Leave Dolly Parton Alone!: The Extremism of Omnipresent Politics

Vox published a weird article this week, something between an analysis and a takedown of Dolly Parton. As longtime Parton fans, we initially found the article puzzling. On closer inspection and with our Radical Moderate hats on, the message is not just puzzling but very very dangerous.

The author's (Constance Grady) starting point is Parton's recent resurgence and the way in which she has been placed on a pedestal (literally, in one case) by both progressive feminists and conservative Southerners, in part because of her persona of love and her appeal to a kind of universal empathy. It then asks: "But in a post-Trump America, is Dolly Parton’s love enough?"

That's an odd question for a lot of reasons, but it becomes clear that the main criticism Grady offers is that Parton's love isn't political enough and public enough to pass her (Grady's) litmus test. As Grady maintains, "America in the 21st century is no time for a secular pop saint. And there’s a dark side to Dolly’s ability to appeal, Christ-like, to all people at all times." What we find as we read is that Grady's criticism boils down to the fact that Parton clearly and continually refuses to fit herself into an ideological bucket.

The main criticism Grady offers is that Parton's love isn't political enough and public enough to pass Grady's litmus test.

As perhaps the most obvious example, Grady criticizes Parton's commentary on the Black Lives Matter movement, where Parton replies to the interviewer, "And of course Black lives matter! Do we think our little white asses are the only ones that matter? No!” Grady comments: "This kind of deft political quasi-answer is the sort of move Parton’s been pulling her entire career. She expresses empathy rather than solidarity — she understands why people have to make themselves known, even if she’s not showing up at a protest herself — and she affirms that she loves everybody. And since she loves everybody, of course their lives matter."

This interview takes place in the context of criticism surrounding "Dolly Parton's Dixie Stampede", a kind of dinner theatre not unlike Medieval Times, but with a Civil War theme. The Stampede is simultaneously criticized for not referencing slavery but also for using the Civil War as a backdrop for friendly dinner theatre competition. Upon criticism, Parton immediately dropped the "Dixie" and changed the theme to remove the Civil War references, which somehow doesn't get her any credit from Grady because she presumably should have known better. But why should she? Dollywood is located in a very specific place, rural Tennessee, where the Civil War is, in fact, still quite relevant and even somewhat contested. Dolly herself is 75 years old, a product of a rural Southern landscape, where attitudes toward race were and are much different than the attitudes of Northern media elites. None of this excuses the Dixie Stampede, but Parton herself was open to both criticism and to learning. She says, in a characteristically Dolly statement, “When they said ‘Dixie’ was an offensive word, I thought, ‘Well, I don’t want to offend anybody. This is a business. We’ll just call it The Stampede.’ As soon as you realize that [something] is a problem, you should fix it. Don’t be a dumbass. That’s where my heart is. I would never dream of hurting anybody on purpose.” As usual, Parton is transparent that she has two motives: first, a narrow business interest in not offending people and second, a broader humanitarian interest in not hurting people. She is almost childlike in her ability to accept criticism without defensiveness. She simply admits the wrong, makes a change, and moves on.

This, however, isn't enough for Grady, whose characterization of Parton's position is that it's a "quasi-answer". But how, exactly, is "of course Black lives matter!" a "quasi-answer" rather than a clear statement of principle? What Grady is clearly mad about is that Dolly didn't give the right answer. She's mad that Dolly didn't express solidarity with the movement, that Dolly isn't out protesting and carrying a sign. Perhaps she is mad that Dolly, this daughter of the rural South, merely admitted wrong instead of becoming actively anti-racist. Who knows. But it's clear that Parton's apology wasn't abject enough and her amends insufficient.

But how, exactly, is "of course Black lives matter!"
a "quasi-answer" rather than a clear statement of principle?
What Grady is clearly mad about is that Dolly didn't give the right answer.

As with so many on both the left and right, it's now not enough to have conversations about ideas, to express agreement or disagreement, or to express empathy toward people who are struggling; we now have to demonstrate solidarity with every social movement that's on the apparent right side of history, regardless of whether that solidarity is relevant to our own goals or purposes or values. The author's irritation that Parton didn't express the right kind of answer is part and parcel of the current political extremism that demands that everyone take a side, regardless of how poorly any given side fits. It's a rejection of diversity, heterogeneity, variation, individuality and freedom of thought. It's a call for everyone to get on board, in a public and very particular kind of way, and if you don't, you're deeply suspicious. You have a "dark side" that calls for further investigation.

Which leads us to our next concern, closely related to the first. It's not enough that Parton have the right kinds of opinions, she needs to make them completely open to scrutiny. We now must be openly and completely transparent about what bucket we have decided to shove ourselves into, lest we be criticized for being insufficiently loyal to the cause. The left makes this clear when they argue that "white silence is violence" and the right tried to do this to Dolly herself when they criticized her for not defending Trump at the Emmys. It's not only that we have to have the right opinions for our particular ideological community, but we have to make those opinions completely clear and open and public. All. The Time.

