(Psst…PLAYING political leaders doesn’t actually give you any special insight into political leadership…)
As a performance of the mega-hit Broadway musical “Hamilton” ended, the actor who played Aaron Burr, Brandon Victor Dixon, singled out Vice-President Elect Mike Pence, who was among the audience.
He thanked him for attending and then began a scripted lecture, or rather, an ambush:
“We hope you will hear us out. We, sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”
The rest of the audience, many of whom had booed Pence when he arrived to see the show, cheered. Of course they did. They would have probably cheered if Dixon threw a tomato at Pence too.
I have no patience with this. I was an artistic director of a professional theater company in the D.C. area for 20 years. If this happened at my theater, I would fire the actor and apologize to the audience member and the audience itself. This is unprofessional, unfair and unethical in many ways:
It is wrong to single out any audience member during a performance. In a tweet, Donald Trump called it harassment. He is correct. believe it or not, he is sometimes.
It is wrong to use a show as a political platform for the individuals in that show. The audience didn’t pay for that. This is hijacking a performance. Inexcusable.
It is wrong to abuse a celebrity or elected official who is taking advantage of his right as an American to purchase a ticket and experience entertainment like any other American. This conduct flunks the Golden Rule and Kant: if every cast did this, leaders and elected officials couldn’t risk going to the theater. You want elected officials and leaders to see “Hamilton.” They need to see Hamilton, because it will help them understand the cultural eddies in the society they are serving. They won’t come, however, if they fear being embarrassed and ambushed.
It is wrong for performers to presume that the fact that they are performing for an elected official entitles them to abuse that position to press a partisan or personal agenda.
Of course, it is wrong—rude, course, boorish, unfair and disrespectful—to boo anyone who attends any public event.
After Trump sent his tweet, Dixon tweeted back,
“@realDonaldTrump conversation is not harassment sir. And I appreciate @mike_pence for stopping to listen.”
Haranguing a captive audience IS harassment, however, and that’s what this was. Conversations are voluntarily entered into by all participants. If an actor singles me out by name in public and pronounces a manifesto—and don’t tell me it wasn’t an unreasonable statement, for it doesn’t matter: making it was unreasonable—that’s no “conversation.” The cast was lucky Pence is a cooler head than I am, because, believe me, if an actor addressed me like that, they are getting an earful back. I’ll accept that invitation to hi-jack the show, thanks. You and I know the only reason the cast pulled this stunt was because it knew it wouldn’t get a rebuttal from Pence. they assumed they were pulling a fete accompli.
This is just more self-indicting unethical conduct from progressives. I know by the last couple weeks the rationalizations on the list that will be appealed to to justify it, the major ones being, appropriately for “Hamilton,” #28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times, ” and #31. The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now.” Now the arrogance and bias of Trump’s political foes is infecting the theater; it’s already spread to cable TV news, op-ed pages and social media.
I wonder where it will strike next.
Ethics Alarms 
That little play within the play might be called “The Pence Trap”.
Huar huar huar.
This was pre-planned, done with the full knowledge of the rest of the cast. The three main producers, including Miranda, helped to craft the statement. Not the work of a single actor.
Hamilton is well known for its many curtain speeches and performances after the performance and curtain calls are over, which is why Pence wasn’t even in the theater when he was addressed, having already exited. If Pence was unfamiliar with that aspect of Hamilton, someone should have made him familiar to warn him about what was likely to happen. Nor apparently was Pence familiar with the many Clinton fundraisers the cast was involved in, and the curtain speeches and performances done in her favor. The play itself is heavily political, and the producers are on record as well for not shying away from its very politically liberal perspective.
The speech itself was very respectful and even tempered. It urged the audience not to boo Pence, talked about the cast and crews fears (the lead actor is an out, gay, HIV +, Latino male), and asked him to uphold basic human rights. Given that Trump thinks that “grabbing women by the pussy” is perfectly acceptable, he’s not the best determinant of what constitutes harassment or not.
So, in essence, ” if you’re from the Mid-West, stay the fuck away from a Broadway musical. You’re not in Kansas anymore, asshole.”
Do you really need a better explanation for why Trump won the election?
You’re absolutely right ob. Miost of them just don’t get it. They don’t understand why Madonna offering to give blow jobs and Amy schumer threatening to move isn’t convincing to voters from Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. I mean, if that doesn’t entice them, what will?
No kidding. No wonder the country is so divided. I think lots of people are tired of being lured into “conversations” that are nothing more than harangues. If I hear Obama or some other lefty say one more time “we need to have a conversation about [fill in the blank],” I think my head will explode.
Any more rationalizations you want to trot out?
“This was pre-planned, done with the full knowledge of the rest of the cast. The three main producers, including Miranda, helped to craft the statement. Not the work of a single actor.”
So Everybody Did It. Great: they all were wrong. I know the profession thinks like this: I was constantly vetoing curtain speeches for AIDS, or tsunami relief, or something else. Still per se unethical. The audience didn’t bargain for this.
“Hamilton is well known for its many curtain speeches and performances after the performance and curtain calls are over”
Well known? Where is it in the promotional materials? Has it ever singledled out an audience member before? If you are arguing consent, you flunk. 36. Victim Blindness, or “They/He/She/ You should have seen it coming.”
which is why Pence wasn’t even in the theater when he was addressed, having already exited.
False. Celebrities almost always bolt early, because they don’t want to be trapped by fans and critics.
If Pence was unfamiliar with that aspect of Hamilton, someone should have made him familiar to warn him about what was likely to happen. Nor apparently was Pence familiar with the many Clinton fundraisers the cast was involved in, and the curtain speeches and performances done in her favor. The play itself is heavily political, and the producers are on record as well for not shying away from its very politically liberal perspective.
This is really shameful spinning deery. 47. Contrived Consent, or “The Rapist’s Defense.”
I have sat through many a curtain speech, to the point that they have a phrase for it (i.e. “curtain speech”). Some fundraisers, birthdays, topical news, etc. Hamilton has done many, many curtain speeches and performances after the show has ended, you can find compilations of them on Youtube if you are interested. Miranda even ranted at Madonna during one of his curtain speeches for texting during the performance.
This was an after-performance speech,. No one was captive, and everyone could free feel to leave, and some did, including Pence (before the speech even started). Most of the audience stuck around…because Hamilton is known for its after curtain call speeches and performances.
So it is unethical because it is an ambush, even though Hamilton is known for doing exactly what they did, and it explicitly did not occur during the actual performance of the play?
Or is it unethical because the audience was supposedly captive, even though the speech occurred after curtain call, the audience was free to leave (and some did), and most of the audience stuck around because the after curtain call speeches and performances were rather well-known?
Or is unethical to “abuse” an elected official who is taking advantage of his right as an American to purchase a ticket and experience entertainment like any other American, except that you have already acknowledged that the speech itself was not abusive?
The tl;dr version: there was no captive audience, the performance was over, people could leave and did. Some audience member chose to stay to listen to a respectful speech addressed to the VP, who was not in the audience at the time.
Respectful? We differ on the definition of respectful.
Just stop. This is embarrassing.
deery,
Congratulations; you have proven beyond the shadow of doubt that you’re a Political Hack.
Please click the link in this comment and the four links within the provided definition to completely understand what I personally mean when I said political hack.
Reluctantly, I agree.
Thanks for that link, Z. Very enlightening.
Anyone defending something this obviously unethical has really and truly lost all credibility with me.
Blah, blah, blah. It is unethical because?… The answer seems mostly to be, “because I don’t like it.” Not good enough.
It wasn’t during the performance, the performance was over with the curtain call done, it was done with full help and participation of the cast, crew, and producers, Pence wasn’t even in the audience, and the speech itself was quite measured and polite. So now what? Mostly bluster. Boring.
Deery said, “It wasn’t during the performance, the performance was over with the curtain call done, it was done with full help and participation of the cast, crew, and producers, Pence wasn’t even in the audience, and the speech itself was quite measured and polite. So now what? Mostly bluster. Boring.”
More rationalizations and ignorance?
You really are an idiot that doesn’t have a clue about ethics or just a political hack like I mentioned above.
So… still nothing? Ok then.
Deery said, “So… still nothing? Ok then.”
What???
What???
Lemme translate what deery said: “Fingers in ears and saying la-la-la-la-la”
Tex said it! Confirmed: we all now live in Ameri-la!-la!-la!-la!-la!-rica. The Left is reaping what it has sown. The Left’s chickens have come home to roost. “Not God DAMN America…Left FUCK America!”
I don’t understand why you think “it was done with full help and participation of the cast, crew, and producers” makes it any better. It just makes it more juvenile, to imagine this gang of professionals giggling and planning out how they’re totally going to punk the vice-president-elect. Grow up, it’s rude.
Just answering the criticism that this was one person’s perspective, taking the rest of the cast and crew by surprise, hijacking the show. It was not.
I’m sure the producers and cast had a giggle-fest talking about how scared they were, and how they hope that their rights aren’t going to be taken away (Pence directed funds away from AIDS research into conversion therapy when he was governor).
