Dear
PerformInk:
I would like to respond to
"An Open Letter to PerformInk Editorial Staff
and the Chicago Theatre Community," which was written in response to the editorial
"10 Reasons why we should be very afraid if George Bush is reelected."
The original editorial, written by Ms. Kaufman, was an emotionally charged, highly polemic, and perhaps somewhat overwrought assessment of the Bush Administration.
The response, signed "A conservative who likes the first amendment almost as much as the second," was an emotionally charged, highly polemic, and perhaps somewhat overwrought assessment of Ms. Kaufman's editorial.
I cannot dispute Ms. Kaufman's editorial, which presented facts and how she has reacted to those facts. I agree with much of Ms. Kaufman's assessment of the Bush Administration. However, it is not the respondent's disagreement with Ms. Kaufman's editorial that has prompted me to write my own letter. Instead, despite "lik[ing] the first amendment," the respondent essentially chastises the use of free speech by anyone who disagrees with him (or her) and demonstrates some harsh hypocrisy. Therefore, I felt compelled to double-click the "W" icon in my dock.
The response to the editorial admonishes Ms. Kaufman for abusing her position as a publisher, writing, "'I have a microphone, and you don't.'" Unfortunately for that reader's argument, Ms. Kaufman has abused nothing. Media outlets have a long tradition of expressing their opinions, and
PerformInk should be no exception.
The Wall Street Journal has always shown a conservative bias in its opinion about politics. Should they stop giving their opinion on elected officials and simply tell their readers how the markets are doing? Even
High Times broke from its standard marijuana growing guides, jam band coverage, and centerfolds of "wicked kind bud" to write an endorsement for John Kerry; I doubt any candidate would claim the endorsement of
High Times.
PerformInk is a publication that covers the drama trade; it is entitled to make an endorsement, and it made its endorsement in the most appropriate way possible—dramatically.
It should also be noted—again—that Ms. Kaufman presented facts. In the conservative response, the first paragraph contained the sentence, "I do not wish to dispute your facts." Instead, the response only seemed to dispute the rage expressed by the Chicago theatre community. It seems disingenuous to vilify the rage felt by many for President Bush without presenting reasons that this rage may be unfounded. By saying that the facts are not up for discussion, the only thing left to admonish is theater community's behavior. Are we being told to stop whining, that it's okay to be mad as long as we don't do it in public? Left or right, we love the First Amendment because, ideally, it is not to be interpreted on the other side's terms.
There is a point made by the conservative respondent that I actually believe has some validity. When presenting art that is, essentially, anti-Bush propaganda, artists are merely preaching to an already converted congregation. The conservative respondent says, "You want a piece of action? Go put Bushy in a loin cloth and nail him to a cross in San Antonio. And while your (sic) at it, make him gay." I believe the respondent is right. All an
artist can do is react to the injustices in the world around them. A
citizen tries to do something about it. I'm sure that many of the artists who presented this work also attended protests, wrote letters to Red State voters, donated funds to political and activist organizations, and, above all, voted. I'm sure many will pick up their costumes and puppets and head to Ohio in the next four years to try and make a difference by bringing their message to where it is needed the most.
On that same subject, I would also like to add that for all of the finger wagging directed at these dramatists for hiding behind a veil of artistry, the conservative respondent signed his (or her) letter anonymously. When telling someone to put themselves directly into the face of adversity, it is usually appropriate to demonstrate that quality, too.
Finally, I would like to address the respondent's concerns about the—
ahem—shock and awe felt from the reactions to being a conservative in a predominately liberal field. President Bush and his evangelical administration represents a crushing defeat for the First Amendment, as our civil liberties may be reduced, corporations with the same agenda may be able to control larger blocks of the media, and more opposition to the ruling party may be minimized and quashed. These setbacks could easily include arts funding. When governments do not fund outlets for creativity not prone to mass distribution, the only voices heard are those of the powerful and the wealthy, voices that become harder to oppose. I'm sure the respondent values the ability to write a letter criticizing Ms. Kaufmann's editorial. I value the ability to criticize our leaders. "You're with us you're your against us" should never be policy, and increasingly, it is under President Bush.
All opinions are valid, which is why I love this country and will not move to Canada. (The have poor media and privacy laws, and Chicago is about a cold as I can handle.) I love that I can read an opinion in a newspaper and read a dissenting opinion in the next issue. I do wish, however, that opinions in such charged debates did not include calls for the other side to shut up. I certainly do not want the conservative respondent to keep their mouth shut, but at the very least, I would ask that he (or she) does not advocate the shutting up of anyone else. Do so is risky—the tighter you squeeze a spring, the harder that spring bounces back.
Sincerely (and signed with my real damn name),
Arlo Bryan Guthrie
Emeritus member, Defiant Theatre
Member, Hi-Volt Theater Company
Founder and contributor, likeyoureallycare.com
FULL DISCLOSURE: Arlo Bryan Guthrie performs various I.T. and web management tasks for PerformInk on a freelance basis.
