Days of Present Past: Duck Dynamination

Part 2. Originally Posted Feb 4, 2014 

What a delightfully colorful conflict!  This is an issue that has captured national attention and continues to do so!  Social commentary shows have spent days weighing in on the drama these events have caused.  The problem is, there really isn’t anything that they can be applied to.  I compare this issue to a life-sized Hot Wheels car.  It’s big, it’s shiny, and everything about its appearance implies that it is usable...until you look under the hood.  No matter how shiny it is,  you aren’t going to be able to drive this one anywhere but where it can roll, which is downhill.

For those of you who may be unfamiliar with this subject, here’s a brief introduction.  Duck Dynasty is a cable television show about a family from Louisiana: the Robertsons.  Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, started a business along with his brother to sell a particular duck call that he had made.  The business took off, which led to interviews and promotions, which led to a DVD series, which caught the eye of the cable network A&E, which led to the show Duck Dynasty.  The show has gained popularity in recent months due to the religious nature of the family.  The Robertsons have insisted that their Christianity not be censored from the “script” as it were, and as a result, the show openly features bibles, devotionals, and prayers, as part of the family’s daily life.

In December, a reporter from GQ magazine wrote an article detailing some time he spent with the Robertsons.  The article featured some off-camera (and off-color) comments by Phil regarding his opinions on homosexuality, among other things.  This caused a huge uproar from several activist groups who immediately sent protest letters, demands, and threats of boycotting A&E to the network.  A&E responded by “indefinitely suspending” Phil from the show, only to reinstate him after an even larger backlash from religious and conservative viewers.  Duck Dynasty and its cast are now the focus of national attention as they resume their show after an annual break for duck hunting season.

The level of attention this issue has gathered continues to astound me.  I expected the usual tabloid drama followed by gossip dribble on daytime talk shows.  This time, however, the hype has only escalated from there.  Within days of the original suspension, websites were selling “Stand with Phil” t-shirts with a passion not seen since “Team Jacob”.  Meanwhile, multiple advocacy groups swooped in like vultures, ready to pick the incident clean of any juicy offenses.  Various people of some, little, or no consequence clambered to get their two cents in on both “sides”.  An imaginary line was instantly drawn, prompting commentators to scramble for either side like cliquy schoolchildren trying to form teams for a game of dodgeball.  The only problem with all of this attention and passion is that it really isn’t justified when you examine the issue more closely.  This goes for both of the two most popular perspectives.  Allow me to elaborate on each separately.  

   

 First off, we have the attackers.  On the outset, I can understand some of the excitement.  In a culture that has arguably taken cues from radical Islam when it comes to reacting to offense, it is not surprising that certain groups would see fit to put on a territorial display of anger as opposed to simply allowing such incidents to occur.  However, the demands made of A&E have been unreasonable to the point of blatant hypocrisy.  It was not just required that Phil make an expected public apology for his comments, it was suggested he should be permanently removed from the show, which he very nearly was.  My first question in all this: Is anyone actually surprised by Phil’s comments?  Here we have a deeply religious southern family whose previously revealed political views have all leaned to the right, to put it mildly.  Here we have a family whose patriarch regularly refers to himself as a “redneck”.  Yet, when Phil finally sees fit to comment on the issue of homosexuality, his conservative, arguably fundamentalist views come as a shock?  To who?  Seriously?  No one saw this coming?

My second question is why should this man be removed from television?  Because he said something on the side that someone found offensive?  Try implementing that standard and seeing if cable still exists in a week; network television for that matter.  Perhaps the reason I see this issue a little differently is because of the line I straddle.  Due to my efforts to build bridges between theists and nontheists, I cannot allow myself to subscribe to a singular interpretation of Christianity.  However, due to my position as a minister, I cannot simply abandon my more fundamentalist-thinking acquaintances either.  Seeing issues like these from drastically different angles helps me notice things other people might not.  For example, I have read the article GQ article in question and I can personally attest to having many friends and acquaintances with similar views on homosexuality.  The views expressed by Phil may very well be inappropriate, but they certainly aren’t rare.  Here is what is interesting, though.  Neither my friends, nor Phil have burned down any abortion clinics.  They haven’t protested any military funerals.  They haven’t picketed any establishments and they certainly haven’t committed any acts of violence or hatred regarding their own views or anyone else’s.  Many of them, like myself are reluctant to even express their opinions on these subjects.  And yet, many of my acquaintances feel that they, like Phil, have been unreasonably targeted, not for doing anything, but simply for having an opinion that some find offensive.