You mean this?
“Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.”
Yup, the death squads are lining up if the federal government is making sure not to throw money at organizations that celebrate casual, high-risk sex. Time to lay off the Buzzfeed.
http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2016/jul/28/gavin-newsom/true-mike-pence-advocated-conversion-therapy/
When asked about the claim, Newsom’s spokesman pointed to Pence’s own words. During his first successful run for Congress in 2000, Pence wrote on his campaign website, under a section called Strengthening the American Family:
“Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.”
Also on the website, Pence wrote: “Congress should oppose any effort to put gay and lesbian relationships on an equal legal status with heterosexual marriage.” And “Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexual’s [sic] as a ‘discreet [sic] and insular minority’ entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.”
Our research found no evidence Pence has walked back his stance on public funding for conversion therapy. His spokesman did not respond with information about Pence’s current position.
So for conversion therapy, against same-sex marriage, and pro-discrimination against homosexuals. Of course people are scared.
Scared of what? Losing federal dollars.
Follow the money. It’s less about acceptance and more about power and money than anyone on the left will ever acknowledge.
Where are you getting “conversion therapy” (which should be perfectly legal for adults anyway) from the phrase “seeking to change their sexual behavior”? Especially when the entire point of his context is that he WANTS funding to prevent AIDS, and clearly is trying not to waste federal dollars on organizations that don’t acknowledge the role that HIGH-RISK SEXUAL LIFESTYLES is what causes AIDS? Just asking, because, you know, words mean things.
Are you aware (as Ryan probably is) that a survey of AIDS sufferers revealed that they had an AVERAGE of over a thousand sexual partners? Do you think that changing “sexual behavior,” like, maybe limiting one’s sexual partners to just the low hundreds, might be a good idea if we’re trying to prevent AIDS? Could educating people about this maybe, just possibly, be a necessary part of any AIDS prevention program?
Sometimes I’m tempted to think that progressives just love the AIDS epidemic. It’s hard to find better explanations.
Are you aware (as Ryan probably is) that a survey of AIDS sufferers revealed that they had an AVERAGE of over a thousand sexual partners?
Interesting. Citation please.
The HIV epidemic among gay men can’t be explained by their number of sexual partners, U.S. researchers report.
More than half the new HIV infections diagnosed in the United States in 2005 were among gay men, a team at the University of Washington, Seattle, noted. In addition, as many as one in five gay men living in cities may be HIV-positive.
But the sexual behaviors of gay and heterosexual men in the United States may not be as different as most people think, the researchers said.
In fact, two surveys found that most gay men have a similar rate of sex with unprotected partners compared to straight men or women.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Healthday/story?id=4508672&page=1
Where are you getting “conversion therapy” (which should be perfectly legal for adults anyway) from the phrase “seeking to change their sexual behavior”?
It’s all about context, like most things. And Pence has not denied that interpretation, so…yeah.
Note: The relevance of Pence’s antigay positions to this post is exactly ZERO. NADA. Zilch. Zed. If he advocated cannibalism or turning the US into Jonestown, it still doesn’t justify actors harassing him or treating him differently than any other ticket purchaser.
Note: The relevance of Pence’s antigay positions to this post is exactly ZERO. NADA. Zilch. Zed. If he advocated cannibalism or turning the US into Jonestown, it still doesn’t justify actors harassing him or treating him differently than any other ticket purchaser.
I appreciate the consistency of your position, but that doesn’t make it any less ridiculous. There is no ethical principle that says actors cannot use their platform to deliver a respectful protest message against a powerful politician who proposes policies that will hurt them. This is how freedom of speech is supposed to function in this country. This man is going to be the Vice President of the United States. You say that if everyone did this, no politician could “risk” going to the theater. Risk *what?* Respectful criticism? Pence will be fine. The kids he has had tortured by gay conversion practices won’t be.
There are many such principles.
It is not their job.
It is rude.
It is bullying.
It is unfair.
It is disrespectful to the audience.
It is unprofessional (and this is one of my professions).
It is an abuse of power.
No one would like to be targeted in public like that: it breaches the Golden Rule.
As a rule of Universality, it would wreck theater.
It is a breach of trust, as audiences trust companies to give them a performance unpolluted by juvenile screeds.
There are more. I mentioned most of these already, and you and deery still say, “But there are no ethical principles!”
It is not their job.
When specifically directed to do so by the producers of the play?
It is rude.
Begging the question.
It is bullying.
How so? Pence wasn’t even there.
It is unfair.
Begging the question, again.
It is disrespectful to the audience.
Ditto. Plus, the performance was over. This was not part of the performance. The audience was free to leave if they felt disrespected.
It is unprofessional (and this is one of my professions).
Appeal to authority. And it was definitely not unprofessional. Curtain speeches are a routine part of theater, and they are regularly employed by Hamilton-The Musical, on whatever topicality they want to muse on that night after curtain call is over.
It is an abuse of power.
Ok. How so? The performance was over, and the audience was no longer bound to stay there in fear of interrupting the show. People could, and did, leave.
No one would like to be targeted in public like that: it breaches the Golden Rule.
Pence wasn’t there. But he is a public figure, a job he sought and volunteered for. Public figures could, and should get used to be addressed by members of the public, in pretty much whatever venue they find themselves. If he does not want to be addressed and hear member of the public’s concerns, he has a ready out; he can resign at any time.
As a rule of Universality, it would wreck theater.
Not really. Curtain speeches are done after the performance. Any figure who did not want to hear whatever could leave during curtain call…like Pence did.
It is a breach of trust, as audiences trust companies to give them a performance unpolluted by juvenile screeds.
Hamilton is pretty much a sung-through screed.
But the audience received the performance that they came to see. Nothing happened on the cast’s part until after the performance was over.
There are many such principles.
It is not their job.
Their job was over. They were still on stage, but as long as the director agreed, they had every right to express their freedom of speech at this point.
It is rude.
The speech itself wasn’t rude. Putting an incoming Vice President on the spot might be impolite. But there are ethical values more important than politeness.
It is bullying.
No. Pence is a bully. Trump is a bully. Standing up to a bully is not bullying, and the more people think it is, the less people we will have standing up to bullies.
The message was, quite literally: We will not let you bully us.
It is unfair.
No, it’s perfectly fair.
It is disrespectful to the audience.
Nothing the audience had just seen or heard would make them think this speech was out of place. If this message was somehow disrespectful, then I assume they already felt disrespected by the play itself; if not, they didn’t get the message.
It is unprofessional (and this is one of my professions).
It’s also the profession of every single person in and behind the stage where this occurred, so your appeal to authority doesn’t really work here; you clearly have a professional disagreement with this conduct, but that doesn’t make you more of an expert than the Broadway team that made this decision.
It is an abuse of power.
Pence has, and will have, far more power to affect your life, my life and their lives than the cast and crew of “Hamilton” will ever have. They used their power in *exactly* the way it should be used.
No one would like to be targeted in public like that: it breaches the Golden Rule.
No one would like to be criticized in public, but politicians sign up for a job that entails being criticized in public. If Pence can’t handle that, he should pursue other work.
As a rule of Universality, it would wreck theater.
How?
It is a breach of trust, as audiences trust companies to give them a performance unpolluted by juvenile screeds.
The speech was not a juvenile screed. What was a wrong with the speech itself? You have heretofore refrained from criticizing the speech itself, focusing on the venue. But here you seem to be saying the speech itself was flawed. Why?
“Sometimes I’m tempted to think that progressives just love the AIDS epidemic. It’s hard to find better explanations.”
So liberals are mad that Pence cut funding to AIDS…and your takeaway is that liberals love AIDS? What the hell is wrong with you?
(I think I’m in the right place: this should go below the back-and-forths)
It is wrong (unethical, if you will) to shove one’s politics — no matter how justified or thought desirable by the speaker — down the throats of a captive paying audience whose politics is unknown. I know of at least one couple — relatives of a coworker of mine — who flew their three teens and a set of in-laws from their home in Hawaii specifically to attend a performance of Hamilton. Apparently they were all staunch Trump supporters who had mentioned they were not going to be drawn into argument while in New York (though they were happy enough to oblige my coworker friend with group recitals of Hillary flaws during their brief stayover in San Francisco). It had taken some time to arrange between obtaining tickets, flights, school and work schedules but ‘Hamilton” is what they were all excited to see. As it happens, the show lived up to expectations, with no extemporaneous curtain speeches, and they returned home without engaging in any political argument or polemic.
I wonder how many others – not Democrat, not particularly liberal, actual Trump-Republican or undecided or just plain people who paid a LOT of money for a ticket to an entertainment just to get away from the hate and fear for a couple of hours – were treated to being proselytized to (no matter who was doing it). It would have made me very angry to have someone spoil my post-theater high like that.
You don’t know what you are talking about. How many theatrical productions have you directed? I’ve directed or produced nearly a thousand. The performance begins when the audience comes into they theater, and ends when they leave.
You talk like an idiot. So what if it “was done with full help and participation of the cast, crew, and producers”? What if he was mugged with “full help and participation of the cast, crew, and producers”? How does participation make it more ethical?
