Should critics disclose their ideological biases? Before reading a review, should we know if the writer is a secular humanist, or a Republican unilateralist, or a pro-capital punishment atheist libertarian, etc? I really don’t know—but even raising the question probably makes me sound like a member of the thought police. One oughtn’t discuss sex, religion or politics in polite company, right? The issue has been on my mind ever since Wall Street Journal theater critic Terry Teachout blogged his disapproval over President Obama’s patronage of a Broadway show. I dashed off a grouchy e-mail to Terry, basically accusing him of being a water carrier for the right, which he then blogged about. He kept me anonymous there, but I’ll out myself as being disappointed in him for putting his political fealty above his support for Broadway, which endows him with some professional glamour.
This is a complicated issue, to be sure. Terry loudly and repeatedly identifies himself as a lone voice in the American wilderness, reviewing regional shows coast to coast while his colleagues in New York sit on their bloated buttocks in Broadway and Off Broadway houses, ignorant of heartland dramatics. We are the true provincials, apparently. Let’s ignore the fact that most communities where you can find regional theaters already have media outlets, making Terry’s peregrinations somewhat superfluous and touristy. Let’s also ignore the fact that there are probably many Off-Off and experimental shows here in New York that are denied Terry’s critical acumen. Did Terry see Blasted at Soho Rep? The Shipment at the Kitchen? Will he make it out to Cynthia Hopkins’s The Success of Failure (or, the Failure of Success) at St. Ann’s Warehouse? Seriously, I want to know. I suspect that he would hate every one of them on ideological grounds, but more on that later.
Otherwise, it’s true: Terry is the only New York theater critic I know who will truck out to Texas for Awake and Sing or Virginia to catch Stoppard. I don’t envy him all that time stuck in planes, trains and automobiles, but I do admire the wide-angle experience he amasses from watching so much theater around the country. Terry styles himself a passionate advocate for regional theater, for supporting stages in your own backyard. Who can argue against that?
Which brings us to his blog post about President Obama and First Lady Michelle traveling to New York and seeing a performance of Joe Turner’s Come and Gone on Saturday. Terry first notes that the trip cost the American taxpayer $24,000, which I guess is meant to shock us into torches and pitchforks. How much taxpayer treasure do you suppose subsidized Bush’s outrageously frequent trips (77 total) to and from and his ranch in Crawford? Terry praises Obama for attending a show he recommended (thank God they didn’t take in Billy Elliot; the witty headline of Terry’s Billy review was “Karl Marx in a Tutu”). But ultimately, he chastises Obama for not supporting local theater at Washington D.C.’s Kennedy Center or Studio Theatre.
This criticism comes from the same playbook used by former GOP Senator Rick Santorum, who went on Fox Monday night to critique the New York outing as self-indulgent and elitist. Obama, Santorum opined, should be content taking Michelle to the corner bar for a shot and a beer. Such offensive concern trollery is meant to pander to regular folks who may not be able to scrape together the time and money to see a Broadway show. But guess what? It’s those regular folks from every corner of this country, the tourists, who keep Broadway alive. Without them, few shows would stay open. Maybe Terry should wag his finger in the direction of tourists and tell them to stay put and patronize the nearest regional theater or high-school auditorium. But then, he might be out of a job and forced to cover community theater in Wichita.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m all for the health and growth of regional theater across the country, but I’m also, naturally, a booster of New York theater. It’s where I live and it’s what I love. I don’t see Broadway and regional theaters as mutually exclusive or competitors.
So, was Terry clucking his tongue over the Obamas because his Republican knickers are in a twist over this intelligent, beloved, cultured and sophisticated Democratic leader? Is Terry a hopelessly conservative theater critic, blinded by his own loyalty to the Grand Old Party—or just a theater critic who happens to be conservative and works for a right-wing paper? I honestly don’t know. Terry and I have never sat down and talked theater—much less politics—so I don’t know if he’s a rabid right-wing paranoiac or just a harmless nostalgiamonger with kitsch for brains.
Judging by his reviews, you can be sure that anything that smacks of a liberal agenda he instantly deems Bad Art. His negative, outlier reviews of Black Watch, the aforementioned Billy Elliot and even second-rate work such as Durang’s Why Torture Is Wrong… indicate a bone-deep conservative who probably supported the war in Iraq, but is horribly offended by a musical in which coal miners band together against privatization in the 1980s.
