Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s comments were abhorrent.
Let’s get that out of the way up front. While the A&E star’s comments involving his preference for one gender’s private parts over the others (which fans of the program will recognize is his character’s voice) are mild, his linking of those who practice bestiality and adultery with consenting gay relationships is offensive. Those who took offense to them are perfectly justified.
It is my position, often stated, that entertainers should rarely be subject to discipline and almost never dismissal for saying something that individuals or select groups might find offensive. This open-ended and subjective criterion would quickly strip the culture of any provocative and fulfilling content – in many ways, this impulse has already had that effect. The power, influence, and fundraising abilities of anti-defamation groups are boosted when they can claim a scalp, and they are always on the lookout for new scalps. A&E should not have provided one.
The conservative movement, however, is not benefited by defending the substance of Robertson’s comments. Whether one agrees, with all the conviction they can muster, that certain passages of the Bible forbid homosexuality is simply irrelevant. The GOP as a political force is hamstrung by the widely-held perception that it is an exclusionary group which coddles bigotry. MSNBC host Abby Huntsman said it best when she observed that conservatives should speak out against intolerant language whenever possible, lest they appear to condone it.
Is this a double standard? Sure. But a double standard is a standard nonetheless. Republicans can shake their fists at this reality and be continually marginalized in an ever evolving culture or accept it, adapt their behavior to comport with it, and be rewarded with increased visibility.
But this same admonition applies to the political left. In a way, theirs is a far more intractable problem than the one face by conservatives. Culturally conservative Republicans are all too aware that their views are considered antediluvian and distasteful by the nation’s cultural arbitrators in elite coastal enclaves. Liberals who stand in opposition to common morality, however, are utterly convinced of their righteousness and are more prone to lash out at criticism of their actions than to internalize it.
For one most recent example of this phenomenon, take the newfound fascination among some with the notion that lying to Amazon.com in order to take advantage of a discount available to mothers is not only justified but virtuous. This scam, proudly pioneered by Slate’s Matt Yglesias, has become something of an organizing principle within the community of respected liberal bloggers.
“I don’t think it’s ethically murky,” said Business Insider’s Josh Barro while appearing on MSNBC to detail the process for defrauding (albeit without legal consequences) a service provider by pretending to be a parent.
“If a lie is told to a corporation, it’s not really a lie,” MSNBC host Touré agreed.
This obviously, unequivocally morally bankrupt swindle was met with scolding from the backwards thinkers in the hinterland still clinging to their primitive concepts of sincerity and honor.
Rather than take his lumps and revel satisfied in his own moral clarity, Barro took to his column on Business Insider on Thursday to defend his actions. Barro demands that they, and he, be broadly accepted.
“I am honestly befuddled by the righteous outrage over Matt Yglesias’ and, later, my adventure in fake parenting,” he began. Barro goes on to outline why, from a purely economic perspective, Amazon’s appeal to price discrimination by targeting mothers is a sound business decision that will net them a greater volume of sales, making up for the miniscule discount they provide. Taking advantage of this manner of discount by misrepresenting one’s personal circumstances is a feature of commerce from time immemorial.
“This isn’t some nasty immoral subterfuge, it’s just how price negotation [sic] works,” Barro continued. He stops short of saying consumers should lie to take advantage of discounts for veterans or bereavement airfares, but that is about where his ethical ambiguity ends.
But crisis profiteering is also a form of price discrimination. The subject, in dire need of some good, is gouged because they are willing to pay more than the normal market price for that good. This, too, is how price negotiation works. It is also “nasty immoral subterfuge.”
Yeglesias wrote a follow up to his discovery as well, insisting that Amazon is fine with their being defrauded (subtext: and you should be, too). He cites Barro who quotes an Amazon official noting that they understand this program operates on the honor system. Yeglesias calls this admission “vindication,” though one can only be vindicated after being accused of wrongdoing – something both the Slate and BI bloggers enthusiastically insist they have not.
The left is often comforted by the idea that, when they seek to stifle the voices of those like Robertson, they are performing a societal good. They content themselves with the notion that people like Robertson are attempting to force their personal morality on others.
But Robertson is not an evangelist. He was not proselytizing his beliefs – nor is that a feature of his A&E program. But Barro is proselytizing, as is Yglesias. They are demanding acceptance of this ethically suspect behavior.
It is important to maintain a moral compass in this world. There is a reason why viable anarcho-libertarian societies do not exist. Behavioral moderation in order to comport with norms that maintain basic order is a routinely undervalued trait in effete circles. But no matter how many blog posts are written to the contrary, common courtesy is virtuous and trustworthiness is noble.
Phil Robertson offended many, including myself, and he was punished for it. Barro and Yglesias offended many as well. Their offenses are more likely to result in rewards in the form of increased attention. Now that’s “ethically murky.”
[Photo via screen grab/A&E ]
— —
> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