“Pence wasn’t even in the audience”—I call bullshit. They knew he was in the audience, that’s why they did it. Because he had started to leave didn’t take him out of the audience..he was still an audience member.
“and the speech itself was quite measured and polite”
I explained why that was irrelevant. The post didn’t criticize the text of the speech or its tone.
“So now what? Mostly bluster. Boring.”
Foul. I was very specific about what was wrong from a theater ethics perspective. You are ignorant on the topic. You have misrepresented my position, which has nothing to do with Pence or the message; I would make the exact same point if a cast lectured Hillary Clinton on the importance of cyber security, and you know it. (Of course, they never would.) You are an utter hypocrite: if Barack Obama was lectured about droning at the Kennedy center, it would be a major scandal. I was not blustering, but exactly precise, and because you can’t rebut the ethical argument, you dismiss it.
Go to your room. Put a bag over your head. You have abused your privilege to comment on this post.
Jack said, “Go to your room. Put a bag over your head.”
“Don’t you think this is gratuitous? You do an excellent job pointing out what’s wrong with deery’s reasoning… the rebuttal is more effective without it.” 😉
Bleh. The bluster comment was not directed at you, but the barrage of personal attacks from your commentators afterwords, who added no substance or logical critiques to anything I said.
You don’t know what you are talking about. How many theatrical productions have you directed? I’ve directed or produced nearly a thousand. The performance begins when the audience comes into they theater, and ends when they leave.
An appeal to authority, but anyway…I have directed a few shows, but nowhere near a thousand. The performance ends when the lights come up, after the curtain call, and the audience is up. The performance of Hamilton was complete, done, finished. Anything that happened afterwords was a pure bonus to those people who wanted to stick around, just like the coda to a Marvel movie.
You talk like an idiot. So what if it “was done with full help and participation of the cast, crew, and producers”? What if he was mugged with “full help and participation of the cast, crew, and producers”? How does participation make it more ethical?
You are obviously in your emotions.
But that point was to address several people’s mischaracterization of the after curtain call address as a rogue attack by one person, done without the knowledge of anyone else, yet dragging everyone else into the fray. This was authorized, from the top down, and was not unethical on that account at any rate.
I explained why that was irrelevant. The post didn’t criticize the text of the speech or its tone.
I didn’t say that you did. But others had characterized the speech itself as “disrespectful”, so I wanted to make it clear that they had no leg to stand on in that arena.
There was no captive audience as the show was over and people could, and did leave, Pence was not even in the audience, and Hamilton was very well-known for both it’s pre-performance and post performance speeches and performances. The irony of people on the right like Trump et al calling for a “safe space” in the theater, of all places, makes me literally laugh out loud.
deery said, “The performance ends when the lights come up, after the curtain call, and the audience is up.”
Bull shit deery. You’re making up ridiculous rationalizations to justify your nonsense.
deery said, “I have directed a few shows”
I personally don’t believe you.
I’ve directed shows too and anyone that actually has any genuine competence in directing theatrical shows knows that the show was not complete. What this production staff and cast did to a captive audience was unethical and did not belong within the performance space from the moment the house was open until the moment the house was closed – PERIOD!
You’ve pegged yourself as an unethical ends justify the means lefty.
Rats, bad ending tag after “I have directed a few shows”, it’s missing the / ; can you fix it Jack and delete this request?
I’ve directed shows too and anyone that actually has any genuine competence in directing theatrical shows knows that the show was not complete.
Ok. Why was the show not complete? The show was over. The curtain call was done, lights up. There was no captive audience. Audience members could, and indeed, did, get up to leave, without interrupting the performance they came to see.
At most of the shows I been to, with a post-performance speech, it was mostly cast members coming out to announce where the after party was to those audience members who voluntarily chose to stick around after the performance. Occasionally there was a rousing after-show performance of “Happy Birthday” for some cast or crew member. I don’t consider any of those unethical…because the performance was over. If audience members want to stick around, that is entirely on them.
deery,
What part of the show begins when the house is opened and the show ends when the house is closed does your Sasquatch brain not understand? This concept is quite clear to any competent theatrical director out there.
In your feelings too Zoltar?
Audience members, after the show is over, often choose to stick around for their reasons. Usually because they are personal friends of family and crew and are waiting for them to come out from backstage. In Hamilton’s case, it is well known that the cast often performs “bonus” speeches and performances that are not related at all to the show, not in character, and are usually topical (when Prince died, they performed “Let’s Go Crazy” after the curtain call for example).
It is not a requirement to stick around for this extra performance. Audience members get up and leave after curtain call all the time. The Hamilton audience sticks around in anticipation that this might be one of the nights with the “extra” performance, a lagniappe. Don’t like it? Don’t stick around. Pence did not. You still will have the full Hamilton-The Musical experience.
I have seen shows that Deery has directed. Step back Zoltar — you can criticize someone for their positions here, but I think we should accept that everyone here is an honest broker.
I have seen shows that Deery has directed.
Did the cast point you out and lecture you after the show ended? I’m sure that was fun…
Spartan isn’t going to be the Vice President of the United States.
Well, I have been asked not to attend on tape night due to my obnoxious laugh. Does that count?
What?! My laugh is way louder and more “memorable” (obnoxious) than yours, and no one has ever asked me to forgo tape night. Though I wonder who would ask…
That tears it. The rules of the blog requires that I have a real e-mail address and a real name from commenters. You are one of the very few commenters who hasn’t submitted either, and I have let it go, out of laziness more than anything, but also because you had established yourself here before I focused on it. But since you are now exchanging inside jokes here with people who DO know who you are, it’s time to comply. Sorry.
I need a name and an e-mails that works, please, and any comments will be held until I get both. Send them to jamproethics@verizon.net. Both will be kept strictly confidential, but I insist that I, as the host, know who is commenting here. It’s my fault for not doing this sooner, not yours
Deery said, “no one has ever asked me to forgo tape night.”
I’m curious deery, what do you do with these “tapes”?
Chris said, “Spartan isn’t going to be the Vice President of the United States.”
It’s endless from you folks; one ethical flushing rationalization after another.
Spartan said, “I’ve seen shows that Deery has directed.”
Okay, deery has directed some shows, my knowledge base has been updated to reflect new information.
Spartan said, “I think we should accept that everyone here is an honest broker.”
Are you openly saying that everyone deserves to be believed?
There is a group of people here who have a long history of commenting. And while we disagree on analysis, I think we should give everyone in this group the benefit of the doubt when it comes to facts. If we can’t do that, then what is the point in engaging in dialogue here at all?
Spartan said, “There is a group of people here who have a long history of commenting.”
I respect that.
Spartan said, “And while we disagree on analysis, I think we should give everyone in this group the benefit of the doubt when it comes to facts.”
I think you meant to say when it comes to personal related facts not things presented as facts in general.
I’m supposed to believe any claim made by any long term participant on this blog as long as that fact is personally related? So you should automatically believe me if I state that I’m a Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army without anything to support it.
Spartan, I honestly stated that I didn’t believe deery’s claim and why I didn’t believe the claim. I did nothing unethical or disrespectful by stating my disbelief and why. You and Jack since supported deery’s claim and I’ve acknowledged that fact.
Now let me say this; who ever trained or mentored deery over the years failed to imprint that the show is everything from open house to closed house. I’ve been around the theater for a while and I don’t know any director that hasn’t imprinted that fact upon their cast, things that happen between those points in time can destroy the integrity of the show illusion. To this day, I refuse to do those blow sunshine, out of character, meet and greets immediately following performances like some theatrical companies do and I don’t go blow sunshine when I’m the audience either; however, after the cast is out of costume and makeup, that’s a different story – there’s a dividing line that I personally choose not to cross.
Spartan said, “If we can’t do that, then what is the point in engaging in dialogue here at all?”
I must give people the benefit of the doubt to effectively participate in dialogue here? Don’t our actual words represent us here not what we do in the real world? Once I have come to know the regulars here a little better that benefit of the doubt becomes natural but not it’s certainly not required.
To answer your question — yes, I would believe you if you told me you are a Lieutenant Colonel because I have read dozens (hundreds?) of your posts and I feel that you represent yourself honestly even if I don’t agree with all of your political positions.
Now, that doesn’t mean that I give you blanket trust. If you suddenly told me that you were a Nigerian Prince in need of a wire transfer of a large sum of money, I would tell you to pound sand. But claims from a trusted commenter about military rank or directing experience? Yes, I will take such remarks as truth and not challenge them. I don’t believe that the type of people who engage in petty lies would be spending so much time on an ethics blog.
Spartan said, “yes, I would believe you if you told me you are a Lieutenant Colonel”
I used that only as an example. Please don’t just “believe” what people tell you about themselves, find a reasonable way of verifying claims without blowing someone’s anonymity.
Just to be clear, yes I have been in the United States Army but I am not actually claiming to be a Lieutenant Colonel. I was enlisted and an instructor.
