By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In response to Donald Trump’s anticipated attendance at a June 11th Kennedy Center gala, at least ten Les Misérables cast members, including principal and ensemble roles, have chosen not to perform. This boycott follows other artists severing ties with the Kennedy Center since Trump assumed the chairmanship, reflecting broader cultural divisions. The musical holds personal significance for Trump, who previously used its soundtrack during his presidential campaigns. The event marks Trump’s official takeover of the Kennedy Center.
Read the original article here
The cast of *Les Misérables* refusing to perform for Donald Trump is sparking a fascinating debate about artistic expression, political protest, and the very nature of tolerance. It’s a bold move, highlighting the deep-seated resentment many artists feel towards the former president and his administration.
This isn’t just about a few performers skipping a gig; it’s a powerful act of defiance. The irony, of course, isn’t lost on anyone. A musical about revolution, social justice, and the plight of the downtrodden, is having its own mini-revolution unfold, with the cast choosing to silently protest rather than entertain someone they see as antithetical to the very themes of the show.
The reaction from some quarters has been swift and predictably indignant. Accusations of intolerance and calls for blacklisting have surfaced, framed in the language of inclusivity and professional conduct. This seems incredibly disingenuous, given the historical context and the nature of the accusations themselves. The idea of “political litmus tests” being applied to the audience is particularly rich considering the intensely partisan political climate. The attempt to portray the cast’s refusal as unprofessional ignores the deeply held beliefs and moral stances fueling the silent protest.
This isn’t simply a matter of personal preference; it’s a statement against a political ideology perceived as harmful and oppressive. Many artists and performers feel personally and professionally threatened by the Trump administration’s policies and rhetoric regarding arts funding, workers’ rights, and social justice. The cast’s refusal to sing for Trump is an artistic statement in line with the themes of revolution and resistance present in *Les Misérables* itself.
The argument that performers should serve all patrons regardless of political affiliation ignores the inherent rights of artists to choose their engagements. Many parallels can be drawn between this situation and the right of business owners to refuse service to customers, a right repeatedly upheld by legal precedence. The idea of forcing artists to perform against their deeply held convictions is both morally questionable and creatively stifling.
The proposed blacklisting of these artists is a chilling tactic, designed to intimidate and silence dissent. It’s a transparent attempt to punish those who dare to express their political views. Ironically, the reaction underscores the very issues the performers are protesting against: the suppression of free speech and the targeting of individuals for their beliefs.
This situation isn’t solely about *Les Misérables*; it’s about a broader cultural clash and the growing polarization of society. The cast’s decision is a testament to the power of artistic expression as a form of political action. It showcases the capacity of individuals within the creative community to stand against what they see as injustice. While some might see this as unprofessional, others view it as a powerful and poignant form of resistance; a rebellion worthy of the story itself.
The whole affair highlights a fundamental disconnect: the failure to understand the deeply held beliefs and artistic integrity that drive the performers’ actions. The narrative of intolerance is conveniently deployed to deflect from the deeper ethical and political concerns at play. In essence, the refusal to sing for Trump is more than just a boycott; it’s a form of civil disobedience, a demonstration that the arts aren’t immune to political realities, and that the performers have chosen to act on their convictions.
Furthermore, this incident points to a far deeper issue: the ongoing attacks on the arts and creative communities. The targeting of artists and the undermining of arts funding are not isolated incidents; they are part of a larger pattern of political suppression. The cast’s action is, therefore, also a form of defense, a stand against the devaluing and marginalization of artistic expression. Ultimately, their silence speaks volumes, more so than any song possibly could. The refusal is a powerful statement against a political ideology many see as deeply at odds with the very spirit of creativity, freedom, and artistic expression.