The post The Daily Heller: Now I Lay Meme Down to Sleep appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The bard—or, more accurately, the historian of at least one famous beard—is Susannah Koerber, chief curator at the Indiana State Museum and Historic Sites, which holds one of the country’s most important collections relating to Abraham Lincoln and his times. She reports that a precocious11-year-old girl from New York State named Grace Bedell had persuaded the future president into growing his iconic facial tuft. Bedell wrote to then-candidate Lincoln on Oct. 15, 1860: “I have got four brothers, and a part of them will vote for you anyway, and if you will let your whiskers grow, I will try and get the rest of them to vote for you. You would look a great deal better, for your face is so thin,” she implored with wisdom older than her years, then added, “All the ladies like whiskers, and they would tease their husbands to vote for you, and then you would be president.”

Such a deeply held conviction convinced Abe, and “By January 13, 1861, the [newly elected] president was bearded up,” states Koerber. The rest is hairstory. For eons, beards have had political, cultural, religious, aesthetic and, of course, pragmatic reasons for being. Follicle factoids are numerous, but I will resist the temptation to recite them and simply reveal, as promised, the answers to last Friday’s matchup. They are …

How’d you do?

The post The Daily Heller: Being the Bard of Beards … appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

At the time, beards were also identified with certain socio-cultural groups. In the late 1950s, goatees and van dykes defined beatniks (at least in movies). In the ’60s, bushy and “chin strap” beards were indications of hippies and the anti-establishment. Intellectuals (grad students, college professors and scholars) wore a variety of facial growths, which looked fine as they puffed on their requisite pipes. Then, there were uncommitted folk who’d temporarily grow beards to see how they looked. Motorcycle gang members adopted beards that were sometimes braided to match their menacingly unkempt hair or offset their shaved heads.

The long and the short of it? Beards were social status accessories with political implications and cultural connotations that were tacitly accepted by society as anomalous norms of the era. A stranger could profile another stranger through facial hair identification.

Today, beards are a fashion accessory, one that has been curiously co-opted by politicians (and others) who would never have fit into the progressive left wing culture. While watching the opening and closing minutes of the RNC convention, there appeared to be more beards than at Woodstock. Fashion?!

I was inspired by this phenomenological observation to create the following quiz: Identify the bearded gents below by name, party affiliation and current job (hint: they all have or had skin in the political game) and you will win … nothing. All I can afford to give you is the personal satisfaction that you have basic facial recognition skills. Remember, it’s not what you win—it’s the act of passing time that counts.

Answers will be published Monday.

The post The Daily Heller: Beards That Send Mixed Messages appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

What’s more, Milwaukee is due for an economic boost. Conventions (of all kinds) are consumer circUSes with midways, sideshows and parties, parties, parties. Ever wonder why a political organization is called a “party”? The acts draw the crowds. The headliners draw the acts. The crowds spend the money. The beat goes on! Next month the Dems take to the ring.

Today, the RNC’s mediocre new convention logo also officially debuts, highlighting the outline of Wisconsin, “a state that exemplifies American values,” and “our signature elephant facing in the right direction to move our country forward.

“This logo encompasses the future of our party and our country.”

*

The post The Daily Heller: Who Put the “US” in Circus? appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Long before the launch of the currently published international lifestyle/culture magazine Monocle (founded in 2007 and still going strong), the original Monocle was wittily anti-mainstream. In fact, although I was not Monocle‘s target audience, this issue inspired me as a 14-year-old graduate of MAD magazine and shaped the way I thought of—and hoped to someday practice—satiric, anti-establishment commentary.

The original Monocle was published from 1956 (as stapled pamphlet and assorted newsletters) through to 1965 (as a bound magazine) edited by the late, great Victor Navasky, editor emeritus of The Nation. The original Monocle, headquartered at 80 Fifth Avenue in New York (where I shared an office in 1969), was one of the smartest of the sixties alternative periodicals. Yet compared to the leading “new left” monthlies of the day, Evergreen and Ramparts, Monocle was more focused on lampoon and parody. “We could challenge the pieties of the day through satire,” Navasky once told me in an interview, “which didn’t really exist in print in a serious way at that point.”