You talk like an idiot. So what if it “was done with full help and participation of the cast, crew, and producers”? What if he was mugged with “full help and participation of the cast, crew, and producers”? How does participation make it more ethical?
I thought deery’s point here was a direct rebuttal to your statement that:
It is wrong to use a show as a political platform for the individuals in that show. The audience didn’t pay for that. This is hijacking a performance. Inexcusable.
It was not “hijacked” by “individuals in the show,” it was agreed to by the entire cast, and the musical’s creator! You can’t hijack something that belongs to you. This was one of your major points against the message.
You are an utter hypocrite: if Barack Obama was lectured about droning at the Kennedy center, it would be a major scandal.
Among whom? It would be controversial, as this move was. That doesn’t make it wrong.
1. What? OK, It is wrong to use a show as a political platform for any individual OR individuals in that show. The audience didn’t pay for that. This is hijacking a performance. Inexcusable.
2. A performance belongs to THE AUDIENCE. THEY bought it!
3. “It would be controversial, as this move was. That doesn’t make it wrong.” The point is, it is wrong and if it was done to anyone the people defending this respected, they would agree that it was wrong.
You are excusing an intellectually dishonest argument. This one is signature significance.
” The point is, it is wrong and if it was done to anyone the people defending this respected, they would agree that it was wrong.”
I thought I just dispelled this assumption, but let me make it clearer: I respect Obama. I think a post-play speech imploring him to reconsider his position on droning would have been perfectly ethical. Just because he personally wouldn’t like it doesn’t make it wrong.
This act was both unethical and stupid, and so is most of this thread trying to justify it. But as usual, lefties have to twist themselves up into ethical and logical pretzels to justify what they agree with.
It is common practice to access the audience…in a positive manner. No one is going to have an issue with a performer mentioning a birthday or noting the presence of dignitaries, or giving a shout out to veterans or emergency services.
Deliberately creating controversy, however, during what is supposed to be a non-political event, is at best fraught with peril, at worst offensive to the audience. Appeals to charity (we’ll be collecting for AIDS afterward) are easily ignored. Political ass kissing (Obama’s doing a great job) is easily sneered away (oh, shaddup and sing). Deliberately provoking a political fight with a member of the audience? No way.
The best comment I heard on this issue was from a part time actor that “the ticket gets you everything including the curtain speech.”. That’s rich, coming from the same people who say “the ticket gets you the show and that’s it” to justify refusing requests for pictures or autographs.
What’s even richer is the snide cloaking of this political attack in the condescending rhetoric of love, like these idiot lefties didn’t just get the political high ground cut from under them precisely because of this smug attitude.
You can’t fix stupid, you can’t fix biased, and you can’t fix arrogant.
Well, you can at least TRY to fix biased and arrogant.
I didn’t see the “the ticket gets you everything” comment; it I had, my keyboard would have caught on fire. It is literally true: there’s not much an audience member can do when they are trapped in the theater. Still, that is not the deal, any more than football fans pay to see Colin Kaepernick dis the National Anthem. It’s similar, but worse, to dinner hosts inflicting their children’s “talents” on guests, so the latter are forced to smile and applaud while being subjected to bad piano playing or renditions of “Memories.”
Deliberately creating controversy, however, during what is supposed to be a non-political event,
Well, see, here’s where I think your entire premise is false. “Hamilton” isn’t a non-political event.
And the show is ABOUT picking fights with powerful politicians and not backing down from them. I see the actions of the cast toward Pence as completely, 100% in line with the ethos of the play Pence had just watched. If he was surprised by this, he must have slept through the play.
Could you possibly be more ignorant regarding theater? A show can be political in substance and intent, but that does not make the performance a political event. It’s a work of art. Watching it is neither an act of approval or disapproval. The Richard Rogers theater is not a political venue.
Yours is a misrepresentation to bootstrap a weak position.
Nope, Chris is already at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to ignorance. To think he is a teacher, molding the next generation, is frankly a scary thought.
<i"It is unethical because?"
You read the post right? Jack explained it.
And no, your responses didn’t address anything, they were bald faced rationalizations.
Can knee jerks EVER be honest?
It’s unethical because Mr. Pence was a guest in the “house” of the performers of Hamilton. Look at it this way. If I invite you over to my house for the sole purpose of engaging in a non political book club (let’s say we are reading Peter Pan and Wendy because it’s my hypothetical and that’s one of my favorite books), how can it be ethical for me to attack your politics before you leave my home? You didn’t consent to such an attack, did you?
The fact that Mr. Pence left, if true, seems to make it worse. If you left my book club, and I began attacking your politics behind your back with all the other participants of the book club, that would be even more unethical because you aren’t even afforded the chance to defend yourself.
Would it make you somehow feel better if I got permission of my wife to attack your politics at the end of the book club? I don’t see how the permission of the cast and crew is in any way relevant.
I also don’t see how the exchange of money makes this any different. A play is not a public forum, the artistic format of the play only survives in the age of movies, television, and streaming media because of its intimacy with its audience. During the show, Mr. Pence, like every other paying customer, was the guest of the cast members of Hamilton. If theater decides that its customers are just customers and not guests, theater will die. I think, although I do not wish to put words in Jack’s mouth, that this is what he means when he states that the actions of Hamilton are so unprofessional. The actions of the cast violate the central tenancy of the theater: that the viewers are the guests of the performers. Treating the theater as a public forum, as you seem to suggest it is, begins the process of destroying the intimacy of theatrical productions. To me, and perhaps Jack will say I’m wrong, that intimacy is crucial to the success of theater because it’s really the only thing that differentiates stories presented on stage from the stories presented on movies and television. So, to my way of thinking, even if the Hamilton cast didn’t betray Pence, they betrayed theater. That’s unethical enough for me.
Of course, that’s not to say Hamilton cast members can’t be critical of Pence in the proper forum. If Hamilton cast members wished to be critical of Mr. Pence, they could have done so the next day in, let’s say, an Op. Ed. in a national newspaper. That would have been fair, and that kind of criticism Mr. Pence definitely consented to. He didn’t consent to being attacked when acting as a private citizen.
I think your later stance on public figures, itself, violates the golden rule. “Public figures could, and should, get used to being addressed by the public in pretty much any venue they find themselves in.” That’s a really unfair requirement for public figures, don’t you think? Hillary Clinton should have to expect to be questioned by conservative news reporters while enjoying an intimate meal with her husband? Lebron James should have to accept that fans are going to come up to him and tell him to pass the ball more when he’s taking his children to the zoo?
Public figures, especially public servants, are doing us a service (whether you agree with the policies they present or not). Requiring them to get used to being addressed by the public in any venue they find themselves in is a requirement no reasonable public servant should have to face. If everyone placed that burden on them, we wouldn’t have any public servants anymore, and it will be people like you who are to blame. They should have a right to some degree of a private life, and I think you would feel that is definitely true if you, yourself, were a public figure.
“Blah, blah, blah. It is unethical because?”
Golden Rule violation? Universality? Kant? BY what metric do you think it’s ETHICAL?
Imagine the actors were McDonald’s employees. Mike Pence walks in and orders a McRib, (Because he’s an awful person and enjoys the thought of causing the extinction of whatever animal McDonald’s is putting in the McRib this season.) the burger guy takes the order, takes his money, spits on the McRib in front of Pence, and says “Have a great Day”
You’re arguing that it’s OK to spit in Pence’s burger because Pence is Pence, doesn’t deserve unspat food.
The left would have gone apeshit, had this been done to president-elect Obama.
No, almost everyone would have gone apeshit. Including me.
Some would have. I would have no problem with this message being addressed to Obama:
““We hope you will hear us out. We, sir — we — are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us.”
In fact, reading that over again, I have to go even further–this message is so innocuous that I wouldn’t have minded a particularly eloquent waitress delivering it to President Obama in a crowded Denny’s.
It literally just expressed a concern for the future, and then a hope that the politician in question works for all Americans. That’s it. The proper response from anyone with the political instincts of your average local city councilmember would have been “Thank you for that heart-felt message. I understand your concerns, and I promise to work on behalf of all Americans in my position, even those who disagree with me.” And you can guarantee that would have been Obama’s response. Instead, we get Twitter whines. What a time to be alive.
Well, you are immune to reason and communication, apparently. How many times have I written that the message itself is irrelevant to the ethics breach? You don’t care, you just want to stick it to Mike Pence. Got it.
It would be a huge media blow-up if they did. When Eartha Kitt took the opportunity of a White House appearance to lecture LBJ about the Vietnam war, it seriously damaged her career, and was regarded as..an ambush, and rude.
Well, they were wrong, and Kitt was right.
Eartha Kitt didn’t lecture LBJ, she gave his wife a dressing down and in fact reduced her to tears, which was an even cheaper shot. Take on the policymaker, not his wife, you coward. She lost 10 years in the US as a result.
