Dolly Parton’s “Dollitics” and the Possibilities of Uniting

Dolly Parton performs with Ladysmith Black Mambazo. (Screen capture from video posted to YouTube.)

The death of Dolly Parton made front pages around the world. “Country music star’s songs spoke to millions” was the New York Times headline. The story of the poor girl from Appalachia reaching fame, stardom and riches was the archetypical American Dream come true. “We like Dolly Parton because we like that story about who we are,” sociologist Tressie McMillan Cottom wrote. But what really piqued my curiosity was the Times line: “She was, quintessentially, a uniter of people.”

Is it possible to be a “uniter of people” today? Parton seemed to have all poles of U.S. politics on her side. From the left, the Democratic Socialist mayor of New York Zohran Mamdani called her an “irreplaceable champion of the working class.” On the right, the Republican Party of Tennessee, her home state, declared her a “treasure,” while Greg Abbott, the Republican governor of Texas, said “God Bless Dolly.” After her death, President Trump called her “one of the greatest Country singers,” and said, “There has never been anyone like her, and never will.” Trump ordered U.S. flags to be flown at half-staff nationwide through September 1, 2026, in her honor—a notably rare tribute for an entertainer.

Parsing her politics is not difficult. “My daddy was a Republican, my mama was a Democrat, and I’m a hypocrite!” she once joked in a television interview. “Of course, I have my opinion about everybody and everything,” she once told an interviewer, “but I learned a long time ago, keep your damn mouth shut if you want to stay in show business.”

One of her nephews, Bryan Seaver, who announced her death on social media, referred to her particular brand of political neutrality as “Dollitics.”

Is it possible to be neutral today? A well-known pundit, Ron Brownstein, described the different poles in current U.S. politics as the difference between beer and wine drinkers: beer drinkers on the right, wine drinkers on the left. Culturally, Dolly certainly was closer to the beer drinkers—Tennessee, country music, Christianity, rural America; but her popularity indicates Dollitics cut across beverage preferences.

As far as arguments over neutrality, the question is not confined to American politics nor to being able to enjoy wine and beer. Soon, on September 27, Swiss voters will be asked what their historic neutrality means as they decide whether neutrality should be enshrined in the Swiss Constitution.

Parton’s Dollitics was not a formal, legal neutrality like Switzerland’s. It was, at least in part, pragmatic. If she wanted to be successful, she had to appeal to all listeners, left and right. Swiss neutrality also has elements of self-interest; neutrality is a reasonable position for a small country surrounded by three major European powers: France, Germany and Italy.

But beyond neutrality, and tied to Dollitics, is the question of being a uniter. Parton stayed out of partisan politics. She refused offers of the Presidential Medal of Freedom from both President Biden and President Trump. But Dolly had opinions. She supported LGBTQ rights publicly and told one interviewer, “And of course Black lives Matter.” She simply didn’t make partisan political identity her brand. Similarly, Swiss neutrality did not stop Switzerland from joining European countries in sanctioning Russia after its invasion of Ukraine.

Today, the Democratic Party is being torn by tensions between Democratic Socialists and the traditional, established Party. Republicans are being stretched by MAGA followers and traditional Republicans fearful that Trump and MAGA will cause disastrous results in the midterm elections.

Both Democrats and Republicans are having problems keeping their voters within expanding tents.

Given the polarizations within the two major political parties and between the parties, is there a possibility of a uniter in America today? Parton was a singer, songwriter, actress, and philanthropist; all outside the political realm. The uniqueness of Trump’s calling for flags to be flown at half-mast for an entertainer shows how special she was.

But is the notion of being a uniter also unique today? Identity politics places people in a definitive box. Titles such as radical, progressive, centrist and conservative leave little room for general comments about humanity and the common good.

Dolly could speak to people without requiring them to agree with her, whereas modern political identity seems to say: Before I listen to what you say, I need to know which box you belong in.

Dolly may have been nonpartisan without being neutral. Switzerland may be neutral without being apolitical. And a political “uniter” might not be neutral at all—it might simply be someone who can hold strong views while recognizing the legitimacy and humanity of people who disagree.

One of the first lessons in teaching young diplomats is the phrase “We agree to disagree.” The first “agree” may seem superficial, but it is the necessary foundation for all that follows. It means I recognize that you are entitled to your view even when I think you are wrong.

There are two words often used in Switzerland I have always had difficulty understanding. The first is neutrality. This boy from the Bronx too often equates neutrality with pacifism. But Swiss neutrality has not always meant sitting on the sidelines. Micheline Calmy-Rey, the former Swiss foreign minister and president, calls it “active neutrality.” For example, after Russia and Georgia broke diplomatic relations following their 2008 war, Switzerland represented the interests of Georgia in Moscow and Russia in Tbilisi. Neutrality, in that case, meant keeping open a channel between two countries that no longer talked to each other.

Dolly could sing to both sides. Switzerland could mediate with both sides. Neither required agreement, except to listen and to talk.

The second word is consensus. Is it possible today in the United States? Can we agree to disagree and recognize each other as legitimate? Can we disagree without making disagreement the reason to reject the other person?

Dolly Parton was a uniter, not a political partisan. Her example shows that a uniter isn’t just someone who stands in the middle abstaining from expressing her opinion. It is someone who takes a position while refusing to make the person on the other side illegitimate. Can there be a politician in the United States today who is a uniter and can do that?

Daniel Warner is the author of An Ethic of Responsibility in International Relations. (Lynne Rienner). He lives in Geneva.