As a student at Yale during the tail end of the Joe McCarthy era, Navasky started Monocle, which arguably influenced another great mag of the times, The Realist, a journal of free thought, criticism and satire that Paul Krassner published between 1958 and 2001.

Although it couldn’t be predicted, many careers were made and styles launched at Navasky’s Monocle. The list of contributing illustrators is a who’s-who of political acerbity: Robert Grossman created the first African-American superhero, “Captain Melanin,” and “Roger Ruthless of the C.I.A.,” while Ed Sorel, David Levine, Paul Davis, Randy Enos, R.O. Blechman, Bob Gill, Milton Glaser, James McMullan, Tomi Ungerer, Lou Myers, Seymour Chwast, Marshall Arisman and John Alcorn contributed a variety of covers, cartoons and illustrations that poked gaping holes in the body politic and sanctimonious pols on both sides of the aisles.

Monocle covered the 1960 election match between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon in its own contrarian way. For reasons too convoluted to explain here, Monocle‘s editors issued a pox on both their houses. Instead Monocle vigorously campaigned for Marvin H. Kitman, a newspaper columnist and political humorist, who was a chief contributor. It was never exactly clear what side Kitman was on — right? Left? Libertarian? Or just an old fashioned independent thinker?” He lost but not for lack of trying. (I’m told most of the staff voted for JFK anyway.)

When time came to endorse a candidate in 1964 Monocle reluctantly picked LBJ as the least onerous choice (and as it turned out he accomplished important progressive civil rights legislation). This Vol 6 No. 3 revealed their collective skepticism of LBJ. But utter contempt for Barry Goldwater.

At Monocle we [thought] that the ideal magazine should be like the UN police force and come out whenever there’s an emergency, or come out when we had something to say,” explained Navasky about its irregular (when they got around to it) schedule and regularly skeptical stance.

Monocle’s humor is the seed the grew into late Sixties fake news and lampoon. Monocle was the pioneer of stinging political tricksterism, which, to echo the voice that I hear in my head, is more essential for our collective mental health than any time before.

BTW: Check out the Monocle masthead below; some of you may recognize some interesting names.

The post The Daily Heller: Monocle Magazine’s Presidential Politics, 1964 appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

“A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.” —Alexis de Tocqueville

“This election [2016] will determine whether America is a free nation or whether we have only the illusion of democracy, but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system, and our system is rigged.” —Donald J. Trump, 2016

After watching the first debate of this unprecedented presidential campaign, I am starting what may become a diary, journal or letters of reflections on and reactions to the coming election. I call this project “Branding Democracy,” and the purpose is to collect some clarity about (or at least a definition of) “the worst form of government, except for all those others.”

In order to filter out some of my previously held political dogma and biases, which have become like plaque under the gums of my life over the past seven decades, I will reach out to others in the design, academic, and media fields to contribute to this project—and create pieces of what amounts to a rebrand of the D-brand itself.

I will start by asking some questions that include …

What do you really think of democracy? What does democracy really mean? Where is democracy really practiced? Who really uses it? Who’s really in and who’s really (left) out of the democratic process? And who has really opted out of democracy? These are all vexing questions that should be of interest today, and not only in Hometown, USA, but Europe, the Middle East, South America, Africa, India, Australia, etc., etc.

It is a good moment to reconsider what democracy really promises. What it’s really delivered. And what, if anything, we’re really entitled to.

I want to ask readers and others to engage in an open call for anyone to brand democracy, in their own ways, using any media—art, design, typography, film, video, GIFs, JPEGs, A.I. Whatever comes naturally!

This is not designed to be partisan, although sometimes it cannot be avoided, but rather an examination of small “d” democracy—an audit, in brand-argot, of its assets, deficits, successes and malfunctions.

Over the course of the next few months, I will ask those who never lived in a democracy, to tell or show us how that feels. As the summer rolls into the fall campaign months, I will provide an address to send the work to me and will publish what is offered.

The post The Daily Heller: A New Brand for an Old Way of Life appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Founded in 2020, Merch Aid is an award-winning social enterprise that collaborates with artists and designers to create fundraising merchandise for non-profit organizations. Initially launched as a relief response to the COVID-19 small business shutdowns, the murder of George Floyd expanded the organization’s vision, highlighting the need for expressive merchandise that resonates with current sentiments to provide a means for impact beyond the pandemic’s scope. Their BLM series raised nearly $50,000, and the AAPI series saw similar success. Merch Aid has raised over half a million dollars and has been featured in major publications, including Vogue and GQ.

