Category: Recent

  • Assertive Force: Did ‘Duck Dynasty’ Awaken the Silent Majority?

    Assertive Force: Did ‘Duck Dynasty’ Awaken the Silent Majority?

    By Louis Avallone

    With 14 million viewers per episode, and endorsements and merchandise bringing in $400 million per year, “Duck Dynasty” is flying high.

    “Duck Dynasty” is a television series on A&E that portrays the lives of the unflappable Robertson family in West Monroe, who operate a family duck call business. In less than two years, it has more than quadrupled the number of viewers per episode.

    So, why are so many folks paying attention? Maybe it’s because the family is affectionate toward one another. Or that they are open about their Christian faith, and nearly every episode ends with the family praying around the dinner table. Maybe it’s because they’ve had to endure bad times, including when the patriarch of the family, Phil Robertson, was running a dilapidated bar, and abandoned completely his young family for a short time, before becoming baptized, seeing the errors of his ways, and starting anew. Maybe it’s because they are pro-business, pro-life and are committed to sexual abstinence before marriage.

    Or maybe it’s because they appear much less concerned with expressing political correctness, than with sharing their deeply held beliefs. This was certainly true last month, when Phil, in an interview with GQ magazine, paraphrased Corinthians by saying virtually everyone – from the adulterers, to the homosexual offenders, to the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers – won’t inherit the kingdom of God. He later went on to say, “We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

    But more important than A&E initially suspending Phil from filming indefinitely because of these comments, and then reinstating him, and more important than Cracker Barrel apologizing to their customers, after initially pulling “Duck Dynasty” products off of their shelves, and more important than the reality show ratings, is what this all says about the direction of our nation, and the yearning to return to traditional values by what some have called the “silent majority.”

    The “silent majority” are the folks that have not necessarily taken an active part in politics, and are not necessarily conservative, but they clearly resent anyone disrespecting traditional American values, such as freedom of speech, Christianity, marriage, the right to bear arms, etc.

    And although the influence of this “silent majority” has appeared throughout history, it perhaps was none more prominent, in recent times, than in the 1970s. In fact, in January, 1970, Time magazine named “Middle America” as a replacement for their annual “Man of the Year” award, recognizing the “silent majority” as a powerfully assertive force in U.S. society, especially during the dissent and confrontation of that era.

    These are the same folks who later went on later that decade to elect Ronald Reagan in 1980, and were also known, as “Reagan Democrats.” In fact, Reagan’s election was predicted on-air by another television icon at the time, who likewise seemed far less concerned with political correctness than sharing his deeply held beliefs — Archie Bunker.

    Archie was a blue-collar, World War II veteran, and the product of his working class neighborhood in Queens. Although fictional, the “All in The Family” television series ranked number-one in the ratings from 1971 to 1976.

    His opinions on race, sex, marriage, and religion were so politically incorrect that the initial episodes included prominent warnings about its content being offensive. Despite Archie’s opinions, “All in The Family” provided a platform for American dialogue, especially with the “silent majority,” and in doing so, gave way to greater understanding on many controversial issues of the times.

    So, while Bunker and Robertson are not the same characters, whether fictional or otherwise, they do have one thing in common: Their lack of political correctness resonates with the American people, and the “silent majority.”

    Actually, in the case of Archie, this was not intended at all by Norman Lear, the producer of “All in The Family.” He expected the public to dislike Archie, and was shocked when he became such a beloved figure. And maybe A&E is shocked, as well; maybe they expected that Americans would laugh at the amusing behavior of the “rednecks.” But we haven’t.

    And if political incorrectness is on the rise within the “silent majority” of Americans, perhaps this all means that the cultural pendulum is finally swinging the other direction.

    In the words of Phil Robertson, “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

    And especially in this coming election year, hopefully our candidates can remember the same – the successful ones will.

  • Fake War: Christmas Spirit Comes From Within

    Fake War: Christmas Spirit Comes From Within

    By Louis Avallone

    “I am so sick of myopic, self-centered, ‘persecuted’ Christians who complain about a fake war on Christmas by the people in this country who don’t happen to share their particular views,” a letter to the editor of the Dallas Morning News started out.

    The letter continued, “So please, Christians (‘persecuted’ Christians, not the kind who actually do unto others as you would have others treat you), open your eyes and see that the U.S. is not a Christian nation but a giant melting pot of many different cultures and beliefs. The world does not revolve around you.”

    Maybe this describes your opinion of the matter, as well. Maybe you feel Jon Stewart from “The Daily Show” said it best when he said, “You’ve confused a war on Christianity with not always getting everything you want.”

    Or, on the other hand, maybe you would have shouted “Amen!” to Ronald Reagan when he said, “Christmas can be celebrated in the school room with pine trees, tinsel and reindeers, but there must be no mention of the man whose birthday is being celebrated. One wonders how a teacher would answer if a student asked why it was called Christmas.”

    But whichever pew you sit in, the religious celebration of Christmas faces trivialization every year, and this is what many characterize as the “war on Christmas.” It draws attention (and controversy) whenever folks demand that a Christmas tree be referred to as a “holiday tree,” or when seemingly benign Christmas carols cannot be sung in our schools, or whenever Christmas decorations are not permitted to be displayed in our public squares, for fear of offending others.

    Just a few years ago, for example, even the White House was not planning to display the Nativity scene, which has been a longtime East Room tradition. Instead, according to the White House’s former social secretary Desiree Rogers, the “Obamas were planning a nonreligious Christmas.”

    But good grief. Does hearing, “Peace on earth, good will toward men” really sound oppressive? Does “Joy to the world” bring despair to those who hear it? Is there such a scarcity of darkness in the world that a few twinkling lights might not brighten one’s day, or where the innocence of Santa Claus might not teach us all that it is in giving, that we receive?

