A Football Kicker gives an Incoherent Commencement Address and it Quickly Leads to Choosing Sides. Thought and Reflection were, Once Again, Consumed by the Culture War

American Eclectic posts articles twice a month, on the 1st and 15th. This is the second year of publication; previously published articles can be found on my site.

June 1, 2024

Culture war issues have a way of popping up with people feeling the need to take sides and to do so without thinking through what exactly they are supporting or opposing. The Manhattan Institute, a conservative research institute, in one paper approached the culture war as choosing between “cultural liberalism,” and “cultural socialism.” This essay with its two sides created a nonsensical division: 

Cultural liberalism is the belief that individuals and groups should have the freedom to express themselves, should not be compelled to endorse beliefs that they oppose, and should be treated equally by social norms and the law. 

Cultural socialism is the idea that public policy should be used to redistribute wealth, power, and self-esteem from the privileged groups in society to disadvantaged groups, especially racial and sexual minorities, and women. This justifies restrictions on the freedom and equal treatment of members of advantaged groups. 

The author made sure to throw into his essay cancel culture and critical race theory, just to make sure he covered all the hot button items. This author’s division with one side standing with the angels and the other side steeped in darkness is just plain nonsense. He did, however, make a point which deserves some attention: 

Culture-war issues are no longer an arcane subject confined to campuses and newsrooms. They now rank above the midpoint on Republican voters’ priority lists, above religion and family values, and near the midpoint for independents. For all voters, these issues are now more important than the environment. 

The culture war, understood as the simple choosing of sides, prevents the serious and substantive discussion of issues important to us all. The division as presented by this author fits a cable news show’s five minutes of foolishness that is supposed to pass as reasoned discussion. Creating an opposing division, contrary to a Manhattan Institute essay, where one side stands for enlightenment and understanding and the other side for fear and close-mindedness would be equally foolish. But you can get the point that the author’s created divisions are less about how we learn to understand the culture war and try to address some issues together, and more about pushing people farther apart. All the author did was to further support an atmosphere of us versus them.  

The culture war theme will play in some ways in the 2024 election. While public opinion polls point to issues such as the economy, immigration, national security, health care, pick your issues, as important to voters, weaving through all that are culture war themes. Scientific American used the term “Trump Culture” associated with the lead up to the 2016 Presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Their explanation of Trump Culture was: 

Donald Trump has effectively and ruthlessly used threatening language to monopolize fearful voters and pit them against other cultural groups. Trump has paired a penchant for inspiring fear with threatening rhetoric, fervent nationalism and outward hostility toward those he considers different. 

The 2016 themes are playing again in the 2024 election, and they feed into the culture war. Culture war issues tend to fester and bubble up to reach the national level where they are less addressed in ways to solve a problem and instead become battles that need to be won where the opposition needs to be vanquished. One historian who addressed the history of culture wars in the United States wrote:

In almost every case since the founding of the republic, conservatives have fired the first shots in our culture wars. Equally often, liberals have won.

David Brock who was a well-known conservative during the years Bill Clinton was President and later had something of a change of heart and founded Media Matters for America, a media watchdog organization which often is referred to in publications and on television, wrote his memoir about his time moving in conservative circles. He wrote, “The conservative culture I thrived in was characterized by corrosive leadership, visceral hatreds, and unfathomable hypocrisy.” Elsewhere in his book on conservatives and the culture war he wrote, “I didn’t take the culture war seriously because those who were espousing it all around me didn’t.” Brock published his book in 2002, well before Trump was anything but a television character. 

This background, this setting, is needed to understand and address the commencement address at a Kansas college by the Kansas City Chiefs kicker, Harrison Butker. It was inevitable that there would be supporters who would at once jump forward to support Butker’s speech with a usual theme—that he raised issues important to us all and he had the courage to speak up where others have not. That is not true, but it is a point repeatedly echoed. If there one thing clearly going on in America now, it is people freely speaking about anything and everything. I found it interesting that some supporters of Butker saw it as his right to speak his views and not see them as standing for the views of the Kansas City Chiefs or the National Football League (NFL). The NFL in fact issued a statement that read:

Harrison Butker gave a speech in his personal capacity. His views are not those of the NFL as an organization. The NFL is steadfast in our commitment to inclusion, which only makes our league stronger.”

