Interview with Ted Rall

for Attitude: The New Subversive Political Cartoonists, published 2002.

At 37 Stephanie McMillan is one of alternative political cartooning's rising stars. Though she shares formatic and stylistic tendencies with more established artists in the genre, McMillan's approach is unique in its earnestness and striking visual appeal, as well as its focus on unusual and international topics. She graduated with a BFA in Animation from NYU in 1987 with an award for her student animated film. McMillan has been involved in the anti-war/intervention, abortion clinic defense and immigrant-rights movements, an experience that insipired her desire to use cartooning as a vehicle for social change. She draws her weekly "Minimum Security" strip for various publications.

TED RALL: One of questions people ask me is: Why aren't there more women cartoonists? I always answer: Hell if I know. I'm a guy. Since you're a female cartoonist, please enlighten me: Why aren't there more women cartoonists?

STEPHANIE MCMILLAN: I don't really know either. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that many women who have relationships and/or children are often overburdened with housework and taking care of their families in addition to their jobs, and don't have time to do much else (especially something that's rarely economically productive). How much art and literature throughout history has never been created because so much of women's time is taken up with life-maintenance stuff? I imagine we would have a very different culture if it weren't for that.

TR: Why did you name your strip "Minimum Security"?

SM: I read about a guy who had been released from prison who remarked, "I'm still not free; I'm just in minimum security." I thought this was a perfect description of the repressive police-state atmosphere that we live under, the brainwashing, the millions of petty laws, restrictions and regulations, the institutionalized violence and degradation, the education that instills conformity, the unfulfilling work.

The phrase also refers to generalized anxiety resulting from the lack of emotional and economic security. Most of us experience daily harassment from numerous sources, job instability, media overload, debt, alienated relationships, deficient medical care. We're subject to corrupt politicians, malevolent social policies, and disasters resulting from corporate profiteering. We worry about who will take care of us when we're old and how our children will survive.

TR: You're one of the few cartoonists in this book with a recent history of direct political activism-demonstrating, even getting arrested. Most of us scribblers get our political ya-yas out through our work-does that make us hypocrites, wimps or both? Or are cartoonists journalists, and therefore people who should feign objectivity?

SM: I don't think even journalists should have to feign objectivity. Everyone has a point of view that is the foundation of what they write or say even if it isn't expressed overtly. The corporate agenda underlies mainstream news. One of the great things about political cartoons is that we don't have to hide what we really think. Informed by our basic outlook, we try to expose truths as we see them. At least we're able to be honest about that, unlike many mainstream journalists who'd be fired if they tried.

As for people whose art or writing is their main form of political activity, what's wrong with that? It's taking a stand, and a whole lot better than doing nothing. Making a pointed statement or exposing injustice or helping people laugh at forces they're afraid of-this is a very valuable service that challenges people to take a deeper look at what's going on. There are a million ways to fight the system. People do need to be out in the streets, but they also need commentators and artists who cheer them on and inspire them.

TR: It's obvious from your work that you're very interested in animal rights. Are you vegetarian? Is vegetarianism a moral imperative for those interested in reducing cruelty to animals? And if cows ran the world, wouldn't they eat us too?

SM: Yes, I'm a vegetarian. It didn't start from a moral point of view, but from high school biology class. After dissecting a fetal pig, it grossed me out to eat muscle tissue and veins and gnaw on bones. It seemed too much like it could be my own dead arm.

Later, after reading "Diet for a Small Planet," it became clear to me that meat production in the US is wasteful and destructive. The protein fed to cows, pigs and chickens could provide enough food for every person on the planet (if we had a different economic system, that is-since it's not profitable to give away excess food they just dump it). Cattle production is partly responsible for global warming, plus the loss of huge swaths of rainforest.

I don't really think in terms of animal "rights," because that assumes that someone has the authority to grant those rights. I think human beings should just stop interfering so much with the natural world, stop thinking of it as a collection of "exploitable resources" and try to live, instead, in harmony with it. That would be better for all living things, including us. Maybe at that point nobody would want to eat sentient beings any more, or pave over ground for that matter, or drill for oil, or use another person for personal gain.

To me, the meat-eating issue is a matter of deciding what our standards of behavior should be. The current form of meat production is degrading, not only to the earth and other creatures, but to ourselves as well. We hide from the reality of the suffering, from the filth and disease of the factory farms. We should at least be honest about what we do. What makes me really mad is hypocrisy. Many people say they "love" animals, have affectionate relationships with their pets and spend fortunes on vet bills, and then deny the cruelty they're perpetuating when they eat other animals. Also, many people spend a lot of energy on the well-being of their pets or fighting for "animal rights," while ignoring the suffering of other human beings.

TR: My favorite thing about your work is your ability to riff on stories other cartoonists either can't or won't touch. For example, your piece about corporations patenting strains of vegetables grown overseas so they force the farmers who developed it in the first place to pay for their use is brilliant. But when my wife and I discussed the very same topic, she suggested that I do something about it and as angry as I was about this obscene practice I just couldn't summon up my muse. Do you purposely search out and focus on these-from a political cartoon standpoint-obscure topics, or is it just stuff you happen to care about?