As the Supreme Court revisits the contentious issue of trans rights, a group of leading trans designers and allies have united to launch a merch capsule to raise funds for the Transgender Law Center (TLC). This initiative follows the success of the Reproductive Rights capsule released earlier this month, which featured work by notable names such as Jessica Walsh, Debbie Millman, and Gail Anderson and raised funds for the National Network of Abortion Funds.

One of the most important aspects of the reproductive justice movement is the sanctity of every mother’s life. When I state that pro-choice is pro-life, I mean that pro-choice is the mother’s life, and I will always value that above all else.

Debbie Millman, writer, designer, educator, artist, brand consultant and host of the podcast Design Matters

Over 500 anti-trans laws were proposed in 2024 alone, and 53 were passed. The Supreme Court’s decision to review state bans on gender-affirming care for minors further underscores the urgency of this latest capsule collection. The Transgender collection will drop today, Thursday, June 27, at 6 PM EST and will feature artists Ren Rigby, Tea Uglow, Lena Gray, Brooklyn Bruja, Sophia Yeshi, and Doug Rodas.

Opinions don’t change identities, bills don’t change identities, politicians don’t change identities: let trans people be.

Ren Rigby, Chief Design Officer and Founder of Proto

Merch Aid’s initiative is part of a broader art as activism movement, allowing designers to address critical issues and enabling supporters to demonstrate their values visibly. All profits will go to the Transgender Law Center, the largest national trans-led organization advocating for the self-determination of all people. Since 2002, TLC has been organizing, assisting, informing, and empowering thousands of individuals, fostering a long-term, national, trans-led movement for liberation.

No matter what anyone’s personal beliefs are, they are PERSONAL beliefs and should not be projected onto others. The simple arrow pointing down under the belt (or sweatpants) is a reminder that’s what mine is mine. MINE.”

Gail Anderson, graphic designer, writer, typographer, and educator

As trans rights face renewed challenges, this merch capsule not only raises essential funds but also amplifies the voices and artistry of the transgender community, underscoring the power of unity and creativity in the fight for justice. Following this capsule, a series of drops by other renowned artists will continue leading up to the election, focusing on social issues such as bodily autonomy, trans rights, immigration, voting rights, and more.

Design has the power to create change, make people think differently, and mobilize people to action. I’m excited to team up with Merch Aid this year to bring more attention to reproductive freedom at such a critical time and election year. Together, by harnessing the power of design, we can raise awareness and inspire action to protect and advance reproductive rights.”

Jessica Walsh, founder of the creative agency &Walsh

Visit Merch Aid to learn more about their capsule drops and to showcase your values by getting your hands on some merch.

Imagery courtesy of Merch Aid.

The post Artivism for Social Justice: Merch Aid Drives Change with Their Latest Capsule appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

As a branding professional watching the election run-up, I couldn’t help but think of the candidates’ campaigns in branding terms. But first, some background.

There was extensive and far-reaching effort behind the selective information and disinformation the general public received for over five years by President Lopez Obrador during the run-up to the 2024 election. He had all the necessary resources to broadcast for an exhausting daily average of two hours to promote his and his team’s “accomplishments” and discredit everything he disliked or disapproved of. But this didn’t just start in 2018 when he took the presidency. He rode into office on a foundation of 18 years of constantly challenging the ruling party and bragging about having all the answers to Mexico’s problems. Even though he proved to be authoritarian, vindictive, and unknowledgeable, intellectuals, artists, and academics voted for him.

There’s a lot to complain about Lopez Obrador, but we have to acknowledge him and his team for a relentless campaign of austerity and polarization—he successfully divided our country between rich and poor. Does any of this sound familiar to my US friends?

In Mexico, with 36% of the population experiencing economic hardship, 7.1% in extreme poverty, and an almost 5% inflation rate, a politician proclaiming that ‘poor people come first’ and traveling our country in a Jetta sedan with windows down and shaking hands with ‘El Pueblo’ (equivalent to Middle America’) was set for a win. As expected, Obrador immediately traded his modest car for a luxurious and bulletproof SUV convoy after winning the 2018 election.