How different is that from academic freedom where professors can voice views that do not reflect the views of the universities, they are affiliated with? No doubt supporters of Butker who may oppose what different professors may say on any number of issues, support their right to speak freely.

The culture war mentality seems to require that sides need to be chosen. In the process there is little in the way of dissecting what exactly was said and if it is understood and makes sense. Naturally, Fox News saw an opportunity to exploit the issue with, for example, having a “homeschooling mom” show her support for Butker. David Brock’s remark on the culture war not taken seriously by conservative movement leaders might want to be remembered here. I wonder how many at the Fox News station took this homeschooling mom seriously. As this mom said: 

The fact that a professional athlete showed the courage and the conviction to speak truth in an age when eyes are blinded and ears are shut against it, was deeply encouraging to me. What did surprise me is that people were shocked that a traditional Catholic speaking to a Catholic audience believes things that Catholics have proclaimed for thousands of years. 

Well truth is one of those words that is susceptible to distortion and manipulation. As far as what Catholics exactly stand for, the Benedictine nuns at Benedictine College where Butker spoke saw Catholic in a separate way. The nuns issued a statement that read: 

The sisters of Mount St. Scholastica do not believe that Harrison Butker's comments in his 2024 Benedictine College commencement address represent the Catholic, Benedictine, liberal arts college that our founders envisioned and in which we have been so invested. 

There is a wonderful movie which applies to this commencement speech. Being There (1979, starring Peter Sellers, Shirley MacLaine and Melvyn Douglas), based on a novel by Jerzy Kosinski. Chance (Sellers) was a gardener and losses his job only to be thrown out of the house where he stayed when the owner died. He has an accident as he is wandering the streets and is taken home by Eve Rand (MacLaine), wife of Ben Rand (Douglas), a very wealthy and influential businessperson. Throughout the movie Chance makes statements that are meaningless, absolute nonsense but people take what he says and add their own interpretations and create the impression that Chance is filled with insight and wisdom. 

Butker’s speech of a little over 3,600 words rambles. Toward the beginning of his remarks he says, “As a group, you witnessed firsthand how bad leaders who don't stay in their lane can have a negative impact on society.” Reading this very vague sentence requires one to think of Chance having a conversation with the President of the United States, who visits Ben Rand and is introduced to Chance: 

President: Mr. Gardner, do you agree with Ben, or do you think that we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives? 

Chance: As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden. 

President: In the garden. 

Chance: Yes. In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes spring and summer but then we have fall and winter. And then we get spring and summer again. 

President: Spring and summer 

Chance: Yes 

President: Hm. Well, Mr. Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I’ve heard in a very, very long time. I admire your good, solid sense. That’s precisely what we lack on Capitol Hill. 

I see Chance on full display in Butker’s remarks as I look at distinct parts of what he said closely. I have no clue what Butker is talking about and what lane leaders are supposed to stay in. In fact, the word “lane” appears five times in his speech. For example, elsewhere he states:

It is safe to say that over the past few years, I have gained quite the reputation for speaking my mind. I never envisioned myself, nor wanted, to have this sort of a platform, but God has given it to me, so I have no other choice but to embrace it and preach more hard truths about accepting your lane and staying in it.

How do I interpret what Butker is saying? Here, he seems to be saying that whatever his previous lane was it has changed because of who he now is, I assume different from when he was not a well-known football player. But then he later refers again to his notion of a lane and it contradicts the above quote:

Being locked in with your vocation and staying in your lane is going to be the surest way for you to find true happiness and peace in this life.

Elsewhere Butker states: 

Bad policies and poor leadership have negatively impacted major life issues. Things like abortion, IVF, surrogacy, euthanasia, as well as a growing support for degenerate cultural values in media, all stem from the pervasiveness of disorder. 

