Judging a Book by its Cover: The 2019 U.S. Budget

The fiscal year 2019 budget proposal was recently released by the Trump administration and the cover reveals much about the contents and its focus. The overall design of the cover could be anything, really, so any critique will certainly seem like nit-picking to some—after all the layout doesn’t affect the numbers inside so why does the design even matter? But it is precisely because the design lacks constraints that makes this the perfect opportunity to ensure that it is well done.

WHAT THAT TITLE SAYS

An American Budget. I’ve tried to find as many past budgets as I could and have yet to see one that refers to the budget as an “American” budget. More typically, they’ve been called “Budget of the U.S. Government.” By labeling this an American budget, the administration is trying to use nationalism to woo acceptance of this document. It is easy to disagree with the U.S. Government, less so with America which implies a far greater scope.

For example, you may love your country but disagree with your government, that is an American tradition, but if you criticize “An American Budget,” you are criticizing America. Would that mean you are in jeopardy of being called treasonous? At a time when legislators who don’t clap for the president are called that, then perhaps.

Above the headline sits the qualifier, “Efficient, Effective, Accountable,” which aims to reassure the reader that the budget inside reflects these ideals. Unfortunately, it does not contain other qualifiers such as “Balanced,” “Non-Partisan,” “Equitable,” “Impartial,” “Civil,” “Forward-thinking,” or even “Fair.” Perhaps the inclusion of any of those words is for the best since they would have been seen by many only as ironic.

A FITTING DESIGN

As for the formal design of the cover, what does that communicate? First, the typeface for the title is Merriweather bold, designed by Sorkin Type Co. in 2010 and available free via Google fonts. The Sans Serif fonts appear to be Open Sans, another free font available from Google. The administration’s theme of making America great again proposes that we should buy American as a way to invest in our country’s future but by using free fonts instead of purchasing American-made ones, they’re choosing to not lead by example. While not an exorbitant expense by any stretch of the imagination, type design is a laborious process and type designers should be paid for their time and efforts.

The centered layout is a safe, if boring, choice. It looks like the cover of a hundred other books that will never be read. But the contemporary fonts used in this traditional layout are insincere and communicate a faux traditionalism—a look that wants to have the gravitas of a historical document without the sensitivity and understanding to achieve it. The use of the presidential seal screened in the background reinforces the theme that equates being an American with nationalism and the unquestioning loyalty to its iconography—symbols, flags, and seals. Contrast that to the covers of the 2016 and 2017 budgets with their images of a bridge and a mountain. The bridge reminds us that part of the budget funds infrastructure and the mountain reminds us that part of the budget protects and defends our national resources. There is no such message with the 2019 cover.

The covers from 2012 and 2013 are without imagery but are designed to communicate efficiency and economy (instead of having to state that as additional text). The sans serif font feels modern and the hierarchy of messaging emphasizes “budget” over all else. The presidential seal here feels like a stamp of approval, as a personal validation of the budget and not as a larger-than-the-cover symbol of what it means to be American. These are quiet, thoughtful, and well-designed utilitarian covers.

PRODUCTION COSTS

Hopefully, all of these are printed on 100% recycled paper using soy inks on environmentally-friendly presses but I can’t tell. The 2016 and 2107 covers appear to have been printed in one color to minimize cost. The 2012 and 2013 may have also been printed in one color as well, certainly that is the most economical means of reproduction. Contrast that to the 2019 cover with at least two colors (both blues, one bright, one dull). That extra color adds an extra printing plate, more time to register the press, some added waste as a result, and increases the cost to the job some.

But I’m sure those extra costs are in the budget.

 

Contextual Typography and the (Sorta) Fake History of Real News

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Chicago Tribune, aside from being trusted news sources, share a common design element—the mastheads use a similar type style. Why?

A little typographic history

Johannes Gutenburg is credited with the creation of the movable type printing press in Europe around 1438. While wood block printing was common in the 1300s, the innovations that Gutenburg made—oil-based inks, movable and reusable type, a matrix to enable the moulding of new type blocks—allowed for the mass production of books and would lead to the proliferation and democratization of information on a scale never seen before.

His printing types were based on the handwritten texts of Western Europe and particularly of his native Germany at the time so that his books would be indistinguishable from the more labor-intensive, hand-copied manuscripts. At the time, Europe was in the middle of the Gothic architectural style with its pointed arches and flying buttress colonnades and these designs influenced the handwriting style. Text became more condensed, more stylized, and the result was Blackletter, also known as  Textura (and the reason we call written passages of words “text” today).

The earliest newspapers date to 1605 in Germany and used that same traditional texture font, though, as the printing technology spread and Gothic styles gave way to the Renaissance, other regions developed fonts that bore resemblance to their local handwriting. In Italy and France, for example, their early typefaces were based on humanistic scripts, and to our eyes, look very familiar.

But why would a German publication from 1605 affect the mastheads of today’s newspapers?

In a word—tradition. By the time the first printing presses were running in the colonies, the style of Gothic revival had spread in architecture. Initial caps in publications and manuscripts drew on that style as inspiration. The Declaration of Independence begins with Gothic-inspired calligraphy before transitioning to a humanistic script. The famous “We the People” from the constitution is also a form of Gothic-inspired calligraphy.

When modern newspapers began publication (the New York Times was first published in 1851), they adopted mastheads that conveyed a sense of historical significance, tradition, importance, and trust to their readers. Though Gothic Blackletter writing hadn’t been popular on a large scale in 300 years, they adopted the forms in their mastheads as a means of conveying these qualities. We still associate the Blackletter style with ideas of tradition, trust, and importance today and, after all, isn’t that what we want from our news sources?

One dark note to the Gothic letter forms—because of their German heritage, they were a favorite of the Nazis and, today, are often seen in neo-Nazi and white supremacist literature, symbology, and tattoos. Clearly, these Gothic forms convey a lot of meaning with regard to their historical context and, viewed through the lens of history, may signify very different things to different groups. A sense of history and tradition, yes, but who’s history and which traditions the reader will have to decide.