As in branding, election campaigns are about messages, meaning, affinity, and identity, all of which try to elicit a desired action (buy, sign up, vote). When creating a brand strategy for a company or products, we must deeply research and understand our clients and the stakeholders before creating clever and hopefully successful tactics to separate them from their competitors. President Obrador did that for almost two decades, as he understood that people, mostly people experiencing poverty, were fed up with the abuse, corruption, and negligence under previous administrations. An industry equivalent might be Nike cleverly using Colin Kaepernick’s pre-game kneeling protest during the national anthem to showcase that Nike cared about racial justice. It was there for everyone, but Nike was fast to own it.

When brands nudge us to buy something using scarcity and FOMO—that’s what newspaper polls did to Mexico’s middle class (the segment of the population with the numbers to challenge the ruling party). Non-partisan polls said that if 70% of the electorate went out and voted, the opposition could win the 2024 election. Unsurprisingly, we were bombarded for months with skewed newspaper polls showing an unbelievable advantage to the ruling party, so much so that the average opposition voter was discouraged, and many decided not to vote—another win for the ruling party.

On the contrary, the opposition couldn’t seem to leverage the anger and understandable deception of our people. For starters, the current administration canceled the development of what was touted to be one of the top airports in the world and the most important infrastructure in our country. Instead, they developed a smaller airport that very few use, and what’s worse, they built the controversial and corruption-stained Maya Train, a new tourist railway that is destroying our jungles, cenotes, and wildlife. When pressed on national television about the possible ecocide, without hesitation, President Obrador casually said that ‘no one single tree will be knocked down.’ It’s likely now the worst ecocide in Mexico’s history.

Images of Maya Train ecological impact courtesy of Sélvame del tren Collective

And that is only one of the many problems Mexicans experience as we face the highest rate of murders in Mexico’s modern history, the worst health administration (Obrador said we were going to be better than Denmark), an education crisis, one of the most dangerous countries for journalists, and one of the world’s highest femicide rates.

Despite all those lies and unkept promises from our current government, the ruling party managed to win by an embarrassingly large margin. This reminds me of people buying cigarettes knowing it’s harmful—telling people what they want to hear is the equivalent of a nicotine fix.

For me, the only explanation for this is that one political side capitalized on our country’s satiety by using polarizing rhetoric that a big chunk of the population requires social programs (handouts, distribution of wealth). Ironically, these social programs were initially implemented by previous governments.

Tropicana (2009), Gap (2010), and JC Penney (2012) rebranded and failed epically. Their rebranding efforts received a huge backlash from their customers and made them return to their previous identities (JC Penney returned to a refreshed version of its previous logo). My hope for the U.S. presidential election in November is that voters will do the same and raise their voices by voting. Tell those in power that you demand to be heard!

Images via thebrandingjournal.com

The best outcome of this polarized election is that Mexico has finally elected a woman as president, Claudia Sheinbaum. We had two women fighting for the presidency, both qualified to rule our country: one with a prolific yet controversial political career and another with solid political chops and a successful corporate background. This is something to celebrate. Mexico has set a great example and joined the 30% of global countries that have (or have had) female leadership.

But, Mexico, still has so much to learn and correct over the next six years. And, there is so much for our neighbors to the north to learn and correct now. 

Viva Mexico!

Ricardo Saca is the US and Mexico Managing Partner for Cato Brand Partners, a Global Design and Branding Consultancy. He is a Master in Branding from the School of Visual Arts in New York City and has 20+ years of experience working with a wide range of companies, from startups to airlines. He is an animal lover and a plant-based cyclist.

Header image: Unsplash+ in collaboration with Wesley Tingey.

The post In Mexico as in the US, Disinformation is a Powerful Brand appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

While brands like Target have been spooked enough by online stochastic terrorists to step back from social issues like LGBTQ acceptance and rights during Pride, other brands are taking a page from the failed comic playbook by pandering to the right and making a mint off a consumer base that has proven it will buy pretty much anything if it means “owning the libs” or anything that feels mildly “woke.” Even fake meat.

The latest brand that appears to be flirting with conservatives, specifically former President and convicted felon Donald Trump, is Logan Paul and KSI’s Prime.