Phil recently apologized for the manner in which his views were expressed, yet he made it clear he did not apologize for having them.  This brings me to my final point in regards to the opposition: Is anyone really surprised that he was reinstated?  Following the overwhelming wave of support for Phil that flooded in, is it really surprising that a cable company that is in the business of making money by drawing viewers would respond to the desires of its viewers?  The comments in question did not advocate violence, nor were they made on the air.  They were views held by a man who, for better or worse, has every right to subscribe to them.  To ignore that fact would be to openly admit that enforcing the freedom of a certain people group allows for infringing on the freedom of another.  If this is ever considered acceptable, then the very concept of freedom of speech is likely to disappear under the looming shadow of subjective political correctness.  

Believe me, I understand the precariousness of what I am implying. I once had the

honor of working at the funeral of a soldier who died in Iraq.  I personally watched as the members of the Westboro Baptist Church assembled across the street with signs that read “God hates your tears” and “Thank God for dead soldiers”.  I then watched as dozens of "freedom bikers" rode up, parked their motorcycles, and lined up along the entire property line holding giant American flags which not only saluted the fallen soldier but also effectively blocked the view of the event from the outside as well as any sight of the protesters from the inside.  The sad irony of the spectacle was that the man who had sparked both responses had died to protect the rights of BOTH groups to have their opinions and be allowed to express them.  Something my grandfather used to say has always struck me as one of the few truly American thoughts of the century: “I may not agree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death for your right to have it.”

Am I saying that there should have been no response to the GQ article?  Certainly not.  There is, however a fine line between acceptable amounts of indignation and Al Sharpton-esque attacks designed only to cause more division.  I am also suggesting that expecting a cable network to go against the very demographic that their show was created to cater to is unrealistic.  Do you really think that the opinion of the demographics that protested Phil’s comments are a primary concern for the creators of a show about southern Christian rednecks? Follow the money. I can imagine the executives from the Ellen Degeneres show would have little to worry about if someone like Pat Robertson were to threaten a boycott.  We should always be vigilant when it comes to ignorance.  We should understand, however, that ignorance is extremely popular and makes money in virtually every form it takes, across all political lines.  If you don’t like that fact, start fighting the cause instead of the effects.  It will mean the difference between seeing lasting social results and playing culture war whack-a-mole.

Now, we come to the defenders.  One might suppose at this point, given the points presented in the last section, that I count myself among Phil’s supporters.  In fact, it is quite the opposite.  In my opinion, “Team Phil” should not even exist.  Many  Christians and conservatives have been amazingly supportive of Phil Robertson, considering the crudeness of his comments and the archetype he so readily embraces.  Phil’s son Willie and his wife Korie were recently invited to attend the president’s State of the Union address as special guests of Republican Congressman Vance McAllister, where they stole the Republican after-show, as it were, making sure to snap a few photos with the likes of Paul Ryan.

Even larger than the conservative response, however, has been the Christian one.  Since the beginning, rather than keep the conflict at arms length until they see how it develops, mainstream Christianity has all but promoted the show into it’s own “dynamination”.  Phil and his sons have instantly been escalated to the office of spokespersons for American Christianity.  You see them on the covers of devotionals, in video projects put out by Christian bands, and in the “I am second” project.  Even Franklin Graham, son of the legendary evangelist Billy Graham (who had an amazing ability to avoid pointless controversy) has seen fit to defend the family.  For the longest time, I couldn’t figure out why this was happening.  After all, celebrities touting Christianity are certainly not a new phenomenon.  Images of Tim Tebow kneeling after a score come to mind.  Even Justin Beiber used to draw a decent Christian audience back when his movies portrayed him praying before shows.  The thing is, we all know where that went; nowhere good.  Celebrities rarely make good role models and Christianity has been embarrassed MANY times before for getting too supportive of celebrities who claimed to be “Christian”, only to do something that either contradicted the accepted standards for Christian behavior at the time and/or indicated that they had rejected God altogether.