SM: The topics I choose for cartoons are the things that make me the most upset or angry. Oppressive practices occurring in Asia or Latin America or anywhere else are just as important to me as what's happening here. A lot of those practices are generated here anyway. Those of us who live here need to examine and address what the US is doing around the world. I have friends from several different countries, and sometimes they talk about what's going on where they're from, and things they've experienced or seen. I suppose that makes the problems more personal, which might make them easier for me to express in a cartoon.

TR: I wrote a column last year applauding the Seattle WTO protesters for breaking those windows at Starbucks and Niketown. You wouldn't believe the hate mail I got, mostly from '60s-era leftists deriding violence. "Violence never solves anything," they wrote. Are they right?

SM: What violence? You can't be violent against an inanimate object. Does glass bleed? The stereotype of violence that is pushed by corporate media is simplistic and serves the powers that be. I wonder if those critics are as concerned about the way the police sprayed tear gas in demonstrators' faces, shot them with rubber bullets and beat them with nightsticks. Those who whine about vandalism against storefronts should open their eyes to the ongoing violence perpetrated on the human race in the service of profit. Do they get just as outraged about the systematic starvation of much of the population? The 40,000 children who die each day of preventable diseases caused by poverty? Do those critics care that the majority of humanity doesn't have decent drinking water? Do they really think a Starbucks window is more important? Whenever people strike back at the system in any way, the system cries "violence," and puts out a lot of propaganda to that effect. Unfortunately some people just parrot what they hear on TV. Even when real violence is used against people, this must be analyzed in context. The violence of dominant economic/political interests using police forces and armies to crush the lives and dreams of human beings, is not the same as the violence the oppressed use to try to liberate themselves. The violence of resistance and revolution may be necessary to end a greater violence. The alternative is to leave things as they are, because the rulers are not going to give up their privileged position just by being asked politely. When people start to challenge the system, the state takes off its gloves. It's disrespectful of those struggling for a better world to tell them not to fight back.

TR: Are Republican voters evil, misguided, stupid, or all of the above?

SM: Democrats are easier to figure out-they harbor the illusion that their party actually stands for what it says, and think that if capitalism could just be reformed a little bit then everything would be fine. I have a hard time understanding Republicans, though. Some seem stupid and brainwashed, some willfully selfish and mean. Some seem on the surface like pleasant folks and I wonder what's going on in their heads. Maybe they really believe that promoting business interests helps the world? Maybe they fear losing their privileged way of life and think aggression is the only way to preserve it? Maybe they feel so helpless that they need powerful leaders to look up to? It's puzzling.

TR: Do you believe in God?

SM: No. The concept of god-which was invented as a way to explain natural phenomena-is one of the most destructive forces in the world. Under capitalism, people are presented with the non-choice of hedonism or religion. People who don't like the emptiness of hedonism are encouraged to find meaning and purpose in god, instead of in realistically addressing social problems. We're supposed to lie back and let god handle everything-how disempowering. And how convenient to justify atrocities in the name of god's will.

TR: All politics is local, but you do cartoons about local issues in foreign countries like Afghanistan and Colombia. Do you get good reactions to those cartoons? Also, have you visited many of the nations about which you do cartoons?

SM: Most of my cartoons that tackle issues in other countries point to the ways that the US is messing with them (like the US military offensive in Columbia, and US media's diminishing of the importance of what's happened to women in Afghanistan). I do get good feedback from these cartoons. Some magazines will put them with an article about the same issue, sort of like an illustration. I haven't traveled to all those places. I've been to Germany to visit my relatives (most recently about 18 years ago), and last year I went to Bangladesh to get married and meet my in-laws. I saw the reality of much of what I'd read about, in terms of how the economies of certain countries are sucked dry by international capital. It had been kind of abstract before, but now I can see some of the ways my own relatives are affected.

TR: Do you boycott products by certain corporations and if so which ones? Why not others?

SM: Good question. I respect people's boycotts, like the ones against grapes or Coors beer from some years back, and avoid consuming products that I know people are actively organizing against. It's sort of on the same ethical level, to me, of not crossing a picket line. But I've never worked on a boycott. Exploitation is inherent in the production of all consumer goods under capitalism, as you've implied in your question, and we can't avoid buying everything. It's all tainted. I'm not willing to grow all my own food and weave my own cloth right now; I wouldn't have time for anything else. I don't buy a lot of stuff I don't need anyway so avoiding Taco Bell or Nike is kind of natural for me, and not a hardship. But changing society isn't about what brand of stuff we consume or don't consume. My main identity is not "consumer," so I don't believe my power to affect things exists mainly in the marketplace.

TR: Should CEOs earn more than janitors?

SM: They should earn less because they don't work as hard. How about collectivizing the company and giving everyone the opportunity to run it and take turns cleaning out the wastebaskets?

home