Supposedly one of the Celtic Woman soloists (I will not name her so as not to shame her since she is still an active performer) was going to try to present GWB with a petition about the Kyoto protocol when they performed for him right before St. Patrick’s Day 2007. Accounts vary as to whether this performance was at the White House or the Irish embassy, but, according to the soloist she was unable to present the petition because the president was “rushed away due to fear of a terrorist attack.” If in fact this took place at the White House, either the soloist was fed a line by officials or had a very active imagination, since I don’t think the President would flee a terrorist attack in his own official residence.
I accepted the account and chalked it up to naivete, since the soloist was only 20 at the time, but in retrospect it doesn’t sound right, and I have to consider the attempt both unprofessional and a failure on the part of CW management. The soloist had been singing professionally for at least six years and knew darn well how to deal with meeting dignitaries. Even if she didn’t, the tour manager knew darn well how to handle events like that and I’m sure was briefed beforehand by the Secret Service as to how anything like that would be handled. At most I am sure the soloists got a quick handshake and “well done” by the President before he either moved on to dealing with his more important guests, the ambassador and Prime Minister of Ireland, or returned to the residence, the evening having concluded. Either way I don’t believe he spent (or budgeted) more than a moment with them, since no photograph of him with the group was taken. Either way, attempting to buttonhole the President of the United States to present him with some kind of petition, when you are a 20yo singer who is hired entertainment is the height of both hubris and rudeness.
Dixon’s words were brave and more civil than Pence deserves. Pence, Trump, and the GOP are unAmerican; they are in league with the KKK and the Nazis. Their policies are discriminatory and hateful. They and their supporters should be confronted continually – if we do less, we are shirking our duty. We cannot stand by and see our nation descend into Fascism.
What we learn from this blather from you…
1. You have no more reason to post an opinion on an ethics site than I do posting on a neuro-surgery site
2. You’re a hyper-partisan, ignorant bigot.
3. You are hysterical, and
4. You are sadly typical of too many in your political ghetto.
5. I like to post ethics-free, idiotic comments like this from time to time, just as evidence of the mindless bias and hate floating out there in the name of “social justice.” I wouldn’t trust a dolt like you to distinguish justice from a Yorkshire terrier.
Dixon’s words were brave and more civil than Pence deserves. Pence, Trump, and the GOP are unAmerican; they are in league with the Soviet Union and the Jewish Commies in Hymie Town. Their policies are Marxist and Leninist and Trotskyite. They and their supporters should be confronted continually – if we do less, we are shirking our duty. We cannot stand by and see our nation descend into Communist Totalitarianism.
Great; we have another political hack in our midst, and this one likes to regurgitate predefined lefty extremist vomit comments.
Dixon’s words were brave and more civil than Pence deserves. Pence, Trump, and the GOP are unAmerican; they are in league with the KKK and the Nazis. Their policies are discriminatory and hateful. They and their supporters should be confronted continually – if we do less, we are shirking our duty. We cannot stand by and see our nation descend into Fascism.
But this is exactly what the discourse and the ideology of the Left understand as true. I have been finding that to do the historical back-tracking to understand it is that the Progressive faction came to see things in this way is a great part of the struggle. These are constructed views and they derive in large part from the discourse and the influence of Marxists who attacked the system. The purpose, at least on the part of those committed Marxist revolutionaries, was quite literally to topple those systems of government and install another one. When this did not happen as planned, in Western Europe in any case, their doctrines changed to some degree and it became Critical Marxism and Critical Theory. Through the educational institutions, and over 50 years+, these ideas have been woven into our thinking, not their thinking alone.
And our Present is substantially constructed on these bases.
The undermining of the validity and even the dignity of the family has been a significant part of this. So too has been the political and psychological project of turning woman against man and woman becoming a political agent in service to a subversive ideal. To take aberrant sexual behavior and elevate it to be at times not only equal to but superior to heterosexual sexuality, and broadcasting sexual licence, advertising it, getting people to participate in it, in short seducing and undermining culture and established, comprehensible morality while asserting a freak-show of alternative values as ‘normalcy’ describes the group of tools which have been used.
Social justice issues are certainly valid in and of themselves, but where it is hard to sort through is when these get blended in with other sorts of deviancy and all together get politicized in a particular way. That is when it is hard to sort out.
Now, on the other end of this is ‘average America’. These are the people of the community churches, the local neighborhoods, and it seems that they are not the class that received indoctrination in certain ideologies which seen from one angle are subversions. There you have the non-university educated class who are seeing things from a more down-to-earth level. Some HIV+ Black Latino Gay fellow with a loud mouth and who lives his life in the assumption that he is God’s Mouth-Piece of truth, goodness and justice, when they understand him as someone who violates natural laws and lives outside of the Pale, it is just THAT which the Left seems to have a hard time understanding.
Therefor, what seems to be happening is the conflict and the struggle between two very different interpretations of America and the question is: Which will be ascendant? Certainly what we see is a definite turn toward social conservatism, and may even become intolerant and harsh (as have many such historical events).
But the ultimate question is What sort of world does one desire to live in? What will be the acceptable parameters for that world in a moral sense?
Another nice comment, AT. I guess you would be considered a “counter-revolutionary.” Which is one of the most disingenuous terms ever coined by any propaganda outfit. Clearly you’re intending to warn people in the US about the real downsides of having Marxists in power. Something you’ve obviously experienced first hand. Keep it up.
Thanks for your comment. It is appreciated.
What I notice, perhaps you notice it too, is that the general progressive position, whether or not it is specifically Marxist or not, is much more complete and developed. I have two titles that have most impressed me in this sense: Robert Bellah’s ‘The Broken Covenent: American Civil Religion in Time of Trial’ and James J. Farrell’s ‘The Spirit of the Sixties: The Making of Postwar Radicalism’.
Farrell’s book is especially interesting because he locates the origins of Sixties activism in Catholic Personalism. He makes a good case for the connection between the religious-spiritual-philosophical impulse (a movement of conscience opposed to The Bomb, to war, to alienation, to machination, to social injustice, to economic injustice) and the Sixties movement generally. Peter Maurin, Thomas Merton, postwar pacifism. Then ‘Beat Personalism’ (Ginsberg), the Rexroth Circle of poets, then the Folk Movement and civil rights.
On the basis of reading that work I then researched through Google and YouTube who these different people were and especially what was the artistic production. But then too Angela Davis, Stokely Carmichael, King and X and many others.
For example John Trudeau “Crazy Horse”:
It is absolutely impossible to get around it. What I mean is that the content, the message, even the meaning, is overpowering. What can be held up to oppose it? Take for example the lyricism in the song ‘Get Together’ (Dino Valenti) or the Dylan song ‘When the Ship Comes In’. These are Sermons and they connect into a religious/spiritual sentiment which is as old and older than the Republic. As in John Winthrop’s “A Modell of Christian Charity” ( http://winthropsociety.com/doc_charity.php )
Bellah of course works this ‘essentialist’ religious theme and I cannot see how he can be opposed. America is essentially a religiously-motivated nation. It keeps coming up. It is part of the ‘fabric of being’.
Now, the question is: What set of definitions can oppose this one? the one I have referred to with Winthrop, Maurin, Rexroth and Trudell? The John Birch Society? William F. Buckley? Sarah Palin? Donald Trump?
When you research The Other Side — anyway this has been my discovery — it leads also to religious traditionalism but of a right-leaning variety. Julian Evola, Rene Guenon, and the defenders of a traditionalist Europe as with Corneliu Zelea Codreanu and his ‘Iron Guard’ (anti-semitic, anti-communist, ultra-nationalist, and anti-capitalist). But there is a strange connection between Trudell’s spirit of Crazy Horse and the idealistic and romantic resistance of the Iron Guard.
Thinking of America in its present state that is the reason I ask What America will be ascendent? Whose definition will one accept? If I am going to think in terms of nationalism, which nation? But right in the middle of this, of course, is the problematic of White Nationalism. That is why I certainly understand and sympathize (authentically) with Chris and Deery and the various ‘Ethics Bobs’ who pop in from time to time.
How else could they see things? What other structure of definition do they have? None. There is no other when you *inhabit* their perspectives.
A vast civil crisis looks to be on the horizon and I suppose everyone is aware of it and what it means.
What can possible resolve these disharmonics?
This is also worth listening to:
John Winthrop on the ship on the way to America:
“Thus stands the cause between God and us. We are entered into covenant with Him for this work. We have taken out a commission. The Lord hath given us leave to draw our own articles. We have professed to enterprise these and those accounts, upon these and those ends. We have hereupon besought Him of favor and blessing. Now if the Lord shall please to hear us, and bring us in peace to the place we desire, then hath He ratified this covenant and sealed our commission, and will expect a strict performance of the articles contained in it; but if we shall neglect the observation of these articles which are the ends we have propounded, and, dissembling with our God, shall fall to embrace this present world and prosecute our carnal intentions, seeking great things for ourselves and our posterity, the Lord will surely break out in wrath against us, and be revenged of such a people, and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant.
