"Greatest Show on Earth"

Institutions that surrender control over part of their industry give up direction for all of it.

 The University of Illinois in Champagne underwent a sustained attack against their Native American mascot more than a decade ago. The result was total capitulation from the school. The mascot was retired and the school’s branding no longer includes Indian images, just a big goofy capital “I”. A supposedly socially conscious minority of students assumed (or imagined) the school’s chief mascot was offensive to Indian tribes and must be stopped. As a public university their ability to fight the charge was limited, their funds rely heavily on state and federal grants. Students who sympathized with the mascot, seeing no problem with the Native American mascot and taking no offence were poorly organized.

This situation plays out too often in life and reasonable people don’t take simple stands against it. In most cases a vigorous push back is the last thing needed. A straightforward easily articulated message is the most effective response to campaign of attack. The Chick-fil-A model is textbook for opposing an assault from organized protesters. A few years ago the CEO of the restaurant gave an interview to a magazine where he stated his support for marriage between one man and one woman. The Cathy family support pro-family groups that belief in the biblical definition of marriage. Large cities like Boston and Chicago (in 2012) refused to give the chain approval for zoning because of pressure from outside groups. The outrage against Chick-fil-A was not proportional to the statements made by Cathy and Christians seemed to understand what was happening in the culture. Mike Huckabee started Chick-fil-A appreciation day on August 1 2012 allowing supporters to line up for sandwiches all over the country. The response worked because of the simplicity of the message: a Christian group is under attack for supporting a biblical version of marriage, now go support them with your dollars.

Cities backed down and the restaurant received zoning approval.

Enter Ringling bros. and the attempt by animal groups (not public attitudes) to shut down the elephant portion of the circus, a key draw. The circus without elephants is like a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert without “Freebird”; people still go but the event is a lot less fun. More than a year ago Ringling Bros did away with the elephants. Constant attacks from activists disguised as animal welfare groups started to pay dividends. Excuses like ‘shifting public opinion’ are cited in news stories about Ringling’s decision to eliminate the elephant shows. What determines public opinion better than ticket sales? Polls are rarely cited as evidence of the so-called public disinterest.

When the elephants went away so did the spectators. Ringling Bros and Barnum and Bailey made a rational decision  based on cities like Oakland passing ordinances that restricted live animal shows, a measure meant specifically for circus acts. Once a few cities essentially outlaw your business the only option is to get out of the business. The main attraction was the elephant show.

“The Greatest Show on Earth” didn’t realize it until it was too late.

Would it have mattered anyway? The sharp instruments used to control the animals (called bullhooks) became the symbol of everything wrong with elephant training methods. Never mind that Asian elephants can weigh as much as 6 tons and stand 8 feet at the shoulders. How do critics propose to handle the great behemoths, with conflict resolution? How about positive reinforcement? Opposition to a part becomes hatred of the whole. So it is with groups like PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) that occasionally stumble into a legitimate animal cruelty story.  The entire circus became an object of scorn and ridicule, the training methods supposedly barbaric. But acquiescing to the mob only pushed away the customers, those who came for elephants. The message from the offended parties is clear, change your ways or expect a PR assault.

Cities got pressured into passing laws against using bullhooks. Governor Brown signed SB 1062 restricting traveling shows from using those instruments and effectively putting the elephant performances out of business. The iconic circus owners issued a statement citing ‘changing public opinion’ in the decision to get rid of elephants but no popular vote was taken on the issue. The Rhode Island ban against bullhooks only applied to the traveling shows and circuses. If the device was cruel and unnecessary why only restrict the circuses? Shouldn’t the local zoos also find another way? Ringling Bros, Shriners and others stopped using elephants because of the impossibility of controlling the animals with kind words only. Even for the iconic circuses the future of live animal shows looked murky despite all the ‘shifting public opinion’ nonsense they churned out for press releases.

When institutions and businesses give up control of their livelihood everyone loses. The circuses didn’t stand much chance in the long run; their industry was increasingly controlled by petty outside interests and malcontents. I am no great lover of the circus but I hate the idea that historic and cultural treasures are subjected to a public inquisition by activists claiming to speak for them. The circus may have disappeared as a milestone for kids growing up in America anyway. Going out like this, neutered and shamed, is an unfitting end for the “Greatest Show on Earth”.  Like the University of Illinois it let a small group determine its culture and drive its future. A shorter future than anyone realized.