Should Terry’s writing come with a disclaimer? “Warning: Review may contain undisclosed right-wing obsessions, which override possibly valid aesthetic judgments.”
Well, what about me? Am I free of ideological bias? Of course not. I’m your garden-variety urban, liberal, secular humanist. I believe that churches should be taxed and the arts should be subsidized threefold. I despised Bush and am delirious that Obama is in office. I find the Republicans, Fox News, etc., clownish and sad. I like living in a city. I like the arts. I believe we should lessen our dependence on God, guns, drugs and oil. We should live green, eat healthy, and everyone should marry whomever he/she wants.
As someone who loves drama, the burning question for me is not whether Terry is conservative, or how it colors his criticism—but how he got that way. I’m totally serious. To me, it’s a pathology, an aberration, a mental mutation. Why would a presumably intelligent lover of the arts identify with a party that is marked by philistinism, corporatism, recklessness in war and spending, demagoguery, pollution, homophobia and hypocritical religious pandering? What pleasure or solace does it afford him? I open it up to you, dear readers—left, center, right—do enlighten me.
You’re both right: Terry is right about supporting the regional theatre, you are right about the Republican Party. The cost of the NYC trip is a red herring — Terry ought to know better. The issue about ideological disclaimers is a red herring — you ought to know better.
It seems evident to me from reading Teachout’s reviews that he doesn’t seem fond of plays that have any sort of tints of liberal political feelings. And the cost issue is irrelevant.
And in terms of the issue of seeing theater in Washington D.C., the only real discount would have been not taking Marine One. How much of that cost goes towards secret service, the motorcade, etc.?
Personally, I don’t take issues with people due to their political affiliation. But I don’t think that critics should allow their political, or religious, affiliation to color their reviews. Also, isn’t John Simon a conservative?
And while he may be championing regional theater, I believe that Mr. Teachout has yet to review any professional shows in Iowa where I review theater. Although some companies might not fit into his views on what to review, I have a hard time believing that he would overlook a theater that is known for it’s annual Shakespeare festival.
Terry didn’t really seem to be doing anything in his original post than reporting the reaction of the conservative right to the Obamas’ visit; the first paragraph reads, in full:
“President Obama’s trip to Broadway to see August Wilson’s Joe Turner’s Come and Gone is reported to have cost the American taxpayer some $24,000, a statistic that did not escape the watchful eye of his political enemies. Says Gail Gitcho, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee: ‘If President Obama wants to go to the theater, isn’t the presidential box at the Kennedy Center good enough?’”
If there’s any explicit disapproval here, it’s beyond me, unless the mere reportage of the cost and Gitcho’s comment constitute agreement with the view expressed. The rest of the post seems to be Terry’s usual insistence that shows of similar quality to those in New York are available in Washington as well as elsewhere, and that the Obamas might take in visits to those theatres as well. I imagine bloggers dedicated to regional theatre like Scott Walters would agree.
It’s fine for David to explain his own political stance, but there’s no obligation for Terry to express his; he’s never done so, and why he should start now I don’t know. (Full disclosure: I’ve known Terry for five or six years now as a friend, or at least an acquaintance, and although our tastes in theatre are wildly different and I assume our politics are as well, I can’t think of a single instance in which he panned or raved about a show for political reasons; I have no reason to think he compromises his critical acumen, whatever I may think of it, for anything.)
I am an artist, a frequent theatergoer for the past 39 years (locally, in New York and in Europe), and a conservative. I doubt that I’m going to make much headway on the liberalism vs. conservatism issue in this space.
The Obama Broadway visit issue is, to me, ridiculous. Yes, people should support their local theaters. Yes, even a president is entitled to make recreational trips once in a while. Can we stop talking about this now?
My conservatism is based, to me, on reality. I believe people do best when they take responsibility for their own lives. I also believe that some people (terrorists, criminals, dictators, etc.) are so far corrupted that they cannot be deterred by talking to them nicely. Beyond that, I think we’re going to have to find a different forum.
If you’re conservative and like the arts, you have to get used to spending a lot of time interacting with, and experiencing the work of, people who disagree with you politically. If Terry Teachout truly panned the work of liberal artists, he’d pan everything. At least one show he raved about, AVENUE Q, contains a song that takes a completely gratuitous, audience-pandering swipe at George W. Bush (who, otherwise, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the piece). After Bush left office, the producers made a publicized search for a replacement line, then decided to keep the Bush line anachronistically in. It just got too good a reaction from the audience. And Teachout still likes the show. QED?