“Now the only way to avoid this shipwreck, and to provide for our posterity, is to follow the counsel of Micah, to do justly, to love mercy, to walk humbly with our God. For this end, we must be knit together, in this work, as one man. We must entertain each other in brotherly affection. We must be willing to abridge ourselves of our superfluities, for the supply of others’ necessities. We must uphold a familiar commerce together in all meekness, gentleness, patience and liberality. We must delight in each other; make others’ conditions our own; rejoice together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our commission and community in the work, as members of the same body. So shall we keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace. The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a by-word through the world. We shall open the mouths of enemies to speak evil of the ways of God, and all professors for God’s sake. We shall shame the faces of many of God’s worthy servants, and cause their prayers to be turned into curses upon us till we be consumed out of the good land whither we are going.
“And to shut this discourse with that exhortation of Moses, that faithful servant of the Lord, in his last farewell to Israel, Deut. 30. “Beloved, there is now set before us life and death, good and evil,” in that we are commanded this day to love the Lord our God, and to love one another, to walk in his ways and to keep his Commandments and his ordinance and his laws, and the articles of our Covenant with Him, that we may live and be multiplied, and that the Lord our God may bless us in the land whither we go to possess it. But if our hearts shall turn away, so that we will not obey, but shall be seduced, and worship other Gods, our pleasure and profits, and serve them; it is propounded unto us this day, we shall surely perish out of the good land whither we pass over this vast sea to possess it.
“Therefore let us choose life,
that we and our seed may live,
by obeying His voice and cleaving to Him,
for He is our life and our prosperity.”
This only further advances my belief that if the Left accuses the Right of doing g it, the Left probably already is or fully intends on doing it.
Grandstanding to demand Pence “remember to protect us” makes me fully convinced that the left never had any intention to “protect” the inalienable rights of the Right…
“[I]f the Left accuses the Right of doing it, the Left probably already is or fully intends on doing it.”
Exactly – most obviously evidence by the arrogantly, presumptuously, leftysphere’s premature pre-Election Night intonations of, “Trump and his supporters had BETTER accept the results of this election!”
My apologies for my terribly awkward sentence above, compounded by misspelling…so, another try: “Exactly – most obviously evidenced by the leftysphere’s arrogantly, presumptuously premature pre-Election Night intonations of, “Trump and his supporters had BETTER accept the results of this election!”
This is absolutely unacceptable behavior from the actor, the cast, the stage manager and the theater manager. The stage manager should have ordered lights out, cut all the mic’s, and dropped the main curtain.
I don’t condone this and I really hate to say this, but this is the perfect opportunity for unethical wing-nuts on the right to dish out a bit of what the unethical wing-nuts on the left have been doing for quite some time and watch the blatant hypocrisy pour out from the left about violating their freedom of speech; boycott and picket the theater with hundreds if not thousands of people until they either fire the actor, the stage manager, and the theater director or close the show – no apology will be sufficient, destroy their careers and the business; boycott the actor forever, the theatrical company and the physical theater until all new management takes over both promising to never allow this behavior to happen again.
Again, I don’t condone this.
Let them boycott. They weren’t going to see the show anyway.
You wouldn’t have any problem with picketers protesting the show forcing it to permanently close and putting all those people out of work because someone voiced their lefty political opinion during the show? You’re fine with that?
What? How did we get there? I thought we were talking about people just choosing not to see the show. I presume they have the right to picket outside the theater, though I’d think they’re stupid to do so. There are never going to be enough people doing that that would force the show to “permanently close.” That’s a laughable hypothetical.
Chris said, “What? How did we get there? I thought we were talking about people just choosing not to see the show. “
You’re showing off your Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome again.
How about you read the 123 words inbetween the two boldfaced statements “I don’t condone this” in the comment I made above and figure out on your own where your comprehension is in error.
You’re right, I failed to read the whole rant.
My answer is pretty much the same: let ’em try. It’s not going to work.
Chris said, “I failed to read the whole rant.”
That was a rant? Look up the definition dork.
Why don’t your do your trolling on some other website?
Chris said, “I presume they have the right to picket outside the theater, though I’d think they’re stupid to do so. There are never going to be enough people doing that that would force the show to “permanently close.” That’s a laughable hypothetical.”
Let me understand this better; this kind of behavior is “stupid”?
Do you know how many people have been fired, forced to retire, or prevent from speaking on a campus because there were a bunch of loud mouthed “stupid”people protesting something they disagreed with? Of course maybe this kind of behavior is only “stupid” when those on the political right think about doing it because it sure seems to be completely appropriate in the narrow-minded Sasquatch Brains of some in the political left.
You’re laughable hypothetical isn’t so damned hypothetical in today’s political climate.
First, the actor stepped out of character to deliver his rant. If the producers of Hamilton had any ethical integrity they would fire this jerk immediately and send a letter of apology to Pence. But knowing about how Btoadway works, they probably won’t.
I note my typo. It should be “Broadway” rather than “Btoadway”. However, after thinking about it a bit, “Btoadway” sort of fits.
Give my regards to Btroadway
Remember me to Hterald Squtare
Tell all the gang at Ftorty-Stecond Street
That I will soon be there
Whisper of how I’m ytearning
To mingle with the old ttime tthrong
Give my regards to old Btroadway
And say that I’ll bte tthere et’er ltong!
I love that song!
He didn’t “step out of character.” The show was over. The producers and the show’s creator collaborated on the speech, so they won’t be firing him.
Imagine the actors were McDonald’s employees. Mike Pence walks in and orders a McRib, (Because he’s an awful person and enjoys the thought of causing the extinction of whatever animal McDonald’s is putting in the McRib this season.) the burger guy takes the order, takes his money, spits on the McRib in front of Pence, and says “Have a great Day”
You’re arguing that it’s OK to spit in Pence’s burger because Pence is Pence, and everyone planned to spit in his food.
I’m more inclined to think that since so many things are being done differently these days, that this is just one more example. Isn’t that, supposedly, what the last two years of trash talking and political theater have been about? The ordinary rules of civility and interaction have been out the window for a while, all under the auspices of a guy who “tells it like it is.” If he can do it, I believe he gives us all permission to do likewise, even in places with strong and standing traditions like the theater. Over and over, the message is this is a new time, political correctness is dead, and we should all just “get over it.” New times; new rules, for us all, it would seem.
“If he can do it, I believe he gives us all permission to do likewise, even in places with strong and standing traditions like the theater.”
Arghhh! Rationalization upon rationalization!!!
1A. Ethics Surrender, or “We can’t stop it.”
This is the rationalization that argues that if society is incapable of effectively preventing unethical conduct, for whatever reason, we might as well stop regarding that conduct as wrong. This is yet another variation on the most common and insidious rationalization of them all and #1 on the list: “Everybody Does It.”
The Golden Rationalization has many variations, among them…
“It’s done all the time.”
“It’s always been done this way.”
“It’s tradition.”
“Everybody is used to it.”
“Everybody accepts it.”
“Nobody’s complained before.”
“It’s too late to change now.”
…and others. Ethics Surrender, however, warrants particular attention, as it encourages moral cowardice and ethics complacency. “We can’t stop it” is a lazy capitulation that assumes cultures can’t change, and we know they can and do change, both for better and worse, all the time. One society has been convinced, though legitimate, persistent, coherent and ethically valid arguments, that a common practice or conduct is bad for society, society can stop or seriously inhibit that unethical practice of behavior, either by law, regulation, or best of all, the evolution of cultural consensus. The examples of an Ethics Surrender resulting in undesirable societal consequences are too numerous to list, and many of them are still controversial. I would assign having children out of wedlock, adultery, lying by elected leaders and the use of illegal recreational drugs to the “We can’t stop it, so let’s say it’s not so bad” category. The most obvious and currently significant example is illegal immigration, wrong, but increasingly being rationalized by both advocates and lawmakers who have run out of ideas and principle. At this moment, we are hearing the defenders of dubious police shootings making that argument to avoid examining possible changes in law enforcement policy so there will be fewer deaths without putting police in peril.
Ethics is hard. Rationalization 1A, Ethics Surrender, or “We can’t stop it,” wrongly concludes that it is impossible.
2. Ethics Estoppel, or “They’re Just as Bad”
The mongrel offspring of The Golden Rationalization and the Bible-based dodges a bit farther down the list, the “They’re Just as Bad” Excuse is both a rationalization and a distraction. As a rationalization, it posits the absurd argument that because there is other wrongdoing by others that is similar, as bad or worse than the unethical conduct under examination, the wrongdoer’s conduct shouldn’t be criticized or noticed. As a distraction, the excuse is a pathetic attempt to focus a critic’s attention elsewhere, by shouting, “Never mind me! Why aren’t you going after those guys?”
2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming”
The other familiar, equally absurd but even more corrupting manifestation of Rationalization 2 is the “They had it coming” variation or essentially the ethics of the Mob, “The Godfather” and Hollywood revenge fantasies. This argues that wrongdoing toward a party isn’t really wrong when the aggrieved party has aggrieved the avenger. The victim of the unethical conduct no longer deserves ethical treatment because of the victim’s own misconduct.
But the misconduct of a victim never justifies unethical conduct directed against that victim.
PS…nothing’s changed. Some people just want to abandon ethical conduct because its easier to do what they want that way. Bad, BAD idea.