It's not enough that Dolly expresses support for LGBTQ rights and maintains that Black lives matter. She's not being open enough and transparent enough for Grady. Vox wants to dig down deep into her brain, wants total transparency, wants Parton to lay her political ideology on the table so Grady can sort through it, find out where she's been "disloyal" to the cause, and root it out. As Grady continues, "It’s only after she’s done talking that you realize how much she’s successfully hidden away. For example: her husband Carl Thomas Dean, to whom she’s been married since 1966 and who is almost never photographed in public. Her political beliefs, which, outside of a vocal support for LGBTQ rights, remain a mystery (she will not discuss Trump). Her private life."

....in the age of the Kardashians, if your political beliefs aren't tattooed to your genitalia and shared across the internet you're being suspiciously "private".

This is a bizarre criticism, one that could only be made in the age of the Kardashians, where if your political beliefs aren't tattooed to your genitalia and shared across the internet you're being suspiciously "private". If Grady knew anything about Parton she would know that Parton's husband is intensely private and that since their early days they have a mutual agreement that she lives publicly but that he can remain comfortably out of the public eye. She's been open in interviews about her private life in many other ways. Not having children, her unconventional marriage, her plastic surgery -- a host of private issues -- have all come up in numerous interviews, but clearly not in the way Grady wants.

But it's one particular kind of privacy that really rankles Grady. Parton's political beliefs "remain a mystery," which is tantamount to treason to the new public partisanship Grady seems to demand. Yet Parton's refusal to discuss Trump is in fact probably the only move she can make as a public person who straddles the North and South, conservatism and progressivism, and who has thousands of employees who depend on her not getting canceled to continue supporting their families. Grady wants Parton's life to be visibly political, to be imbued with political meaning that Grady can then shove into a particular political bucket. But Parton has always been clear about is that she doesn't want to be shoved into a bucket.

Parton is herself a person, an individual, and also a brand. She knows enough to know that politics by its nature divisive. She also seems to be inherently uncomfortable with politics. In a quote Grady herself uses but doesn't take seriously, Parton admits "I don’t really like getting up on TV and saying political things. I don’t even want to make a deal out of it, but I want people to know I’m my own individual self." Her avoidance of the ideological is not only a function of being a business owner and a brand, but also, at least if you take Parton's own comments in interviews at face value, because she is, in fact, a complicated human being. Born literally dirt poor in the South, she walks the line many of us walk who love where we came from while also recognizing its limitations. As many have noted, Parton plays with sexuality in a way that seems both regressive and transgressive at the same time, she works to find a middle and loving ground between people who disagree, and she seems to have deep faith in the ability of music to tie people together, regardless of their political beliefs.

Yet even music is losing this power, as Parton is well aware. Originally a kind of universal reflection of a tradition or a way of life, music itself is becoming increasingly partisan, as the Dixie Chicks (now just the Chicks) know all too well. Music, like religion, like art, and like a range of civil activities and institutions, used to be a place where your politics didn't matter as much as your agreement to play by a particular set of internal rules. And while politics and political dissent has always been part of music in America, music has always had the capacity to overcome partisan divisions and bring people together. But in an age where everyone has to choose a side, must do so publicly, and where refusal to do so creates a "dark side" of its own, it's not clear that there is any place or space that is safe from those who demand total ideological loyalty to whatever party line is most prominent.

One of the deep ironies of Vox's article is that the answer to the question Grady starts with -- "But in a post-Trump America, is Dolly Parton’s love enough?" -- is clearly "no", but that's the problem. If a woman who has, through her great talents, brought joy to millions of people with her music and films, helped bring jobs to her home region, contributed to childhood literacy efforts, provided scholarships in impoverished areas, funded a vaccine that will save potentially hundreds of thousands of lives, donated $1 million to her local children's hospital, helped rebuild her region after devastating fires, and who lives her life in the open, is clear about her boundaries, and does it all with a message of love and empathy, can still be criticized for not being woke enough or pure enough or political enough, it's not clear how anyone can be acceptable. It's also not clear that there is any part of human life that politics can't poison. Because Grady's concern here clearly isn't that Parton hasn't done enough for other people. Such a claim would be false on its face. Grady's concern is that Parton's political beliefs aren't clear enough and presumably pure enough to be considered "good" according to Grady's own political yardstick. And that's a bizarre and very dangerous position to hold.

Grady's concern here clearly isn't that Parton hasn't done enough for other people. Such a claim would be false on its face. Grady's concern is that Parton's political beliefs aren't clear enough and presumably pure enough to be considered "good" according to Grady's own political yardstick.

So please, we beg you. Leave Dolly Parton alone. Give us one person who can be radically individual, who can live her life authentically without being shoved into an ideological bucket, who can still have a space in the privacy of her thoughts where the purity police can't get in and rip her apart. Because what Dolly is doing is more important than many people realize. She is offering us a radically moderate model for living. One that is empathetic, unique and individual, nuanced, non-ideological, and full of love and compassion for her fellow human beings. Her particular and unique way of living doesn't have to be (and probably won't be) our way of living, but that's what's beautiful and great about it. The more space we give people to be unique individuals in their lives and thoughts and actions, the more we can shake off the dangerous pressures to pull ideology into everything we do, and the more we allow people to feel empathy and love for one another and to match that empathy and love with good works, the better off we will all be.

But let's be clear. If Dolly can't pull it off, no one can.

What do you think? Has politics become omnipresent? Are you pro or con Jolene? Tell us in the comments!