I would like to make two observations about this issue of liberalism, conservatism and the arts. The first is, I’m not sure that any culture can long thrive when its elites have contempt for their own society. This isn’t unique to the USA, but it seems characteristic of modern bourgeois democracy. Homer and Sophocles didn’t think Greece was
uniquely to blame for all of its conflicts in the world. Shakespeare and Jane Austen didn’t think England was uniquely to blame for all of its conflicts in the world. And none of these artists seemed to view their own countrymen as a bunch of bigoted yahoos. I’m not sure any society can survive with that attitude on the part of its elites and opinionmakers.
Secondly, do you really think it serves our culture to have every single artistic voice in it sharing one political belief system? Is unison now really better than mere harmony? Are you who have prided yourselves on the ability to appreciate nuance, to see beyond black and white, really now subscribing to the view that one side of the political coin is objectively right, and the other psychotically deluded? Finally, it was one thing when you held these views and conservative Republicans were in power. But now liberal Democrats are in power. So, now you’re basically supporting and cozying up to those in power, and throwing dirt on those who are not. Is that really where you want to be?
Just asking.
Let me quickly respond to Hunka and Big M.
George: You’re welcome to defend Terry (who has said nice things about your plays) but I am not quite convinced by the forced naivete of your defense of his post. You’re always going on (on your blog) about how ideology taints our perception of reality, the numinous, the phenomenal, and whatnot—is political ideology to be excepted from that?
And Big M: I am truly flummoxed by any attempt to link liberalism with contempt or disregard for the average American citizen, and conservatism with its inclusive, public-spirited opposite.
Your position cannot possibly be based on the last two terms of the Bush Administration. Sending thousands of men and women to die in a baseless war in Iraq; giving over energy policy to energy corporations; hobbling a Federal agency and filling it with cronies so that it’s unable to properly respond to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina; using a color-coded terror alert system to keep the public jumpy and fearful during election cycles; spying on our citizens and ready to detain them indefinitely without charging them with a crime; and institutionalizing torture as foreign policy; are not all these legacy atrocities from Bush not evidence of greater contempt for the common man than anything the Obama Administration has thus far pursued?
How on earth can you continue to perpetuate the lie that liberals disrespect everyday Americans—whoever the heck they might be. Spare us your tin-plated populism.
No, David. No doubt ideology informs all of that. But I do know from speaking to Terry (as well as from reading his reviews) that he’s extraordinarily aware of that, and awareness is the main thing. Just because he doesn’t proclaim his political beliefs, as you are proud to do, loudly and repeatedly, doesn’t mean that he’s unaware of the dynamic.
And you’ve said nice things about my plays as well (and I’ve acknowledged the good review TONY gave to In Public too), so I’m not sure what you’re getting at with that particular comment, which you parenthesize for some reason. But I’ll let it slide.
Terry Teachout sometimes writes very thoughtful pieces–and sometimes,when it suits his politics, sounds like a raver. He doesn’t want to hide it–or try to hide it. I just roll my eyes and turn the page. Grow up, guys. He doesn’t need defending–or delousing.
Mr. Cote: I am no populist. And surely the copy is getting yellowed on that boilerplate list of Bush administration sins. (I can’t resist commenting on two: you’ll find the public a mite more sophisticated than perpetually indignant liberals on the need to do unpleasant things in wartime; and while you may want to believe that only Republicans hobble government agencies with political appointees, the recent quashing of a slam-dunk voter Philadelphia intimidation case by political Justice Department appointees should convince you that such things know no party).
But are you really going to pretend that the view of the American masses as rednecks is a figment of conservative imagination? After all the ruminations (including one by the current president) about bitter white males clinging to religion and guns? After all the What’s the Matter with Kansas bilge about Americans being gulled into stupidly voting for Republicans by the religious right? After all the nonsense about 9/11 being caused by American policies, Bush defeating Kerry because of Rove-hypontized masses voting against gay marriage, fat Americans buying SUVs and turning their thermostats down to avoid action on climate change, Americans being led around by the nose by the Israeli lobby, etc.? Even your own rhetoric about the Iraq War, fought by volunteers who overwhelmingly support the mission, implies that American soldiers are boobs who need liberal Democrats to save them from being “sent” by evil Republicans.
