Post-Super Bowl Cultural Conservatism: After further review, the call is reversed
by Jim Babka
March 8, 2004In a weekend LewRockwell.com column by Carl Horowitz, we were treated to a new and illogical definition of censorship.
Horowitz's believes censorship is illegitimate. On that, he and every other libertarian (like me) would agree.
But it appears Horowitz defines censorship as choosing not to buy a product you find offensive. For him this creates a culture that is anti-artistic expression. He went so far overboard in this analysis that he compared public expressions of dissatisfaction with the recent Super Bowl halftime show with the caste system, in that both suppress individuals and destroy the economy.
He also chided libertarians, using Ilana Mercer as an example. He writes,
Libertarians properly reject the idea of granting the FCC stronger powers to oversee broadcast content. But a good many of them delude themselves into thinking that the market can produce "good" censorship. "American culture is generally sludge," they argue, "but let the private sector make decisions on how to clean up the mess." Such a notion, wrongheaded in and of itself, plays right into the hands of people who do want government to create a de facto Moral Environmental Protection Agency.
Ilana Mercer is a good example of this libertarian delusion. While calling for the FCC to back off, she didn't mince words on the need for moral condemnation of the "Toilet Bowl." "In a free country," she wrote (WorldNetDaily.com, February 6), "the fans make the proprietors face the music through the power of the buck and the boycott, not the bureaucracy [emphasis added].
Ms. Mercer is deluded because she apparently doesn't share Horowitz's bad taste in art. Horowitz is arguing that we should be shocked by her ad hominem argument (Who is she to call the Super Bowl the Toilet Bowl?). If "censors" (as Horowitz defines them) such as Mercer, not to mention you or me, decide we've had it with CBS and MTV, and turn off our TVs, that creates a "chilling effect."
Janet Jackson might even have to put her clothes back on!
This is a bizarre line of reasoning especially on a page that holds such admiration for the free-market and the likes of Ludwig von Mises.
Don't vote, it only encourages them
Weekly, we're treated to wonderful columns on LRC telling us that voting is bad including one on the very day this Horowitz column ran. In fact, the headline-teaser for the article (on LRC) with voting as its subject for that same day was, "Don't Vote: You'll only help legitimize the criminal gang running the country, says Brian Dunaway."
Perhaps the readers of this page have forgotten the obscene way the halftime show began leftist Hollywood types promoting an attractive lie to your kids, that it was their duty to vote and that their vote actually made a difference. I really didn't want my kids exposed to that. Did you?
Chances are real good that Brian Dunaway is correct that voting legitimizes criminal politicians (but then, I repeat myself). And if he is, the law of excluded middle would make Carl wrong about culture. Expressing moral outrage by not buying an item or not frequenting a particular channel that insists on targeting my kids with nihilistic smut is not censorship. Rather, it is using my market vote to say I don't want to legitimize what I deem to be awful or offensive.
It's a choice Madonna has made and Howard Stern has advocated. It's also a choice Ludwig von Mises would likely endorse.
The Anti-capitalist Mentality
I'll get to Madonna and Stern in a moment. Right now, you might be questioning advice that would come from either of them. But von Mises is, rightfully, revered by your typical LRC reader.
In his book, The Anti-capitalist Mentality, von Mises does indeed ridicule boycotts by those who want to impose their morality on corporations. His well-defined target happens to be leftists i.e., socialists and communists, but it's probably not an illogical leap to extend his analysis to cover boycotts of bad television programming that is if television programming was a free-market.
But it's not. The Super Bowl aired on a network channel, and is considered a family show. CBS, a very powerful network, actually loves the system of government ownership of the broadcast spectrum. So do its government, hand-picked competitors at ABC, NBC, and Fox. They don't pay for their licenses (unless you count the battery of lawyers used to navigate bureaucracy). The licensing system reduces competition for them. For them, government control is a bargain.
An op-ed column should be short. So please permit me this gross oversimplification of von Mises' argument. There are only three legitimate, capitalist responses to a business that offends you.
- Start a competitive enterprise an impossibility given the current structure.
- Buy from the offending enterprise anyway because the benefits to you outweigh your moral objections.
- Stop buying from the offending enterprise yes, even if does mean that bad art will go unmade.
Lee Iacocca snagged this line of reasoning for his marketing campaign when he was the CEO of Chrysler. He said, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." This was a clear popularization of, if not an outright swipe from von Mises.
If the government didn't own the airwaves, option one would be a live option. It is precisely the absence of option one that makes conservatives leap for things like boycotts and FCC action. I'm not excusing that behavior. I share Horowitz's disagreement with Brent Bozell, Congressman Upton, and others who support FCC action. But let's be honest here government created the FCC and provides fertile, subsidized soil for irresponsible behavior by artists.
The problem is that under the new Horowitz definition, censorship means not buying something from someone whose behavior you object to. Apparently because of a potential chilling effect I should go out and buy Ms. Jackson's so-called "art."
Horowitz is wrong. Refusing to patronize bad art is not censorship, it is choosing not to give my votes to that artist. It is more correctly, "getting out of the way." And it is probably safe to assume that the legendary economist would've sided with Mercer, not Horowitz, in this case.
Boycotting Big Government Is Good
But one's still left to wonder, why is Horowitz so worried about boycotts? Even he notes they don't work. In fact, they often have a boomerang affect. They incite curiosity, as in "What's all the fuss about?" With Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic art, courtesy of the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA), or Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, attempts to boycott turned into publicity bonanzas that increased, rather than decreased support.