    Poll after poll has shown that the fear of offending others with “Merry Christmas” is misplaced. According to the polling firm Zogby, 95 percent of Americans are NOT offended when they hear “Merry Christmas.” In fact, even 62 percent of non-Christians (including Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists) all celebrate Christmas, in some form or fashion, plus more than half of self-identified atheists and almost 90 percent of agnostics.

    Interestingly, this misplaced fear of offending others, through religion, was the reason that the CBS network executives almost canceled “A Charlie Brown Christmas,” back in December, 1965. You see, the executives did not want Linus reciting the story of the birth of Christ from the Gospel of Luke. It was thought that viewers would not want to be preached upon by an animated cartoon, especially from Biblical passages.

    Yet 15 million viewers, or one-half of the television viewing audience, tuned in to watch “A Charlie Brown Christmas” when it first aired in 1965 and it has become the longest-running cartoon special in history, having aired now for 48 Christmases, and receiving an Emmy and a Peabody award along the way. Those CBS executives just got it wrong when it came to religion.

    So, what’s the commotion about the “war” on Christmas? It’s really about a larger “war” on Christianity, and not just here at home, but around the world where Christians are persecuted, and even killed. It is estimated that 80 percent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed against Christians. Even Pope Francis recently pointed out, “So many Christians in the world are suffering,” and “giving their lives” for their Christian faith.

    When your waitress at Denny’s says, “Happy Holidays,” or your local Radio Shack doesn’t even acknowledge the reason for the season, that’s not the same as taking machine gun fire to your soul, but some Christians are arguably concerned that it’s an awful, slippery slope.

    You see, history teaches us that imperceptible changes can have a lasting, irreparable effect on society. Dictators understand the effectiveness of eroding freedoms by imperceptible reductions. As Adolph Hitler wrote in his book, “Mein Kampf,” “the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.”

    And it is this feared, imperceptible erosion to the freedom of religion, and persecution for one’s beliefs, that concern folks so much that they characterize the trivialization of Christmas as a “war.” Those that mock their angst, or making fun of their concerns, simply aren’t digging down deep enough.

    Yes, the true Christmas spirit still comes from within, and it is not just a time of year, but a state of mind. I just pray now that Charles Schulz is still right when he said, “There will always be an audience for innocence in this country.” Well, I hope so. Our nation’s future literally depends on it.

  • Unspoken Reason: Effects of ‘Deindividuation’ in our Nation

    Unspoken Reason: Effects of ‘Deindividuation’ in our Nation

    By Louis Avallone

    You know how you’ve felt whenever another driver has cut you off in traffic, or has made hand gestures (which were completely unnecessary), as they sped away from you anonymously, disapprovingly honking and shaking their head the entire time about your driving?

    Maybe you even expressed yourself back to that individual by vigorously honking back at them, and letting the other driver know you completely disapprove of their aggressive behavior.

    But a quick question: If either of you were introduced to one another and shared a Coke, or a cup of coffee, at Strawn’s, you’d hardly express yourself as aggressively as you would if you were seated anonymously behind the windshield of your vehicle in heavy traffic. But why is that? It’s because when we blend into a crowd, instead of meeting with someone face-to-face, we have a decreased sense of personal accountability.

    Psychologists call it “deindividuation,” and it is a psychological theory developed to explain how people, when they are doing something anonymously, become more capable of acts that rational individuals would not normally do. It’s the unspoken reason that criminals will often disguise themselves with masks, and why it’s so easy for folks to engage in harsh criticism of others online. Anonymity makes it easier to disconnect you, from you.

    But this is not just a psychological theory that is merely academic. With the roll-out of Obamacare this month, the practice of this theory is actually on full display in our nation’s capitol.

    You see, every time that President Obama goes on television, gives an interview, and steps behind his teleprompter, and then blames Obamacare failures on the Republicans, or the defective website, he disconnects himself from the failures of very legislation that bears his name, and he blends into the “crowd.” He points to everyone else, and anyone who will listen, and says, “It’s not my fault, it’s theirs.”

    And while 57 percent of Americans oppose Obamacare and want it scrapped, and less than half of all Americans even view President Obama as honest or trustworthy, or as a strong leader, and even though experts predict 129 million Americans will lose their current health insurance, the President’s response has been, as the psychological theory predicts, to disguise himself as a bystander, and thereby avoid the responsibility for dismantling private healthcare in our country.

    The more he blames, the more he blends, and the more anonymous (not synonymous) he becomes with the healthcare debacle facing every American, instead of being held accountable for what he has done.

    As he told the Wall Street Journal, “(o)ne of the problems we’ve had is one side of Capitol Hill is invested in failure.” In the Rose Garden, he complained about the “reckless demands by some in the Republican Party to deny affordable health insurance to millions of hardworking Americans.” He has blamed the insurers for the millions of canceled policies, then blamed software developers for the website failure, and now blames the critics of Obamacare for creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    I call it all baloney. While blaming others may make him feel more confident about the dismal implementation of Obamacare or even make him feel superior to others, it’s simply not helpful.

    The bungled roll-out of Obamacare, and the failed promise that if you liked your insurance, you could keep your insurance, is further evidence that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    And despite the disguises, or masks worn by the politicians in Washington these days, the effects of deindividuation in our nation can be overcome with a simple, plain oldfashioned choice; a choice to champion personal accountability wherever, and whenever, we see it.

    So the next time someone honks at you, or otherwise expresses themselves through sign language to you in traffic, look at it as another opportunity to illustrate why Washington’s lack of accountability simply doesn’t work for us. Sure, opportunity usually knocks, but in this case, it honks too.