I'm writing in response to Stefanie Alaimo's column of March 24, "Vintage McCarthyism Is Back In Style." In it, she calls the recent criticism of the Dixie Chicks' singer Natalie Maines for her recent anti-war statements "vintage McCarthyism" and "good old fashioned blacklisting." Alaimo then goes on to call this a threat to their First Amendment rights, and that due to this, Maines' "livelihood and right to free speech was put in jeopardy." Though I consider myself a pretty strong liberal and wholeheartedly agree with Maines' remarks about the war in Iraq, I think that Alaimo's column in defense of her was extremely reactionary and poorly thought out, and displayed many glaring errors in logic. It's this kind of careless, "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality that gives all liberals, especially those on college campuses, a bad name in the eyes of the political right.
First of all, despite Alaimo's repeated exhortations in the column that the Dixie Chicks' careers are gravely threatened by their sudden unpopularity with conservative southern listeners, she says herself that the so-called backlash against the Dixie Chicks consisted of their album, previously the No. 1 record played by country radio, going all the way down to No. 3. I think most people will agree that this hardly constitutes a threat to the careers of the Dixie Chicks. There are plenty of artists out there who would kill to have the No. 3 country record (or even No. 5, 10, or 20), and I doubt we'll see the Dixie Chicks living in cardboard boxes anytime soon.
Alaimo compares this whopping chart drop to a waiter being "suspended from his job and banned from working at other restaurants." Alaimo is exaggerating past any kind of truth with this analogy, and even by the most liberal standards nobody can say that the Dixie Chicks are "banned" or "suspended" from making music, putting out albums, or playing concerts anywhere. Again, I think most people would agree that, compared to the vast majority of other bands, they find themselves in a pretty sweet spot.
Secondly, several times in the column (I counted five), Alaimo calls the backlash against Maines' remarks a violation of her right to free speech. The rights to participate in boycotts and protests are exactly what the First Amendment protects - for everyone, not just the anti-war camp. In America it's certainly well within one's right to free speech not to buy something when they don't want to as much as it is Maines' right to say whatever she wants about the government. If the Dixie Chicks' miniscule sales drop was due to a pro-war stance, I doubt we would hear anyone complaining about their First Amendment rights, as well we shouldn't. The Dixie Chicks have the same right to say whatever they want that David Duke does, and not buying their records is a perfectly valid manner of expression. It's the same reason why Alaimo probably didn't buy "This Ain't No Rag, It's a Flag (and We Don't Wear It on Our Heads)" by the Charlie Daniels Band. If the Dixie Chicks recorded an album of all Toto covers, I'm pretty sure it would drop below No. 3 on the billboard country charts, but it wouldn't by any means be a violation of their right to free speech.
There's no constitutional issue in this situation at all, and to make one out of it like Alaimo did is simplistic and irresponsible. This kind of lazy, knee-jerk attacking of anything that the right has to say makes it that much harder on the rest of us who have dissenting opinions about the administration and the current war in Iraq.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