When did all this poor leadership happen exactly? Why is he opposed to IVF and surrogacy? He just throws them into his speech. I suppose I can apply poetic license or interpret in the way people do when listening to Chance and just run with Butker’s remarks on bad policies and add whatever I feel I need to vent against. Elsewhere Butker states: 

[M]ake no mistake, before we even attempt to fix any of the issues plaguing society, we must first get our own house in order, and it starts with our leaders. The bishops and priests appointed by God as our spiritual fathers must be rightly ordered. There is not enough time today for me to list all the stories of priests and bishops misleading their flocks, but none of us can blame ignorance anymore and just blindly proclaim that “That's what Father said.” Because sadly, many priests we are looking to for leadership are the same ones who prioritize their hobbies or even photos with their dogs and matching outfits for the parish directory. 

OK, he has something against priests and bishops. The priests I have known over the years struggle with trying to help people in diverse ways—a good thing. Butker wants something to change, but what he wants changed, I have no idea. That need to stop and say what exactly one wants is difficult to do. Butker did the easy part—he vented and babbled with no substance. On priests he continued: 

St. Josemaría Escrivá states that priests are ordained to serve, and should not yield to temptation to imitate laypeople, but to be priests through and through. Tragically, so many priests revolve much of their happiness from the adulation they receive from their parishioners, and in searching for this, they let their guard down and become overly familiar. 

I assume he is not just making a statement based on nothing but drawing from something, maybe an interaction he had with a priest. The culture war mentality with its push to choose a side prevents stopping and questioning a speech such as Butker’s which has received a great deal of attention. Unfortunately, the attention is focused on support or criticism of Butker’s remarks, or whether the Chiefs or the National Football League are supposed to do something.  

Patricia Heaton, an actor, correctly pointed out that Butker criticized Catholic leaders more than women. She added, “The audience applauded twice during the speech and gave him a standing ovation at the end, so clearly they enjoyed what he was saying.” But that is not the same as saying that Butker said anything that had substantive thought behind it. I can think of lots of commencement speeches I have heard over the years where the audience stood and clapped and then walked away wondering what was said exactly.  

The part of the speech that received the most attention was his reference to women and, I guess, what he sees as their role in society. 

For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.   

What diabolical lies have women been told probably by priests who have been too overly familiar, is not explained at all. Again, just borrow from Chance and his interact with people and add whatever you want Butker’s speech to mean. I think it is safe to say that wives as mothers, no different than husbands as fathers, want the best for their children. It is not that they necessarily focus so much on their work and career at the expense of their children but understand that the things they want for their children come with price tags. Butker signed a five-year $20 million contract with the Kansas City Chiefs. At 28 years old he has no worries about saving for a comfortable retirement, or having the money to pay for those music lessons children suddenly want as they grow and then later the cost of college. Health care costs are probably not something Butker or his wife for that matter have to worry about. His children will have a nice inheritance someday, something many parents wish they could leave for their children.

After addressing women, Butker addressed men:

Be unapologetic in your masculinity, fighting against the cultural emasculation of men.

And then he added:

As men, we set the tone of the culture, and when that is absent, disorder, dysfunction, and chaos set in.

This abstract division of the sexes has been raised before, circulating in conservative culture war circles, as though it means anything/something. He seems to be implying a hierarchy with men leading the way, based on his view that he sees men setting the tone for culture. I can only assume that is the implication of his remarks. Are there clearly defined roles for men and women? This apparent stark division between the roles men and women play, or are supposed to play, is difficult to understand. What exactly does Butker want? Abstract statements are just that. But there will be those who see Butker suddenly playing the role of Chance and praise his various comments and take them to levels well beyond whatever Butker was talking about.