Given that in the Mapplethorpe scenario the NEA was using confiscated earnings taken by government force (taxes), to subsidize stuff that these same wage slaves would've found too offensive to even think about, let alone pay for, a boycott was only fair. But Horowitz definitely objected to that particular boycott as well. He questioned the motives of anyone who would object to the Mapplethorpe display and compared such an objection to a boycott on the work of Britney Spears (who pays lots of taxes and doesn't receive a government subsidy).
Culture-war pundits are, by natural inclination, pugilists. They thrive on conflict; indeed, they cannot bear to live without it Exaggerating the menace posed by a Robert Mapplethorpe photograph or a Britney Spears song, for example, gives them a sense of importance, of being first among equals in the world of ideas.
Who cares what their motives are? It is immoral to compel someone to pay for what that which they deem offensive. Mr. Horowitz might be fine with how his money was used, but lots of folks were angered. Frankly, I wish we libertarians had a way to arouse that kind of anger every day for the various ways government spends our money.
The Wisdom of Madonna and Howard Stern
I promised to share the wisdom of Madonna and Howard Stern. Here is it is.
- Madonna doesn't allow her children to watch television. They won't see her kiss Ms. Spears or catch a glimpse of Ms. Jackson's bare breast. Madonna has the sense to turn off the tube. TV is mind-numbing, depressing and corrupt.1
- Howard Stern says you can turn his show off if you don't like it. No one's forcing you to listen. He's right.
You can turn the Super Bowl off, and especially the insipid nihilism of MTV. You can stop buying Jackson, Timberlake, P. Diddy, and whoever the other so-called artists were, for whatever reason you choose even if it's because you object to the morality of the art. You are on perfectly legitimate grounds for doing so.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
If the artists cannot get sufficient support in the marketplace, then how are they any different than any other business? Do you have a responsibility to patronize a Pizza parlor that is late and screws up your order? What makes bad art so special?
On Liberty and Responsibility
I cannot tell for sure, but it appears that Carl Horowitz has taken some comfort in the work of John Stuart Mill, specifically On Liberty. Mill argued, correctly, that it was insufficient to hold even a correct belief on the basis of "prejudice." Mill said that is necessary to consider alternatives to socially approved opinions, even if the alternative appears likely to be erroneous. That's a fine argument against government censorship.
But Mill explicitly claimed his ideas were for mature adults in a civilized society. Children lack the experience necessary to test their own morality. Hopefully, as they grow, they are equipped to do so, but they certainly don't come into this world so outfitted.
I cannot tell if Mr. Horowitz has children. I won't even hazard a guess. But I will say, that if he is a parent, I would be surprised that he would believe we should be worried that the market might censor (to use the word as he defines it) such confusing, nihilistic art as performed at the Super Bowl halftime show. The artists chosen, the presentation, and the setting were all very much targeted at youth.
That Viacom, CBS, MTV, the NFL, the sponsors, or the entertainers someone responsible didn't forewarn the audience is, irresponsible. They'll pay a price for it. As several economists have argued on these very pages, the market is an instructor that urges businessmen to make corrections.
Yet Mr. Horowitz makes a large leap. It doesn't logically follow that Ilana Mercer, or any libertarian that agrees with her about the halftime show, is for censorship. The only way that could be true is if you diluted the meaning of the word as he did, applying the label "censor" to normal market resistance such as shutting off the TV or objecting to the use of taxpayer funds for subsidy.
This is NOT a call for government action. But it is a lesson to vigilant parents. I, for one, have determined that I will no longer watch Super Bowl halftime shows. In fact, I fully expect next year's to be worse, an overreaction: a schlock parade of flag-waving jingoism, replete with country and gospel music.
As a parent, I will withdraw my consent from that kind of show just as quickly as I would the crotch-grabbing, costume-accident affair that was this year's extravaganza. And if exercising my rights as a consumer makes me a censor in the eyes of Mr. Horowitz, so be it.
1Even Lew Rockwell has said so http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/optimistic.html This was a wonderful article that libertarians should read every three or four months, but here's the relevant section "Step one is to turn off the television. The purpose here is not to shut yourself off to world affairs or the culture at large. It is only to cease to wallow in the worst the culture and the world have to offer. In that sense it is entirely artificial: from the society it puts on display to the news it reports to the commentary it airs. Television is structured and intended to capture and keep your attention, and it does this quite well. It is not the first medium to do so. Every period of history in every country has had its cultural pit, from the ancient world to the Middle Ages to modern times. It has always been possible to seek out these pits, throw yourself into them, and emerge with the verdict that everything and everyone is going to Hell. The only difference these days is that the pit is available with the click of a button, and most people are oddly convinced that watching television is just something that modern people do. So they keep on doing it. This is a huge mistake. Television gives the viewer a wildly distorted view of the world. Turn it off and observe how different the world looks. You will not be alone in your actions. Television viewing is declining, as is the view that it should work as some sort of cultural glue for the entire culture. In fact, it serves a niche market, one that will always be there but need not infect everything. The web, a far more interactive medium, is working as a completely viable replacement for the need for information. And the web thrives on serving individuals, not manipulating whole societies."
This Site is under construction. Please check back later.
Comments to: webmaster@CultureRepair.com