Recently, Paul conducted an hour-long interview with the septuagenarian Republican presidential candidate Trump on his podcast Impaulsive. As one would expect, the two exchanged merch. Trump brought some of his signature MAGA red caps, and Paul had Stars-and-Stripes-themed bottles reading “Trump” for the twice-impeached former president. White and red stripes flow along the custom label, and the Prime logo is dark blue and star-studded. 

Trump also brought another piece of merch—a t-shirt featuring his mugshot. Paul described it as “gangster,” as if that’s a quality to look for in a president. Bumper stickers and pins (though there are plenty of those) aren’t enough for a Trump campaign. MAGA supporters will eagerly spend their money on anything Trump-branded, including plastic straws. This phenomenon isn’t alien to Logan Paul, who has become somewhat of a master at peddling wares by leveraging his celebrity and loyal following. Of course, an appearance on Logan Paul’s Impaulsive is a chance to reach an audience much younger than Fox News watchers for Trump. For Logan Paul, hosting the polarizing political figure is a chance to drum up a little controversy and bring attention and sales to Prime.

For some brands, associating and implicitly endorsing a presidential candidate, especially in this election, would spell disaster. It’s hard to imagine Coca-Cola rolling out the red carpet for any presidential candidate in Atlanta and gifting a specially-designed bottle of Coke to the contender for the nation’s top job. But Prime, which disclosed sales of $1.2 billion last year, is helmed by Paul, one of the sirens of today’s disenchanted young men, and he serves as a gateway to more toxic manosphere corners of the web. 

Thanks partly to content algorithms used by platforms like TikTok and YouTube, Logan Paul’s podcast will trigger suggestions for content by folks like, say, the Fresh & Fit podcast and Andrew Tate. And you don’t have to venture too far down the rabbit hole to find alt-right media personas with a more political agenda who also talk about “empowering” young men. Think Jordan Peterson and Tim Pool, who are almost always pro-MAGA. While misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, racism, and classism might be expressed more softly on Impaulsive and Fresh & Fit, social media will happily suggest more overt and venomous fare as “related” soon enough by the algorithms that recommend and queue up content at Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube.

Plenty of young men find solace in the overtly patriarchal ideal sold by these political and media figures. For men in their teens and twenties, unsure of their role in society and how to achieve personal and professional success, a simplistic patriarchal blueprint where their supremacy in society is inherent due to gender, and in some cases, their race and religion as well can be a compelling ideology.

Logan Paul and Donald Trump are also similar. Both have no problem scamming their followers, seem immune to consequences, and share a penchant for pomp and pageantry. Trump never recorded the bodies of suicide victims, but he did incite an insurrection. Maybe there are degrees to being a dick, but I don’t care to rank Paul and Trump, and I’ll leave it by saying they’re both awful.

During Trump’s appearance on his podcast, Logan Paul extended an invitation to the Democratic party’s candidate, President Biden. However, given Paul’s delivery, which was followed by a suggestion that Trump release a “diss track” and some unchallenged digs at the president and the “fake news,” it’s hard to gauge the invitation’s earnestness.

Sincere or not, Biden should consider taking Paul up on his offer. The president seems to be losing traction with younger voters, who might be voting in their first election and aren’t old enough to remember the previous times the Trump political circus rolled into town (though given all the oxygen the Trump world sucks up in the media, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have missed it). 

It’s too early to say if his Impaulsive appearance is Trump’s “Arsenio moment” that galvanizes young voters and makes him the cool one running for president or if it’s just another attempt at Paul selling more Prime. It’s clear that Paul and Trump are more alike than it might appear, so for Prime, a Trump association could positively affect the brand.

Rudy Sanchez is a product marketing consultant based in Southern California. Once described by a friend as her “technology life coach,” he is a techie and avid lifelong gamer. When he’s not writing or helping clients improve their products, he’s either watching comedies on Netflix, playing the latest shooter or battle royale game, or out exploring the world via Ingress and Pokémon Go.

The post Prime Slapped Trump’s Name On a Bottle; Should the Brand Really Be Courting Trumpland? appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

The post The Daily Heller: Give the Red the Blues appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Ward Schumaker, a veteran painter and illustrator, anticipates the 2024 election will be a war of words. So, as the campaign kicks into gear, he turned scores of Donald Trump’s most quotable bon mots into typographic broadsides—modern-day samplers—that measure 37″ x 25″, painted with acrylic + paste (along with some collage elements).