I’m with Deery on this. As a teacher and writer on ethics i’m wrestling with the new reality: While civility is an ethical virtue, it has been smashed in our political discourse. It’s up to our leaders, left and right, to put it back together, God help us.
Meanwhile there’s a big chunk of our society that is frightened, with real justification. Our society needs to hear their voices and understand. The actor, on behalf of the cast, was asking for understanding and healing. I think we should cut him (them) some slack.
Ethics Bob said, “I’m with Deery on this.”
You choose your ethical counterpart at your own peril.
Ethics Bob said, “As a teacher and writer on ethics i’m wrestling with the new reality”
You mean the reality where you perform an ethical flush to join in an unethical movement?
If this is the way you think then you should stop teaching, you’re doing a disservice to your students.
I’m so happy to see you commenting here that I’m not even going to argue with you!
(but you still are wrong.)
How can I argue with that?
But the speech was perfectly civil. Jack’s main argument is that it was the wrong venue for it…but he’s probably not going to be able to convince me that a nakedly political play, which celebrates immigration and diversity, led by cast members who are immigrant and gay and HIV+ actors, was the wrong place to deliver a (again, completely civil) political message to an incoming Vice President whose career has been marked by aggressive hostility toward these people.
Or he might, but he hasn’t so far.
Chris said, “But the speech was perfectly civil.”
One rationalization after another.
Is that all you folks have?
It is. It’s really quite amazing. Check the pro-Hamilton arguments against the list I posted in the last John Oliver tweet:
1. The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it”
1A. Ethics Surrender, or “We can’t stop it.”
2. Ethics Estoppel, or “They’re Just as Bad”
2 A. Sicilian Ethics, or “They had it coming”
7. The “Tit for Tat” Excuse
11.(a) “I deserve this!” or “Just this once!”
13. The Saint’s Excuse: “It’s for a good cause”
14. Self-validating Virtue
15. The Futility Illusion: “If I don’t do it, somebody else will.”
22. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things.”
24. Juror 3’s Stand (“It’s My Right!”)
24. A. Free Speech Confusion
27. The Victim’s Distortion
28. The Revolutionary’s Excuse: “These are not ordinary times.”
29. The Altruistic Switcheroo: “It’s for his own good”
31. The Troublesome Luxury: “Ethics is a luxury we can’t afford right now”
32. The Unethical Role Model: “He/She would have done the same thing”
36. Victim Blindness, or “They/He/She/ You should have seen it coming.”
41. The Evasive Tautology, or “It is what it is.”
47. Contrived Consent, or “The Rapist’s Defense.”
50A. Narcissist Ethics , or “I don’t care”
52. The Hippie’s License, or “If it feels good, do it!” (“It’s natural”)
54. The Joke Excuse, or “I was only kidding!”
58. The Golden Rule Mutation, or “I’m all right with it!”
59. The Ironic Rationalization, or “It’s The Right Thing To Do”
61. The Paranoid’s Blindness, or “It’s not me, it’s you.”
62. The Doomsday License
Plus the just added #63 and #63A…
There is so much data supporting my argument that there is a societal ethical flush happening, this is just one more little piece of evidence.
Imagine the actors were McDonald’s employees. Mike Pence walks in and orders a McRib, (Because he’s an awful person and enjoys the thought of causing the extinction of whatever animal McDonald’s is putting in the McRib this season.) the burger guy takes the order, takes his money, spits on the McRib in front of Pence, and says “Have a great Day”
You’re arguing that it’s OK to spit in Pence’s burger because Pence is Pence, and people are afraid of him. .
Perhaps with a side of “it’ll heal America.”
I really hated trump but I am starting to think he was exactly what we needed to undeniably expose to any rational citizen that we are in trouble from the very party who is supposed too champion liberalism. The party is doing nothing to fix this, they cannot be trusted on anything anymore, they are broken, maybe permanently.
In what way is a group of actors delivering a respectful plea to an incoming Vice President contradictory to “championing liberalism?” The mind boggles.
Yes, by all means, let’s keep politics out of the play about black Founding Fathers.
Why are you being deliberately obtuse? The musical is the musical, and every audience member has a right and expectation to see and hear it as written. The deliberate slanting of the dialogue and songs against Pence? Firing offense. Juvenile, high school stuff.
The deliberate slanting of the dialogue and songs against Pence? Firing offense. Juvenile, high school stuff.
How was there “deliberate slanting of the dialogue and songs against Pence”? The entire musical is about celebrating the immigrant experience, and comic aside about a peeved, spoiled ruler who can’t stand criticism who ricochets between self-pity and threats. Have you listened to the musical yet? Apparently Pence didn’t. There is no way for any audience member paying attention not to draw the direct parallels, and laugh at the irony. There is no need to “slant” anything. It’s all there, on the surface.
Totally agree. It is unprofessional act from Hamilton cast. However, the speaker is more responsible for his thought. Is his speech stood for everyone in Hamilton crew?
I wanted to see this play, but now, I never will, at least not with the original cast.
This is the single most offensive thing I have heard in quite some time. If I were Pence, my reaction would have been… less temperate — like you, Jack.
Clearly, this cast has fallen in love with the subject matter of their play, and somehow feels it empowers them to offer unwanted and unnecessary commentary on a subject for which they now consider themselves experts by reason of the story plot.
I’m sorry, but rarely has anything struck me as more absurd.
The lack of professionalism that has infected this cast renders it unqualified to perform the play. They should resign, and perhaps go into politics — after all, that seems to be exactly what their interests have become. So I say, “Stand for an election. Suffer the depredations of your opponents with dignity and class like Pence did. Then get back to me.”
Idiots.
“I wanted to see this play, but now, I never will, at least not with the original cast.”
The original cast is already gone. This was not the original cast.
“This is the single most offensive thing I have heard in quite some time.”
Seriously? This? Your bubble must be strong for this to be the most offensive king you’ve heard in a while.
I’m more offended by Pence supporting electroshock therapy to torture gay teens into becoming straight, but that’s just me.
Here’s a quality response from a person on your side of the isle, Chris. He pretty much agrees with me:
Exactly right, and you’re exactly wrong.
I am sorry, but I cannot get past that this guy stepped out of character WHILE IN COSTUME AND MAKE-UP, IN FRONT OF THE AUDIENCE. Perhaps the best role I have ever had was of Bob Ewell in “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Given the nature of the role, I deemed it appropriate to remain in character for the curtain call. I had the pleasure of hearing several whispered comments from the audience regarding my personal character and the marital status of my parents. My director finally gave up trying to get me to take my hat off and my hands out of my pockets.
am sorry, but I cannot get past that this guy stepped out of character WHILE IN COSTUME AND MAKE-UP, IN FRONT OF THE AUDIENCE.
The show was over. The cast frequently addresses the audience out of character after the show. This is common for many shows these days.
It is NOT “common.” If it is becoming more frequent, it is only because “Hamilton” has done it, and is getting away with it. SEE: “THE KING’s PASS”
https://ethicsalarms.com/rule-book/unethical-rationalizations-and-misconceptions/
“The King’s Pass” is an excuse for unethical behavior. Since there is nothing remotely unethical about post-show addresses to the audience, it doesn’t apply.
I wouldn’t think a speech like this to Pence would be unethical if it were done by a high school drama club.
Imagine the actors were McDonald’s employees. Mike Pence walks in and orders a McRib, (Because he’s an awful person and enjoys the thought of causing the extinction of whatever animal McDonald’s is putting in the McRib this season.) the burger guy takes the order, takes his money, spits on the McRib in front of Pence, and says “Have a great Day”
You’re arguing that it’s OK to spit in Pence’s burger because spitting in burgers isn’t unethical. Or maybe the spit isn’t spit. Maybe Pence looked thirsty and McBurgerdude thought to share his mouth-water.
You’re nuts. I’m arguing that it’s OK for McBurgerdude to deliver an eloquent and civil speech to Pence after he gives him a perfectly good burger, provided management says he’s allowed to do it. That’s it. You can disagree with this, but the spit analogy is bullshit. No one spit on Pence. They spoke to him.
These things aren’t mutually exclusive, and perhaps we use a significantly different definition of “eloquent” and “civil”.
“Goest thou to hell, and swiftly please, and there may Azmodaeus himself suckle from your diseased teat!”
“I have already prepared my counter-proposal. It reads thusly: You may strategically place your wonderful lips upon my posterior and kiss it repeatedly!”
I am so glad I read your last two paragraphs there HT! Made my day! Now, onward for me, stealing those quotes…
They’re actually from Dark Shadows (2012).
The actions of the performers are something I wouldn’t have even expected out of a high school drama class. Though I am sure the preparation behind the scenes for this little stunt were just like the actions and attitudes of a bunch of high schoolers. Professional performers? I think not.
Great point. They are acting like teenagers, but that seems to be what the U.S. academy is turning out these days. I don’t think they are an aberration.