This speech will pass, to be forgotten, maybe briefly resurrected when the Chiefs play their first game in the 2024 season. It is just another small piece that adds to the culture war that gets its life from a variety of different issues that persist or periodically arise. As with many of the issues that come under this cultural umbrella, the focus is on who chooses which side and what they say to show their support rather than to stop and reflect on what the issue is exactly. Maybe somewhere in all the incoherent babble, Butker had some point to make that might be good to reflect upon, but I doubt he will be asked to sit down and have someone go through his speech and ask him to address specifics of what he wants and why. His speech adds to the us versus them environment of the culture war so vividly presented in a Manhattan Institute essay. As with the foolish division of two sides created in that essay, with a simple lightness versus darkness analogy, supporters of Butker will take his speech in the same way and use it as just another wedge that adds to more division and polarization.

A bit more than a week after Butker spoke, he defended his commencement speech which was not the same as sitting down in an interview and systemically going through what exactly he said in his speech. His remarks, “If it wasn’t clear that the timeless Catholic values are hated by many, it is now" were not helpful. Just as he has the right to speak about his values or beliefs, so do critics have a right to question his positions, his opinions, without being labeled in some way as critical of Catholics in general. Criticism was aimed at him specifically, not Catholicism. I guess the Benedictine nuns who did not like Butker’s speech need to be included in critics of “timeless Catholic values.” Furthermore, he added:

If I constantly remind myself of the hardships the saints went through, especially the martyrs in their persecution, it makes it all seem not so bad. For if Heaven is our goal, we should embrace our cross, however large or small it may be, and live our life with joy to be a bold witness to Christ,

Putting aside Butker comparing himself to martyred saints, this attitude reflects the problem of the culture war more broadly with its attempt to paint everything as an us versus them mentality. The culture war overlaps with political polarization which exists to some degree, politics and culture merge to become a combustible mixture. Butker through his commencement speech as well as his defense of himself simply added to the mix.

Notes 

David Brock, Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative (New York, Crown Publishers, 2002) 

Joseph Cernik, “The Donald Show: Trump, Television, and Manufactured Reality,” The Artifice (August 3, 2020): https:// the-artifice.com/the-donald-show/ 

Full Test: Harrison Butker of Kansas City Chiefs Graduation Speech, National Catholic Register (May 16, 2024): https://www.ncregister.com/news/harrison-butker-speech-at-benedictine?amp

Michelle Gelfand, Joshua Conrad Jackson & Jesse Harrington, “Trump Culture: Threat, Fear and the Tightening of the American Mind,” Scientific American (April 27, 2016): https:// www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-culture-threat-fear-and-the-tightening-of-the-american-mind/ 

John Helton, “Benedictine College nuns denounce Harrison Butker’s speech at their school,” NPR (May 19, 2024): https:// www.npr.org/2024/05/19/1252357764/harrison-butker-benedictine-college-commencement-nuns-denounce 

Christina Herrera, “Famous Catholics, Social Media Stars Express Wholehearted Support for Harrison Butker After Graduation Speech,” Churchpop (May 20, 2024): https://www.churchpop.com/famous-catholics-social-media-stars-express-wholehearted-support-for-harrison-butker-after-graduation-speech/

Eric Kaufmann, “The Politics of the Culture Wars in Contemporary America,” Manhattan Institute (January 25, 2022): https:// manhattan.institute/article/the-politics-of-the-culture-wars-in-contemporary-america 

Andrew McCarthy, “Harrison Butker Breaks Silence After Criticism,” The Spun (May 25, 2024): https://thespun.com/more/top-stories/harrison-butker-breaks-silence-after-criticism

Stephen Prothero, Why Liberals Win (Even When They Lose Elections) (New York, HarperOne, 2016)

AJ Willingham, “Backlash over NFL player Harrison Butker’s commencement speech has reached a new level,” CNN (May 17, 2024): https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/05/16/sport/harrison-butker-commencement-speech-analysis-cec

Tracy Wright, “Patricia Heaton defends Chiefs kicker following graduation speech backlash: ‘He’s not a monster’,” Fox News (May 20, 2024): https:// www.foxnews.com/entertainment/patricia-heaton-defends-chiefs-kicker-following-graduation-speech-backlash-not-monster.amp