The Rightness of a Right?

In recent weeks, a great row has exploded over an opera being performed at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York.  The play, The Death of Klinghoffer, loosely portrays the events surrounding the 1985 Palestinian terrorist takeover the Achille Lauro in the Mediterranean.  The event led to the execution of a disabled American Jew who was subsequently dumped into the waters in his wheelchair.  The children of the late Mr. Klinghoffer, and many others, are outraged while First Amendment advocates say that it is an acceptable form of protected speech.

The question with a situation like this opera, which I have not seen and my memory of the actual event only cursory, is a little different for me than it might be for others.  In a country where we have free speech the legality of such an opera is not in question.  Of course, the makers of this opera and the Met are certainly within their rights to put it on.  The real question with things like this is often, is it right to do it?  When one questions the correctness of doing something, and not the legality of it, such arguments are often the target of general mocking as an example of provincial values.  There is also decency and awareness that seems to be lacking. 

I should say that, from time to time, a society should be shocked and outraged.  It serves as a reboot to our obligations to our fellow man and a renewed sensitivity toward how others perceive things.  When American artist Robert Mapplethorpe produced an image of a crucifixion within a jar of urine, it ignited a conversation that was ultimately, one could say, good for our society.  Yet, advocates for such actions miss the point when they bring up freedom, artistic or otherwise.  Freedom is not some exercise of one’s id – free of judgment and consequences.  This is what makes the opera’s advocates’ objection to the criticism a bit strange. 

I recall the fiasco of the Dixie Chicks and their criticism of the president of the United States during the onset of the Iraqi War.  Similar to the recent opera incident, Natalie Maines flew off the handle at the president in a foreign country and bemoaned those who fired back.  The incident effectively ended a great career of talented musicians.  Once more, there is a disconnect between the right to do something and its correctness.  The other point missed was the argument about the values that surround our rights.  With each of our rights is an underlying principle of a humane society.  Because Ms. Maines chose to take a rather one-dimensional look to the reaction of her pablum, she failed to understand the issue.  What will become of this new manifestation of the same problem? 

At the risk of being melodramatic, I think our society is in trouble because of our unwillingness to stand up to certain things.  Again, I’m not speaking to the legality of the Met (who cancelled the televised broadcast of the opera for fear of it coming across offensive) to put on such an opera but whether it is a good idea.  So much of the typical offenses committed throughout a typical day are not a question of the law but one of taste and decorum.  This can range from profane music being played loudly to questionable outfits worn by high school students to a parent yelling and screaming at their child in public.  None of these actions would get someone arrested but it goes to our understanding of our situation and respect for others. 

As for the opera, I get that art is designed by its very nature to be controversial and thought-provoking.  However, offensive art is no different from offensive voices or actions in the political arena.  Mr. Klinghoffer’s children rail against, in their opinion, the minimization of their father to a simple tool for terrorists.  Others, like lawyer Alan Dershowitz and First Amendment expert Floyd Adams are horrified at the moral equivalency drawn by the opera between the Palestinian diaspora and the Holocaust.  No matter the arguments, there are some obvious issues with the production that should have led people to ask some obvious questions.  It is a pity that never happened.

Eat Your Vegetables...Or Else

For many liberal policies, its greatest force field is, “Who would object to this?”  Such ideologues focus on agendas they proclaim in need of improvement and whose impact, if successful, would help said group/issue/policy.  With this in mind, the First Lady set out on an agenda to ameliorate the lunch programs in public schools.  To her dismay (as well as her supporters), there is a large push back from Democrats, Republicans, state governments, school districts and parents.

As with many government programs based on good intentions, little to no thought is given to how much it will cost and, more importantly, who is going to pay for it.  Republicans have been lambasted by some activists for daring to bring up such a fundamental question.  Once more, people on the right have been the target of some high-handed demagoguery, accused of not caring about children and, worse yet, wanting to hurt their nutritional well-being. 

At the core of this is an old, liberal argument – one, government can solve all of our problems because, two, we as ordinary citizens cannot.  Concerned citizens, like Americans throughout our history, measure our freedom by the choices we have.  Education institutions are the most cash-strapped organizations on the local level – most federal funding is dependent upon local schools adopting and implementing federal mandates.  With the ongoing recession that the president cannot seem to rectify, schools are being asked to shoulder burdens with which their constituents do not agree.  It is not surprising that Mrs. Obama is getting such resistance. 

On another issue, there is the question of the food itself.  Federal mandates on daily caloric requirements, salt content and other considerations have left cafeterias serving increasingly “bland” food in the words of students.  The students are seeking other options and typically, it does not include the “mandated” food.  An increase in home lunches (not an altogether bad idea) has cut into the funds that schools typically get from providing lunches and, in some cases, breakfast meals.  Caloric mandates seem a bit silly as well as if to say that all high school students should be at the same level.  Common sense would suggest that is not possible or advisable.  Parents are at the gates with some of these concerns and they are not happy.

In addition to the direct impacts on what cafeterias do or do not offer, the policies set forth by the First Lady are causing collateral damage.  Things such as bake sales of are being eliminated in favor of healthier options – strangely enough, these options are not quite the sellers as their predecessors.  As usual with top-down “solutions” to problems, Mrs. Obama’s directives are having unforeseen (to the architects of these polices) consequences but the First Lady is not backing down.  As Republican and Democratic policy makers are trying to find a way out of the restrictive and expensive program, Mrs. Obama has reasserted that change is sometimes painful but necessary.  An easy sentiment to throw out when one is not confronted with the reality of their actions.

I can appreciate the concerns that led Mrs. Obama to put forth these policies but ultimately, they come from a paternalistic mindset.  Ronald Reagan said that government was not the answer, it was the problem and in this case, a haughty attitude has turned what could have a great initiative and educational program at the local levels into a mandatory dictate that riles our evolutionary-engrained suspicion of government solutions.  One could hope the push-back might be a cautionary tale for such only-government-is-the-answer advocates but I doubt it.