Art, even musical theater art, should not be burdened with the banality of a speech, no matter how honest, true, or heartfelt. It would be like using an exhibition of The Pieta to rant about the need to prevent mothers from needing to mourn the loss of a child. Hamilton’s creators are not Michelangelo, but there is art there. The subtle message of Hamilton is lost when a speech follows with directed content. Art vs. Speechifying. Don’t distract me from the art with your speech, no matter if I agree with it.
Bingo. Perfectly said, Patrice, and a non-political angle I did not cover.
But there is tons of speechifying in Hamilton. The show is not subtle with its messages. At all. The creator himself signed off on this. If he feels this is an appropriate accompaniment to his work of art, then I trust his judgment.
Yes, and the author proved himself a deluded, self-important, unprofessional jerk by approving it, and if I were the director (an author has NO control over a production once it opens, as long as the work isn’t altered), I would demand that he back off. It’s not his call, and this was not part of the show as written. Christ, Chris, would you make the same silly argument if he told the cast it could spit at Pence? Surround him? Call him names in Revolutionary jargon? No audience member submits himself or herself for such harassment. It doesn’t matter who does it, why they do it, who the audience member is, who approves it—IT IS WRONG, and I have specified many ways why.
Yes, and the author proved himself a deluded, self-important, unprofessional jerk by approving it, and if I were the director (an author has NO control over a production once it opens, as long as the work isn’t altered), I would demand that he back off. It’s not his call, and this was not part of the show as written.
The director also signed off on it.
This was not inserted into the show, this happened after the show had ended.
Christ, Chris, would you make the same silly argument if he told the cast it could spit at Pence? Surround him? Call him names in Revolutionary jargon? No audience member submits himself or herself for such harassment.
Those are all examples of actual harassment, Jack. Those actions would be unethical regardless of the venue or context. The speech they gave was not harassment, and wouldn’t have been in any context. You must know this comparison makes no sense.
I apologize if someone else mentioned this already in the portion of the comments that are unreadable on the screen of my smartphone, but even if we grant that curtain speeches, including partisan political appeals and shoutouts by name to individual audience members, are part of the “‘Hamilton’ experience,” I still fault the cast for unprofessional behavior on the basis of what they did during the performance itself.
Mr. Marshall has concentrated on Dixon’s direct address to Pence at the end of the show, but full accounts of the evening make it clear that the performance itself was subtly yet tellingly different due to Pence’s presence. Certain lines were said to be delivered in an unusually pointed fashion, and the actor playing King George reportedly sang one of his songs in such a fashion as to make it clear that he was consciously directing the lyrics (“When your people say they hate you/Don’t come crawling back to me”) specifically to Pence. Several times, the show was halted in the middle of a song while the audience reacted, not to an especially brilliant line or masterful performance, but to a lyric they perceived as socking it to Pence in some way. One song was supposedly punctuated with jeers from the audience (toward Pence) every *line* or so. And the cast allowed and encouraged the rest of the audience to abuse one of its members in this fashion.
I don’t believe for one second that everyone in that audience participated in turning a Broadway musical into a public shaming of Mike Pence. There were people in that theater who had never heard the name “Mike Pence” six months ago or whenever, when they shelled out several hundred dollars for a ticket, and they just wanted to lose themselves in an evening of entertainment, to enjoy a story and some good music. The cast had a professional responsibility to those people, and they deserve an apology as much as Mike Pence does. If I’d been there, I would be asking for a refund.
“I apologize if someone else mentioned this already in the portion of the comments that are unreadable on the screen of my smartphone,”
Your phone is probably in “reader” or “mobile” mode. Scroll to the very bottom of the page and click “Desktop view”
Thank you! Now I can find out what I’ve been missing … although in this particular comment section, I’m not terribly certain I want to.
TRIGGER WARNING: Don’t read this vomit comment if you don’t want your cottled little safe haven violated by someone that has never handed out participation trophy and never will.
You’ve been warned.
I’ve seen the regurgitation of one unethical rationalization after another in this thread trying to justify the actions of the cast, crew, producer, director, and maybe even the authors. The actions are NOT justifiable. Haven’t any of you people that are justifying this unethical action learned a damn thing while participating in conversations on this website or do you intentionally perform an ethical flush whenever you feel the need to wield that ends justify the means tool that’s “handed” to a student when they pass political hack 101?
Some of you have learned well how to be a Political Hack but when will you people learn that just because people have the right to do something, doesn’t mean what people do is right. I suspect some of you Liberal/Progressive hive minded drones have a character code error limiting your mental capacity to actually learn that fact, and that makes you stupid. I think the cranial power generation potential value for a couple of you some of you with foot-in-mouth syndrome is rapidly approaching infinity.
What this performance did was wrong – period. Choices have consequences, I suspect that none of those political hacks have considered that.
If you take offence to this comment then you are part of the problem. It’s time for you to look in your personal character mirror and start becoming self-aware of your character flaws. My hope for civility of the United States continues to be diminished because of political hacks like you.
That was my vomit comment; if you want to tango, you better bring your A game; otherwise you can just politily fuck off.
Vomit comment rant complete.
Rationalizations are, literally, all there is. There is no ethical justification. Objectively, I haven’t seen one yet.
It’s been my experience that an individual, though elevated to the public sphere, has every reason to assume that, though the public be more likely to engage him on public matters, would not do so in a circumstance or in a manner that any other citizen would not expect. That is to say, the soon to be Vice President, SHOULD expect the public to be more likely to engage him on public topics at any given time, but he should ALSO expect them to still follow the decent protocols of any other discourse. The actors and actresses, if they wished to engaged Mr. Pence, ought have followed the same manners to guide any civil discourse.
That being said, Mr. Pence only received rude grandstanding? It could’ve been considerably worse — I just don’t understand disgruntled Democrat actors making brash political statements against Republicans at theaters…
I haven’t yet gained the know how of this style of technology. Please change my name to Abraham Lincoln and not the confounded blasphemous “screen name” as your generation so styles it that I was assigned.
Here’s Ann Althouse:
The audience had just witnessed the reenacted shooting to death of the great American, Alexander Hamilton. The actor delivering the lecture was Brandon Victor Dixon, who plays Aaron Burr, the man who killed Hamilton. Years ago, in a theater, a President of the United States was shot by a politically overheated actor. I understand hustling Mike Pence out of that place.
“It is bullying.”
“How so? Pence wasn’t even there.”
I don’t think even a progressive wants to take the position that something isn’t bullying just because the victim wasn’t there at the time. It kicks the support out from under much of its rhetoric.
Of course that would apply in a world where the same rules apply to everyone. Progressive fundamentalists don’t recognize ethics.
I don’t think even a progressive wants to take the position that something isn’t bullying just because the victim wasn’t there at the time.
The message itself was not bullying.
Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us at Hamilton: An American Musical, we really do. We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf all of us. All of us. Again we truly thank you for [attending our] show—this wonderful American story told be a diverse group of men and women of different colors, creeds, and orientations.”
Thee statement itself is rather innocuous, as far as these things go. So I assumed that Jack meant it was bullying by keeping Pence captive, or directly addressing him from the stage? If so, it would not constitute bullying either, because Pence had left by then. It wasn’t very clear how Jack meant it, which is why I asked.
The full message:
Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you so much for joining us tonight. You know, we had a guest in the audience this evening. And Vice President-elect Pence, I see you walking out, but I hope you will hear us just a few more moments. There’s nothing to boo here, ladies and gentlemen. There’s nothing to boo here. We’re all here sharing a story of love. We have a message for you, sir, and we hope that you will hear us out. And I encourage everybody to pull out your phones and tweet and post because this message needs to be spread far and wide, O.K.? Vice President-elect Pence, we welcome you and we truly thank you for joining us here at “Hamilton: An American Musical”. We really do. We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet,
(interrupted by cheering)
our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir. But we truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us…. ALL of us.
(waited for applause)
Again we truly thank you for sharing this show, this wonderful American story told by a diverse group of men, women of different colors, creeds and orientations.
(which of course leaves out the finger waving directed at the Pence)
“Progressive fundamentalists don’t recognize ethics.”
ANOTHER quotable! Damn! I have missed too much of this thread for too long!
Every person that attends a theatrical performance is paying to see the “exact same performance” that everyone else has seen from the beginning of the show to the end of the show – meaning house open to house closed; any intentional deviation that changes how the show is perceived by the audience is a breech of theatrical ethics. Any breech of these theatrical ethics can permanently damage the reputation of the show itself, the performing company, and the venue. Heads should roll because of this breech of theatrical ethics.
In my opinion; the ethical thing to do is to refund every single penny of the ticket purchased price to every person in that in that theater that evening – no exceptions. Also; this intentional deviation “could be” bordering on a breech of contract (depending on the contract) with the owner of the venue, this could damage the reputation of the venue; since this is a long standing professional theatrical venue, I’m guessing there is a clause in that contract that attempts to protect the venue’s reputation from acts perpetrated by the performing company.
If I may ask. And you may not know the answer but, was the cast going to make that statement anyway, or did they make a statement as a response to pence being booed when we took his seat?
Neither. They had planned it before the show, knowing Pence would be there.