I’ve been considering buying the new album by the Dixie Chicks, and not because one of them said something mean about President Bush. Truth is, I don’t care about that. I’m not a fan of what passes for country music these days — the “rockabilly” stuff that seems to me to be closer to Madonna in tone than Patsy Cline — but I’ve heard enough of the D.C.’s music to want to hear more, and I thought their simple, three-part harmony version of “The Star Spangled Banner” at the Super Bowl was the best rendition of the National Anthem that I’ve heard yet. Their political views, as far as I can see, have nothing to do with their music or the quality thereof. But of course, some folks don’t agree.
I’ve never understood the whole business of boycotting a particular artist because of that artist’s political views. Maybe it’s because I grew up listening to classical music, an area where if one selects the composers whose works one will listen to on the basis of their views in life, one would have a pretty short playlist indeed. I doubt, frankly, if any artist has ever been more of a lout in his beliefs and behavior than Richard Wagner, and yet Wagner’s operas form one of the grandest peaks in any art. Wagner’s name ranks with Shakepeare and Michelangelo, in terms of his art, which seems all the more incongruous because in terms of his personal politics, Wagner’s name ranks with Hitler’s. (Literally. Wagner’s views were Naziism, seventy years too early.)
Even though I don’t air my political views much in this space, I make no secret that I’m pretty much of a liberal. But I see no reason at all to base my choices in terms of art and entertainment on my political beliefs. I didn’t suddenly stop watching Magnum, PI when Tom Selleck introduced Nancy Reagan at a Republican National Convention; I’ve watched movies featuring Charlton Heston since I found out about his conservative beliefs; and so on. So why is it that so many people on the right in this country are so willing to either (a) boycott an artist or entertainer who publicly supports liberal causes or (b) play the “Just shut up and entertain me” card, as if by virtue of being a liberal entertainer or artist, they should abandon any public voicing of their beliefs? I find this phenomenon incredibly odd, every time it comes up. And no doubt it will again this coming Sunday, when I’m sure some Oscar winner will say something not terribly pleasing to the conservative crowd.
I have to say that I find this attitude at once goofy — think of the great films and books and musical works we’d never hear if we limit ourselves to that subset of artists with whom we agree politically — and, frankly, hypocritical. “Shut up and entertain me” was never much of a concern if Ronald Reagan was the actor doing the talking, and it certainly seems odd that on the one hand the ravings of talk-radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh are apparently not to be taken seriously (“He’s just an entertainer!”) while the ravings of other people who actually are entertainers are to be treated with enormous gravity.
This post probably isn’t very coherent, which I’ll chalk up to the DayQuil. I’ll leave off with this: owning a copy of Thriller doesn’t make a person a nut-case, plastic-surgery-fetishizing weirdo with an unhealthy love of children. If you’re a conservative, watching The West Wing is not the equivalent of sticking a “Martin Sheen for President” bumper sticker on your car. And if you’re a liberal, enjoying T2: Judgment Day doesn’t require you to religiously trace every negative event in world history since January 20, 1993 to Bill Clinton.
There’s an old adage that I try to apply in my fiction writing: “If you want to send a message, use Western Union”. I think the reverse applies as well. Let’s stop limiting ourselves.