He’s been met with various responses, not all of them positive. For example, Schumaker told me that when he gave a talk about his Trump work at a museum, he was “harassed verbally” by a member of the board of directors: “These are all lies,” the board member barked. “Trump never said half these things!” And when showing them at Jack Fischer Gallery, a stranger threatened to pound him. These incidents happened in San Francisco, theoretically a safe place for such artworks. “Yet in Nashville, a pro–Trump stronghold, I was greeted with kindness, applause and appreciation.”

Schumaker is expressing himself in the media he knows best. I asked him what he hopes readers take away from it all.

I have a reasonable idea what triggered these broadsides, but can you put it in your own words?
I’d never been very political, but about seven years ago I asked my grandson what he’d been studying in school that day. “How not to be a bully,” he answered. Then added: “You know, like Donald Trump.” At the time I was making large, one-of-a-kind, hand-painted books, many using hand-cut stenciled words, and I decided to do one using Trump’s words. It was not the kind of subject I’d regularly use, and when I finished I didn’t know what to do with it. One night I woke thinking I should show it to my gallerist (at the time, Jack Fischer). I sent him jpgs, insisting he promise to show no one.

He promised. But the next day a woman came into the gallery and asked to see my work—she might buy a painting. Jack apologized, and said he’d only recently moved, and all my work was still at his old address. She sighed and started to leave. Jack stopped her: “But would you like to see an interesting project Ward’s been working on?”

Then he broke his promise. After seeing three of the spreads, the woman said, “Stop. Can I get my husband in here? He’s out in the hall.” The husband came in, looked at the work, then said, “I’m with Chronicle Books; do you think Ward would let us publish a facsimile of this?” In record time, Chronicle produced it as a trade book: Hate Is What We Need. The title is from one of Trump’s quotes.

And that might have been the end of it. But about the time I finished that first book, white supremacists marched through Charlottesville shouting “Jews will not replace us,” and Trump stated that there were “good people on both sides.” I felt compelled to make another book, this time including not only Trump’s incendiary words, but the words of others, both in support of Trump and those opposed. (That book is now in the collection of the Achenbach Foundation of Graphic Arts.)

However, my books are seen by few people, so I began making large broadsides in hopes of exhibiting them. I thought I might create 10, maybe even 15. I ended up creating 350. I am extremely grateful that the Letterform Archive has given each and every one of them a home in its collection. See their book Strikethrough. While I thought I’d quit a long time ago, I recently started doing more, which I mount on Instagram and Facebook.

Was it your intention to, shall we say, seduce the viewer into reading these?
My intentions vary, but first is always simply making certain others have seen and digested the latest vile words from Trump and/or his minions. If I have time, I might try to be clever, but most often it has been: What can I do quickly and still get my regular work done? And of course there is the fact that I’m a painter, not really a designer at all, so I have often embarrassed myself trying to be clever. I know some great designers and ask their forbearance.

You’ve succeeded at, in my view, what many “political artists” try and often fail to do, which is make intriguing art with a message that stands on its own. Was this your intent?
Thank you. I recognize that I don’t have the particular talent of esteemed illustrators (i.e. Edel Rodriguez) but I do value my paintings—and they’ve included words since I started painting, as a kid, back in the ’60s. So it has been a matter of simply doing what I do best: words-as-paintings.

How long did it take to make these broadsheets?
I started working on these in 2017 and I’m still making them. Each one is created using hand-cut stencils, so the longer the quotation, the longer it takes. The wordiest have taken three days to accomplish, others have been completed in one day. Often I start cutting words with no plan at all. I think of them as paintings, and my paintings have always followed that Rauschenberg rule: Do something, then do something else to it. It may not be the wisest way to work, but it’s what I know.

Is your work a kind of anti-DIY/DIY aesthetic?
As a kid I often raised my grade by doing what was termed as extra credit: making a book cover for biology class, for example, by pasting cut-paper words that said “Clothes don’t make the man, cells do.” As a 12 year old I was very proud of that. Of course I should have been embarrassed. Later, at the age of 35 I began illustrating, and my best work was definitely DIY because I didn’t know what I was doing.