As a clown, I have to ask why you compare my kind with Republicans?
Terry Teachout writes for a conservative publication. His audience is conservative. He has the responsibility to represent his opinions to his audience. I doubt the WSJ would keep a theater critic who consistently wrote reviews which their readers found problematic. It makes total sense to me. As for the cost issue - it is a total red herring. Obama can’t make a move without a press release condemning it coming out of the GOP. But honestly, neither could Bush without comment from a democrat. It’s the state of our union.
But to BigM, I would like to say: How can you simultaneously call for individuals to take responsibility for their actions and then claim that liberal who criticize the government are elitists who are blaming their country for all the conflicts in the world. Your argument cancels itself out. I don’t know a single liberal, myself included, who blames the US for all the worlds ills. I do know a number of liberals who think the government should take responsibility for its actions WHEN it does do harm. This isn’t “bourgeois.” It’s civilised.
And to not think that Shakespeare, Jane Austen, and Sophocles weren’t harsh critics of their governments is to willfully mis-read their works. And if that weren’t enough, Aristophones did beleive Greece was responsible for many of the atrocities of the ancient world. So, there is a greater history of artists being critical of their political situations than your world view seems to allow for.
But today’s liberals seem to consistently hold America responsible for most, if not all, of the conflicts the country is part of. “Criticism” is one thing, but most of the classical writers discussed knew where they, and their loyalties, stood. The notion of joining other countries in prosecuting one’s own rulers would have seemed bizarre.
Well - I think Republicans will always play the elitist card when a President goes to a cultural event rather than to the Grand Ol’ OPry or a stock car race or a rodeo or a ball game. If we had 8 years of Mr & Mrs Obama visiting Broadway plays, opera, Symphony concerts and so forth this would not mean they are elitists - (which is ONLY a pejorative term to Republicans) only that they enjoy these art forms. Its not intended to make other people feel stupid. Presidents go to public events. Taxpayers pay for that. We now have proof that Mr Obama has seen at least one more play than Mr Bush ever had in his life. I am willing to bet Mr Bush has seen more rodeos and baseball games than Mr Obama. Neither fact makes one a better American than the other. A President should not have to reflect in his predilections for entertainment the same sensibility as Joe the Plumber. In fact, to many of us its a plus that he does not.
I love, in no particular order, opera, ballet, ice hockey, classical music, the blues, and musicals.
So what? And some Americans like horses, and dogs, and car races, and wrestling.
So what?
“I am truly flummoxed by any attempt to link liberalism with contempt or disregard for the average American citizen….”
How many of the 60,000,000 Americans who voted for McCain would find the statement that conservatism is a “pathology, an aberration, a mental mutation” to be suggestive of contempt or disregard for them as persons?
I am a long time, daily reader of Teachout’s blog and I am also fairly conservative. I think when David Cote asks why Teachout would “identify with [the Republican] party” it’s a question that makes no real sense. Teachout seems to have conservative views and writes for conservative publications (Commentary), yet I am unaware of anything he has written that specifically boosts the Republican Party. I voted for Kerry and Obama myself and would not be all that surprised if Teachout didn’t vote for one or both of them also.
Martin: How on earth do you know how many plays George W. Bush, a graduate of Yale and Harvard and an avid reader, has seen in his life?
I thought Terry was rather respectful of Obama. Imagine if it was Roger Kimball who wrote that post - gads. I enjoy Terry’s work because, for the most part, he tones the politics way down. Sure he has biases, but as you point out, who doesn’t? I’m not sure that having dialogues or debates or being open about political biases is the really important thing for a critic. The distinctive thing about his work - to me at least - is that he rarely if at all is politically preachy or ideological. He’s a ‘rubber hits the road’ ‘do I take an umbrella’ kind of critic. Mr. Cote, to me you come off as the ideologue in this dispute.
Which is more “elitist”?
Going to the theatre, or insisting that theatre is only for the elites?
Providing access to an affordable liberal arts education, or insisting that such an education is only for the elites?
Seeking to make quality health care available to all or insisting that it should only be affordable for the elites?
Oh yeah, I’m a clown, so please don’t take me seriously.
I felt this was rather a tempest in a teacup. I’m happy to see the attention given to the theater — partly because I’m part of it — but was also rather shocked at the expense of the coverage of the event — couldn’t NY correspondents have covered it? But I also agree with Terry Teachout’s larger point: if the Obamas really want to champion theater in this country, they should be making people aware that most good theater in this country does not have, and does not want, the Broadway imprimateur.
