The Dixie Chicks Rehashed

In "Why the Dixie Chicks Got Exactly What They Deserved," AC Content Producer Superdork claims that the much-maligned country group learned a lesson in the consequences of speaking out that extends well beyond bad business. The author concludes saying, "by expressing more condemnation of our own leadership than those who seek to destroy our nation, the enemy is empowered," which borders on a treason allegation.

That, to me, is ridiculous. The only thing the Dixie Chicks are guilty of is a bad business decision in the short-term.

Natalie Maines' controversial statement was that she was personally ashamed George W. Bush resides in Texas, her home state.

From a validity standpoint, that is a fair attack. Much of George W. Bush's advertising and public relations budget is spent on trying to make him look more "Texan." Notice how often he's seen in plaid shirts with his chest puffed out, or in a leather jacket? Notice how he plays up his accent (as did Bill Clinton and many other politicians)?

That is not an accident. George W. Bush is a fake country boy. He is from a multimillion-dollar dynasty. He spent his childhood in mansions and elite private schools in Massachusetts. He spent his college years arguing about fraternities at Yale. He's about as "Texan tough" as a Japanese sushi roll. Therefore, any attack on him being a "Texan" should be entirely fair game by itself.

But I digress.

Her commentary was likely more about the impending Iraq War, and of course she had the right of free speech. So a bunch of mindless jingoistic people with fake American pride wanted to buy her albums, so what? It was done to the Beatles for an equally dumb reason and I think we've all moved on from that idiotic piece of criticism.

Superdork, however, claims they acted unpatriotically, that they went further. She claims that Natalie Maines should have used her platform to denounce America's enemies and not America's President. The President, the author argues, should have automatically receive the utmost dignity, and she even cites Maines' own admission of such as support.

Baloney.

"Natalie Maines," she writes, "did more than simply denounce our president on an international scale. She disrespected our country and its citizens on the same stage. This was a time when America needed unification and was rallying back from a horrible blow to its spirit, and she was more concerned with causing division and strife in the interest of spewing her own misguided, ignorant ideas."

She actually did the exact opposite. Democracy exists and thrives only when there is a voice of balance and opposition. America had already been unified, and the person who broke that was not Natalie Maines, but George W. Bush. In the fall of 2001, his support rating was the highest in recorded history. By spring of 2003, his hasty push towards war had dropped it to 50 - before Natalie Maines said a word.

Speaking your voice is not a "concern for causing division and strife," it's called loving your country enough to say something when it's doing something wrong, and the Iraq War is, was, and always will be, a horrible wrong. True patriotism is not marching in step; it's asking why we're marching in step and trying to persuade people to stop before we walk ourselves off a cliff, or invade a sovereign country who no international authority and no cause.

Why didn't she use her platform to criticize Al-Quada? Honestly, what good would that do? Such claims are a meaningless waste of time and should be taken for granted. There's such a thing as pro-active political speech, and that's exactly what Maines did. With her voice, she can help direct the actions of the United States; she cannot do so with Osama bin Laden. No matter how hard one yells about Osama's atrocities, it accomplishes nothing. Speaking about the American government can, and often does.

Furthermore, they did nothing to George W. Bush that he had not already done to himself. They gave nothing libelous, nor did they put any new ideas in the heads of anti-Americans. George W. Bush did a nice job of screwing up his reputation - and America's with it - before Natalie Maines.

If anything, having a star country singer denounce our bloodthirsty President in 2003 Europe was a positive occurrence for America's image abroad.

And as for any argument about the sanctity of the Presidential office, I believe that went out the window sometime around 1992. Many prominent Republicans said they were ashamed of Bill Clinton, and they spent a decade denouncing him. Not that that behavior was necessarily new, I just find it incongruent that the same Limbaugh-Hannity crowd that called our President an immoral sack of "slick Willie" slime and went out of their way to shame him are now calling for Presidential respect.

And let's forget the outrage gave people like Sean Hannity an artificial target to rip on instead of actually reasoning out the need to go to war; the Dixie Chicks were a pleasant distraction from actually talking about the complete lack of evidence our President had for sending our troops into war.

I'm not even going to go into all the fallacies about the War on Terror and that the grave threat to our nation and all that garbage, but I will say this:

The point of art is not to make money, but rather to inspire genuine human thought and emotion that stems from the feelings of the artist. The Dixie Chicks, in this respect, are so much better artists - and so much greater Americans - than someone like Toby Keith who just panders to superficial tough-guy jingoism.

The only place the Dixie Chicks caused damage was in their own wallets (and those of their record company). Challenging democratic leadership is essential to democracy, and if we genuinely want the rest of the world to embrace it, we need to embrace it as well.

Even if thousands of idiots burned their records in the heated rush to war, they may reap greater benefits in the long-term. Their name will be long remembered as a "Free Speech" case, and their anger against George W. Bush now seems to be in the 70% majority in the United States.

Like the Beatles, they did no harm except to their short-term reputation and finances. They did not harm America or the President. If anything, the President had already shot himself in the foot well before Natalie Maines opened her mouth.