Don't Wring the Chicken's Neck

That's doubtless the strangest post headline I've written, but as a native Georgian, it's for a good cause. It seems that a small blogosphere-based rebellion is growing against Atlanta-based Chick-fil-A, the fast-food franchise best-known for (1) their humorous ads showing cows (should be steers) writing "Eat mor chikin," and (2) the fact that they close on Sundays.

The bru-ha is over an ad they ran during last week's Peach Bowl. It showed a cow standing down a bulldozer which, in one of the final shots, is framed to resemble the brave Chinese individual who refused to move for the column of tanks during the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. Eventually, the viewer sees that the bulldozer driver is trying to continue construction on a new restaurant called "Circus Burger" which boasts, "Home of the 32-Ouncer." Libertyblog has posted this series of photos; although I watched part of the Peach Bowl, I did not see the ad.

I discovered this story via Michelle Malkin, who objects to the ad and adds, "We'll stick to Roy Rogers from now on..."

I hadn't heard of Libertyblog before, but I read Michelle regularly and respect her views a great deal. She's demonstrated how to build a successful career as a columnist, author, and pundit, and one could do far worse than emulating her in many ways. And she's linked to a couple of my posts, for which I'm truly grateful; I hope she'll link to other posts here at Democracy Project.

But I think that she, and Libertyblog, are going too far in their condemnation of Chick-fil-A, and in Michelle's quip implying a boycott, for a couple of reasons. While I share their distaste for the ad's use of the Tiananmen scene -- after all, the man in the originals was attempting to stave off real human death, not the production of beef -- the blogosphere might want to pick its enemies more thoughtfully and react to such episodes with different ends in mind.

To pick up on the last point first, while I'm all for avoiding products one doesn't like, there's something sanctimonious about calling down curses on a business whose fault lies in a tasteless advertisement rather than in multiple sins against morality and/or the republic. We've long accused the left -- rightly, I think -- of politicizing every element of life, and as conservatives we should eschew following their lead.

Rather than going after this chain with guns blazing, why not write or call Chick-fil-A, or call attention to the ad in our blogs, but with the intended end of either modifying the final scene with the four bulldozers facing down the hapless bovine, or of simply pulling the ad?

Remember: Chick-fil-A's founder and management are on our side of the culture wars. Its founder, S. Truett Cathy, grew up one of seven children in Eaton, Ga., and worked from a young age before serving in the army and opening a restaurant with his brother. He founded Chick-fil-A in 1967 and oversaw its growth to the 975 locations now in operation. Cathy is a prominent funder of conservative causes and candidates, and he has the right enemies. He's also a philanthropist and CEO who, from everything I've heard and read over the years, harbors genuine concern for the well-being and future of his workers.

A few years ago, reporter Tom Neven wrote in Focus on the Family magazine:

He started a foster home system, WinShape Homes, that takes young children and provides them a place to thrive until they are ready to leave the nest for work or college. There are presently 11 WinShape homes in Georgia, Tennessee, Alabama, and one in Brazil. (Cathy’s daughter, Trudy, and her husband, John, were Southern Baptist missionaries there for 10 years.)

There’s also Camp WinShape, a summer camp for boys and girls ages 7 to 16, 25 percent of whom are there on scholarship. And the WinShape Foundation has partnered with Berry College, a liberal arts institution in north Georgia. Some of the students receive scholarships of as much as $16,000. Cathy stresses, however, "These are Berry College students, not Chick-fil-A trainees. We want them to achieve their full potential, whether it be as doctors, teachers, business leaders, ministers or artists."

This doesn't mean that Cathy, or the ad firm his company hires, is beyond criticism, or that they didn't err in the ad in question. But surely his work for good causes, his creation of 40,000 jobs, and his faith should count for something when a controversy arises. Ignoring this laudable record does a disservice to very ideals we defend by taking exception to the ad in question. Let's not let our zeal blind our judgment.