HunterByrd

Bruce the Boss of Thoughts

Bruce Springsteen gives a lengthy interview to (who else?) Rolling Stone. Interviewer Jann S. Wenner, Rolling Stone's founder, asks no 'hard' questions of the Boss, at least in the sense that he lets Springsteen get away with sweeping 'these grandiloquent statements are fact, Jack' statements. There are no 'give me specific examples' follow-up questions. Mr Wenner is on the same track as his subject. The 'angle' of this entire exercise is 'vote Kerry'...

The Boss is heading up the 'Vote for Change' concert tours this political season for the purpose of raising money for America Coming Together, an anti-Bush, non-profit '527' organization. One of ACT's principal contributors has been George Soros. Check out this link to an earlier story involving allegations over some of their down-stream, or trickle-down, get-out-the-vote activities.

Anyway. Bruce Springsteen is a much beloved artist, imprinted as deeply upon a generation of Americans as, say, Bob Dylan or Woody Guthrie were in their time. Mr Springsteen, however, has chosen to take his show onto the political stage. Well, good for him. He's lost a lot of listeners though, myself included. I'm not into the artist-as-political-shill thing. I would rather they keep their dialogue on a higher plane.

An artist should stick to higher thoughts and sentiment. You can make any kind of observation, speak to the truth of any issue as you see it without muddying yourself in politics. Bob Dylan did it strictly through his songs. At one time, John Fogerty accomplished the same thing. To my knowledge, Mr Dylan never delved into a 'get out the vote' mentality. He didn't have to. Most people knew where he probably stood on great issues of the day, but it didn't matter -- he kept his dialogue on a higher plane. As a result folks of all political stripes and colors were drawn to him, and are to this day, myself included.

Here are a few excerpts:

I felt we had been misled. I felt they had been fundamentally dishonest and had frightened and manipulated the American people into war. And as the saying goes, "The first casualty of war is truth." I felt that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption was dangerous foreign policy. I don't think it has made America safer.

Look at what is going on now: We are quickly closing in on what looks an awful lot like the Vietnamization of the Iraq war. John McCain is saying we could be there for ten or twenty years, and John Kerry says four years. How many of our best young people are going to die between now and that time, and what exactly for?

* * * *

It was something that gestated over a period of time, and as events unfolded and the election got closer, it became clearer. I don't want to watch the country devolve into an oligarchy, watch the division of wealth increase and see another million people beneath the poverty line this year. These are all things that have been the subtext of so much of my music, and to see the country move so quickly to the right, so much further to the right than what the president campaigned on -- these are the things that removed whatever doubt I may have had about getting involved.

* * * *

A lot of people think that you have no right as an artist to comment on this or play a role in politics.

I don't know if a lot of people think that. It is something that is said. It's sort of part of the "Punch and Judy" show that goes on when people disagree with what you're saying.

* * * *

One of the most disturbing aspects of this election is that the machinery for taking something that is a lie and making it feel true, or taking something that is true and making it feel like a lie -- the selling machinery has become very powerful. Senator Kerry has to make people pay attention to the man behind the curtain. He has to take the risk and rip the veil off the administration's deceptions. They are a hall of mirrors and a house of cards.

For Senator Kerry, the good news is he has the facts on his side. The bad news is that often in the current climate it can feel like that doesn't matter, and he has to make it matter.
What do you think of how the election is being covered and conducted through the press?

The press has let the country down. It's taken a very amoral stand, in that essential issues are often portrayed as simply one side says this and the other side says that. I think that Fox News and the Republican right have intimidated the press into an incredible self-consciousness about appearing objective and backed them into a corner of sorts where they have ceded some of their responsibility and righteous power.

The Washington Post and New York Times apologies about their initial reporting about Iraq not being critical enough were very revealing. I am a dedicated Times reader, and I've found enormous sustenance from Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd on the op-ed page. There has been great reporting, but there has also been some self-consciousness in some of the reporting about the policy differences in this election.

So there you have it. Springsteen believes Fox News has intimidated the press. He's found "enormous sustenance" from the likes of Maureen Dowd. See? This is what happens when entertainers take on the role of pundit from the stage. They are replacing their higher truths with politispeak. Politics can be, and are, enormously entertaining, but they don't mix with song and dance, or film for that matter (unless you're a shill to begin with, like Michael Moore, or politics is THE basis for your act, like Capitol Steps).

You know, we all have a right to speak our minds. Everyone of us. But there are natural consequences that one must accept as part of the territory.