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.

There's Your Trouble

Ten years ago this week, the biggest American country band in the U.S., the Dixie Chicks, stepped upon a stage in London to an enthusiastic crowd.  With the imminent conflict in Iraq looming, lead singer Natalie Maines stepped up to the mike and said, “Just so you know…we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.”  Within days, the remarks exploded throughout the U.S. shortly thereafter, the band’s career was essentially over.  In the aftermath of the controversy, there was a national debate over the first amendment and the right for Ms. Maines and the rest of her band, made up of Martie Maguire and Emily Robison, to speak their mind and voice their concern about the imminent conflict.  It is a discussion that still rings today.  Yet, there were three components of Ms. Maines’ comments that drew the greatest ire. 

One, the comments were made about an upcoming military action.  A friend once asked me, as a combat veteran, is it possible to criticize the government without affecting the troops asked to carry out the national policy.  Now, it should be noted that in my experience, as part of the First Persian Gulf War, opponents to the war was rather thin on the ground but we were aware of them.  In a general sense, I think most soldiers can separate them but we often personalize our mission and grow to care a great deal for our goals and the people we are seeking to help.  Therefore, it is hard to differentiate the criticism.  Additionally, people who have criticized the war effort will throw in, usually at the end or the very beginning, a “but we support the troops.”  It appears to be a throw-in and not sincere.  That is not to damn everyone who has said that but the perception is that it is disingenuous.   

Second, Natalie Maines made this “mistake” of declaring her political views in another country.  Right or wrong, Americans tend to consider such actions similar to that of traitors.  It is one thing to complain about the government in country – indeed, it is a healthy component of a thriving democracy that people have the right to speak their mind, no matter the opinion.  However, once a person is on foreign soil, one does not air dirty laundry.  President Bill Clinton, in his run-up to his 1992 victory over George H.W. Bush, experienced difficulties with stories about his protest in England against the Vietnam War.  Now, one can certainly suggest that one’s constitutional rights are not checked at the customs’ gate and that we should be able to exercise our privileges anytime, anywhere.  While that is true, there is a question of decorum.  Ergo, the situation of the Dixie Chicks in London certainly violates this widely held opinion of when and when not to criticize one’s government. 

Lastly and among those who support the Dixie Chicks, there is a bit of hypocrisy.  In an effort to extol the women’s right to speak their mind, they denigrate the right of those who oppose the band to speak theirs.  Hollywood stars and other musicians like Madonna and Merle Haggard complained that the backlash was ending their career.  The constitution says that each of us has the right of speech but there is nothing in the document to suggest we have the right to be taken seriously or agreed with.  One cannot choose to exercise free speech while at the same time hoping to choose the consequences or fall out.  Free speech does not work that way.  Each of our freedoms has consequences, both good and bad.  In the case of the Dixie Chicks, they may rightly declare they have the right to speak their mind but they cannot abridge anyone else’s rights and therefore, the consequences.   

Personally, I think the women are extremely talented and though I disagree with them, I do, on occasion, like to listen to their music.  However, politically, their concept of the first amendment is a bit childish and lacks a complete understanding that we all have those rights and one must endure the consequences.  The ladies have remained unapologetic – they should if they meant what they said.  Unfortunately, they also misjudged the situation and in doing so, truncated a great career.