Why haven’t I seen your Trump work on social media?
Early on I tried mounting the Trump Papers on Twitter. I was almost immediately thrown off. I wrote [to Twitter], asking for an explanation. Over and over I wrote. I got no response. Years later, a couple months after Biden was elected, I got a note from Twitter saying I could once again post on their site. Of course, I quit.

What do you feel is the most powerful piece among these?
Trump: “Women: You have to treat them like shit.”

Liz Cheney: “There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.”

And the most frightening—Trump: “This could very well be the last election this country ever has.”

How will you put these to use in the coming battle?
Truthfully, I don’t know.

What’s next for you in terms of where you’re feelings will drive your work?
Just before I hit 80, I started working in clay, and that’s been a joy. But Trump is running again and very possibly will win, so what can a person do?

The post The Daily Heller: Trump is Broadsided appeared first on PRINT Magazine.

Sister Mary, led by founder Leigh Chandler, unveils a new limited-edition printed publication designed exclusively for The Signal, a global current affairs brand based in Washington, D.C. “The Long Game” highlights the global struggle between authoritarian states and democratic life.

Created in partnership with the Human Rights Foundation, in support of the Oslo Freedom Forum, the magazine features interviews with the Bosnian investigative journalist Miranda Patrucić, the American social scientist Francis Fukuyama, and others—on questions from how autocrats are adapting artificial intelligence to how corruption inside dictatorships is spreading beyond them to what the issues of democracy and human rights might end up meaning for your investment strategy.

The Signal’s team, including John Jamesen Gould and Hywel Mills, partnered with Chandler to infuse the inaugural issue with the alternative spirit of underground publishing. Samizdat, a term derived from Russian for “self-publishing,” refers to literature clandestinely written, copied, and circulated during the Soviet era, often critical of the government.

The Signal offers a different approach to current affairs. Its focus is on exploring urgent questions in dialogue with knowledgeable companions around the world—an approach meant to support readers and help them develop their interpretations of global events.

This debut issue not only pays homage to samizdat but reimagines it. The editorial design captures the raw essence of underground publishing while presenting it in a contemporary context.

The layout demands attention, using layering, cropping, aged textures, and bold typography to create a sense of urgency.

Unbleached newsprint was chosen for the paper stock, reminiscent of samizdat’s historical context. The color palette of light beige, black, red, and gold reflects the publication’s rebellious yet premium aesthetic.

The typography is bold and commanding, with headlines in Manuka and complementary text in Untitled, echoing the theme of defiance and urgency.

The publication’s imagery invites readers to explore deeper narratives, aligning with The Signal’s mission to engage with complexity in today’s rapidly changing world.

To be able to assemble our work in a print publication like this isn’t just beautiful; it’s transformative. It’s allowed us to bring a historical connection with the samizdat publications of the Soviet era to life in the language of design—and that’s allowed us to create a reading experience with a completely different emotional resonance and, ultimately I think, a deeper meaning.”

John Jamesen Gould – Editor, The Signal

About The Signal
Current affairs. Strange world. As our world becomes more intricately connected, changes faster, and seems only to get more disorienting, we’re all navigating it—or trying to—in a digital media environment dominated by algorithmic manipulation, polarizing engagement, and partisan spin. It can be hard to focus on what matters—and harder to think. The Signal is for people who want something different. The nonpartisan U.S.-based current affairs organization has diverse global contributors and is committed to liberal democracy.

About Human Rights Foundation
The Human Rights Foundation (HRF) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that promotes and protects human rights globally, with a focus on closed societies. HRF aims to raise awareness about the nature and vulnerability of freedom worldwide while strengthening the work of grassroots activists in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. Grounding its work in a deep commitment to individual liberty, HRF achieves its impact through unique policy research and legal advocacy, global events and educational initiatives, innovative and creative campaigns, and direct support to activists on the frontlines of democracy.

The Oslo Freedom Forum (OFF) is a global conference series hosted and produced by HRF. Established in 2009, OFF brings together the world’s most prominent human rights advocates, journalists, artists, technologists, entrepreneurs, and world leaders to share their stories and brainstorm ways to expand freedom globally.

The post Sister Mary Brings the Spirit of Samizdat to The Signal appeared first on PRINT Magazine.