The Dixie Chicks' Responsibility: Should They Expect What They Got?

My best friend has never really been a big country music fan in the ten years that I have known her, so when she started raving about the latest release from the Dixie Chicks, I was confused. It turns out that she had taken exactly the opposite position that Superdork expressed in the article Why the Dixie Chicks Got Exactly What They Deserved. Not being a huge fan of George W. Bush, and being an ecstatic supporter of free speech, she had bought the album because, not in spite, of the controversy. She was also highly excited about their follow-up, with their reaction to the backlash.

Superdork makes a very valid point. The Dixie Chicks cannot deny that they were afforded the right to free speech. Unfortunately for them, as most people tend to learn by the time they are adults, with rights come responsibilities, and when rights are exercised there are sometimes consequences.

Responsibility?

As to the Dixie Chicks' responsibility, I would certainly never suggest that it is anyone's responsibility not to speak out against government actions or policies with which they disagree. That is, after all, one of the complaints that America has long held against Iraq - there is no such thing as free speech in that country. The Dixie Chicks had every right to make their distaste for the current administration's actions clear. They had no responsibility to hold their tongues.

I might even be inclined to suggest that, choosing between it being their responsibility to hold their tongues or being their responsibility to speak up, it would be more responsible to speak up, at least in general. After all, that is one of the intentions of free speech. Consider the quote "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing". No, our country's leaders certainly meant no evil in their actions. However, how many atrocities could be prevented by people speaking out against wrongs, letting them be seen, and righted, before they grew?

There are those who say that the Dixie Chicks' comments were poorly timed, that so soon after the attacks the country needed unity. Unity is to be valued at any time, and unity in the face of danger, and in the face of fear, can make quite a difference. It was not, however, the Dixie Chicks' responsibility to create or encourage a united front behind the Bush administration. Surely there were other people in the country who also disagreed with how the situation was handled. They also deserved to feel that they were united with someone, and this was one channel for that.

Consequences?

When the Dixie Chicks made their comments, they had to realize that there might be some sort of consequence. Being in America with the right to free speech, they were assured that any consequences would not be in the form of government actions. However, all their fellow Americans had the same right to free speech that they chose to exercise - surely they could not have expected that no one would speak out against them or denounce their opinions?

As likely as it was that there were be those who agreed with them and would unite with them, it was as, if not more, likely that there would be those who disagreed and turned against them. Politics is a touchy subject at any time, with most people having strong beliefs. At a time of conflict, and of unknown danger, could it really be surprising that America's citizens would rally around their democratically-chosen leaders?

The President enjoyed some of his highest approval ratings at any point in his term in the months following the September 11th attacks. Though this is also not a reason for the Dixie Chicks - or anyone else - to withhold critical comments, it is a reason for anyone making critical comments to expect some level of backlash.

In a utopian world, no one would ever need to fear a harsh reaction to speaking freely. However, in a utopian world, people do not fly planes into large buildings and kill innocent people, either. With the country under attack by mostly unknown enemies, it is not surprising that people would lash out against what "enemies" were easily visible - dissenters like the Dixie Chicks.

So, were the Dixie Chicks wrong or irresponsible in making their comments? No, they were not; there is no reason that they should have kept their disagreement with the politics to themselves. Were they wrong in complaining about the reaction to their comments? Yes, they should have expected that others would have and exercise the same rights that they did.