My perception of the outrage over the NYC Broadway trip wasn’t so much that it was made at all. (And spare me the false comparison to past presidential “vacation” trips; there is no parallel here.) I think it’s that the trip was for ONE EVENING. Not for a political dinner or official visit, or even for a combination of one or the other — this trip was purely for entertainment. Had this dinner and play been worked into some longer trip, with other official stuff worked into the schedule, I know I wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow. Doing the trip by itself, with accompanying secret service, fortified Escalade(s), choppers, press, etc., for a single evening’s activities, all personal? Nope. Don’t like it.
When they decided to sup in Chicago very early in the reign, as I recall, they made a whole weekend out of it. I may be wrong. Although I don’t understand why you’d want to fly away from Chef Comerford’s food, ever, I don’t recall feeling I’d been had at that time.
Blah blah blah. Another leftist spouting boilerplate Michael Moore talking points. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.
Hate to rain on your parade but according to a recent poll, most Americans approve of waterboarding terrorists (CNN, 5/6/09). I can understand how this is extremely upsetting to you lefties. After all, if the terrorists want to videotape themselves cutting off the heads of Jewish reporters as they scream and beg for mercy through the gurgling blood running out of their mouths, it’s really none of our business. Who are we to judge, when we pour water over terrorists’ faces, making them think they’re going to drown?
If you truly find this “culture of torture” so abhorrent, why don’t you take it up with Nancy Pelosi? Oh wait, she doesn’t want to talk about it any more. Never mind.
Sheesh, and you guys call Bush stupid…
If you read Teachout’s spit-flecked dismissals of hip hop, his weird attitudes about ‘consensus culture’ and ‘popular’ art become a lot clearer. There are several agendas and biases at play in his theatre criticism - not only artistic ones, Christ knows.
I think you misread Teachout’s comment. He gave the Obamas props for coming to see the play, a production he raved about, and wondered why they don’t see some plays in DC.
Am I missing something? What’s the problem?
So, David, time has gone by, months have gone by, actually, and none of your previous commenters has answered your very fine questions.
Have no fear: I am here to answer them.
You ask: “Why would a presumably intelligent lover of the arts identify with a party that is marked by philistinism, corporatism, recklessness in war and spending, demagoguery, pollution, homophobia and hypocritical religious pandering? What pleasure or solace does it afford him?”
I’ll tell you why: He’s Uggg-leeee!
Look at the man — he’s a troll, a fat slob, a Jabba the Hutt who can correctly pronounce “Balanchine.”
Anytime a troll is artsy, he by definition has to become a conservative Republikin because he is too homely to share a table with the beautyfull ones.
Look around. All hideous critics are right-wingers. Look at Bubba-lishus Ross Douthat in the Times or the paunchy, nicotine-stained, neo-con nutso Aaron Mesh at Willamette Week, an overgrown boy who might accurately be described as Pugsley Addams with a cigarette. They are hopelessly fat, and they love GW Bush. As difficult as it for us slim folks to understand, *that’s* the solace of the RepubliTubbies.
End of story!
Hey Cigarette Whore: Not sure I agree entirely with the ugliness-conservative correlation. I myself could stand to lose a few pounds and I doubt that Michael Moore will be entering any beauty contests. But your cheeky input is appreciated!
Came late to this because of interest in Teachout after watching an interview with him on C-Span. This article appears to be as biased as the author accuses Teachout of being. Yes, Bush made a number of trips to the ranch, but of course, he didn’t disrupt a city the size of NYC in doing so. A dozen trips to Crawford probably equaled the cost of the Obamas’ date in NYC. What I do object to is the large living of the Obamas while so many in the nation are jobless and are losing their homes to foreclosure. Even Bush gave up golf out of consideration to the soldiers’ sacrifices. Haven’t noticed the Obamas reining in good times in spite of the positive publicity that could be garnered.
Teachout is a parasite, a mouthpiece for the Nazi vermin of Israel and a cultural illiterate posing as a critic.
He should be thrown in a trash pit..
Pops!
C’mon
Skip it.
What did the nice trumpeter ever do to terry teachout to deserve this crummy anti-book?
“music critic”
Yuh.
That’s a good one.
And I’m Reinhold Messner!