So why has it been so different with Duck Dynasty?  What about this family has become so appealing to Christians and conservatives that they would be willing to risk public embarrassment to endorse them on such a level?  I’ve been looking forward to this section because it gives me the opportunity to tie in some points made in the introduction.  This is where we see the resemblance to previous conflicts from days gone by.  In the sixties, our public education system was rocked by the fight to remove prayer from schools.  From there, it moved on to Christian symbols in public places, and the phrase “separation of church and state” solidified itself in American politics.  Less than a decade later, one of the most polarizing battles of the twentieth century began: the great abortion debate.  With the legalization of abortion, we saw the lines between conservative and Christian blur into one angry, red mass ready to fight to the bitter end for their political/religious convictions.  It is a battle that is still being fought forty years later.  What is my point?  Phil Robertson isn’t simply a celebrity.  He’s not just a celebrity who’s a Christian, either.  He is a Christian celebrity who has gotten involved with perhaps the hottest social battle since abortion; an issue that ranges from being politically religious to religiously political.  

When seen in this light, it is a bit easier to understand the nature and the scope of the responses in Phil’s favor.  Fundamentalist Christians and conservatives alike would much rather take the gamble on recruiting a new spokesperson for their agendas than let the incident pass and risk appearing weak in the face of liberal onslaught.  There are, however, two distinct problems with this incident that render it useless to both parties.

The problem with Conservatives using this incident as a political tool is so obvious, it’s sad that I even have to point it out.  Believe me, I understand the concept of the freedom of speech and expression perfectly well, as indicated in previous paragraphs.  That being said, this a cable television show we are talking about!  The first amendment of the Constitution protects the rights of people from censorship BY THE GOVERNMENT.  It says nothing about a cable network not being able to fire anyone they are legally able to for any reason they want.  This issue is devoid of any actual political value whatsoever.  All it contains is publicity.  After all, Phil didn’t even make a single statement referring to the politics of the issue.  All he did was make a few unedited personal and religious statements in a magazine article.  End of story, at least it should have been.

The problem with Christians’ open support of the family is that it implies that, not only are the viewpoints expressed by Phil the definitive Christian standpoint on the subject but also that the manner in which he expressed them was completely acceptable.  I would strongly urge Christians to fight your gut reaction and DO NOT back yourself into that corner.  It is dark, dirty, and there is no comfortable way out of it.  I doubt any of my Christian friends would be comfortable openly comparing the appeal of a man’s rectum with that of a woman’s vagina as evidence for why they believe homosexuality is wrong.  I also doubt many of them have actually read the article in question; there is a lot that Phil said that I wouldn’t dare repeat, much less enthusiastically endorse.  When those who would criticize Phil’s remarks see such a clear response by Christianity in support of a matter that they find offensive, it only follows that they will now believe that all Christians hold the same views, which we most certainly do not.  While Christians have been rushing to the aid of their “brother in Christ” so to speak, they have inadvertently and even to some degree blatantly consolidated Christianity’s views on a delicate and complex subject into a handful of shallow comments.  In an attempt to “win” a petty, inconsequential battle, they are setting themselves up to lose the ongoing war for the respect of America.     
        

I have one last thought I would like to end with.  To everyone who has gotten involved with this conflict I would ask “Do you really think this was a mistake?”  A&E controls the contact the press has with the Robertson family with a fervor almost as religious as the family itself.  Do you honestly think it was a coincidence that this all started right before the show took its annual break?  I would not be surprised to discover that this entire fiasco was set in motion intentionally from the beginning as a way to survey public opinion and boost viewing of the show.  After all, when it comes to reality TV, is there really such a thing as bad press?  Either way, this is not Roe vs Wade.  There is no political precedent to be taken advantage of here.  All there is is an embarrassing situation which deserves neither witch-hunt levels of criticism nor blind waves of praise.  It deserves, for more reasons than one, to be universally ignored.


Links

Original GQ magazine article "What the Duck?

Phil Robertson

*Reference to the manufactured hype used to sell products promoting the “Twilight” book and movie series


(end of Part 2)