Wayne Coyne's band, The Flaming Lips, has defined originality and self-reliance for 3 decades now.
I am really into music. Originality and competence in composition, structure, melody, and/or instrumentation makes good music. I am 28 and have been seriously listening to rock and roll, among other kinds of music, for a little over 15 years now. What I have learned about rock music is that it is meant to be cathartic. The musicians want complete freedom to express whatever they want, whenever they want. They are against anyone or anything getting in their way of doing just that.
In American politics, there are two mainstream ideologies. Republicans call for a smaller government, putting greater freedom into each individual to govern their own lives, letting them live the way they want to live, striving to provide every individual equal opportunity. Democrats call for a larger government, taking away responsibility from the individual, allowing the government to dictate many facets of an individual’s life, striving to force the same outcome for every individual. Which sounds more like the ethos of rock and roll music? Undoubtedly the Republican ideology. Even more so when you talk about punk rock. One of the cornerstones of punk rock is the DIY tradition, do it yourself. Not relying on anyone or anything but your own efforts is the definition of punk rock.
So I am confused every time there is an election and all of my favorite bands line up in support behind the most socialist candidate. Bands like Arcade Fire, The National, and R.E.M. or newcomers No Age, all whose music I very much admire, became very vocal in their support of Barack Obama. The result is a herd of fans who unflinchingly support their favorite band’s candidate of choice. It becomes cool, hip, and popular to be “liberal”. But, you know what is really rebellious and rock and roll? Being in your 20s and supporting a Republican. Because, after all, self-reliance is exactly what rock and roll is about.
Last 3 posts by Eric
- Social Security Finally Bankrupt? - February 4th, 2010
- Business Cliches - January 15th, 2010
- Conan O'Brien - January 12th, 2010
I think it’s because Democrats have created the mindset that they’re “Government for the People.” And Republicans have taken on the reputation that they’re capitalist businessmen, i.e. “The Man.” So when you talk about rock and roll, they want to “stick it to the man” and help out “the people.” It’s not an ideology problem, it’s a marketing problem.
The Republican party needs to show that a smaller government makes life better for “the people.”
This has never made sense to me either, especially since rock and roll artists and the Hollywood machine (in general) are going to be the ones exposed to higher taxes.
I think a lot of it comes down to social issues as well… Republicans are traditionally conservatives (though they haven’t been too conservative recently…) and conservatives worry about morality and religious influence on the lives of citizens. If you consult Hollywood or your typical rock and roll artist, a lot of them are all about breaking away from the morality and religion of their parents.
For example, how socially liberal have music and the movies become of the last few decades? I think some of these social issues are the foundation for their support of the liberal democratic party.
I always find it interesting that while republicans call for smaller government, they are usually the ones who would like the government to regulate moral issues. Where as liberals who want a large government claim they give more freedom because they disagree with regulating certain morals. This is probably the biggest reason that the rock n roll world is all for socialist candidates and it’s cool and hip to be liberal.
It makes little sense though since managing morals is such a small part about what the government does. Maybe all your favorite bands will be singing a different tune when they realize they make up the 5% that will have tax increases…
Yeah, it probably is the social issues more than the fiscal policies. And I agree, they are the ones that will be paying the higher taxes that Obama’s calling for. So I guess they get what they ask for.
I’ve read before that most of the rich celebrities have no idea how much money they make and where it all goes. They have people who have people who handle that. They know that they can pretty much spend whatever they want. They are pretty disconnected from their finances. While they are busy writing their next hit “Be a Patriot, Pay your Taxes,” their accountant and tax lawyer are finding ways to shelter more of their income from the incoming administration.
I seriously don’t get it either. I’ve always wondered that same thing about the film world. Great post. And great comments.
I like the site guys.
I think it’s obvious why the democratic party is more appealing to musicians/artists than the republican party.
“Musicians want complete freedom to express whatever they want, whenever they want.” Why would they affiliate with a party full of conservative groups calling for censorship, banning gays from marriage, attempting to ban tv shows/movies/art in some communities, etc. That gives the opposite perception of “putting greater freedom into each individual to govern their own lives, letting them live the way they want to live, striving to provide every individual equal opportunity.”
On the other side you have the ACLU - a group despised by conservatives and loved by liberal democrats because it lobbies for freedom of expression in many forms including gay marriage, civil rights, art that is considered offensive in some communities, flag burning etc (it’s even defended polygamist groups). That gives the opposite perception of “striving to force the same outcome for every individual.”
Rock n roll is a drug/sex culture and stands in contast to the conservative family image - an image owned by the republican party. Institutions like the military, coporations, and religion are other icons of the republican image that have been rebelled against in rock music - and most especially in punk rock. The original punk DIY ethos was largely a rebellion against corporate influence.
The music industry that best fits the conservative republican image is country music. These are the people who actually sing about conservative family values and putting a boot up Sadam Hussein’s ass. Country music liseners make up a huge portion of the conservative American vote.
(Eric, maybe sometime you can explain the following two premises in more detail:
“Republicans call for a smaller government, putting greater freedom into each individual to govern their own lives, letting them live the way they want to live, striving to provide every individual equal opportunity.”
“Democrats call for a larger government, taking away responsibility from the individual, allowing the government to dictate many facets of an individual’s life, striving to force the same outcome for every individual.”)
My approach was more of an economic point of view, ignoring social issues. In retrospect, I think many of the comments have shown me that Democrats are right in line with rock and rollers’ social viewpoints. So, yes, the ACLU and Democrats are doing exactly what rock music stands for socially.
But as far as the government’s taxing of its citizens and funding of social programs, I still believe the Republican approach is more in line with rock and roll music. I’ll attempt to explain better the two quotes on which Tyson wanted clarification.
The fact that Democrats fully support the notion of taxing higher amounts of income at higher rates and disallowing various deductions and credits for high income earners is exactly how they “force the same outcome for every individual.” So the ACLU is working hard to create equal opportunity for various groups. But when an individual from any of those groups becomes more and more successful, he is legally obligated to pay a higher proportion to the government. He also loses many of his tax deductions and credits. The government then gives out Earned Income Credits, Stimulus Payments, Unemployment Benefits, etc. to those who are not as successful. This is how they try to create the same outcome economically for everyone. The welfare consequently “takes away responsibility from the individual” to support themselves financially to a certain degree by offering incentives to not work as hard and rely on their earned income credit or unemployment check, which can be very substantial to many people. By turning over that responsibility to a government program, more power is given to the government to dictate through these very programs by threatening to cut off someone from the program for certain behaviors. It incentivizes irresponsible behavior. Charity and welfare should be voluntary, not forced by the government.
I’ll be the first to say that Republicans have been ridiculously terrible in their spending in the last 8 years. The tax cuts don’t justify the spending. But based on ideology, Republican are against what I described above. They support keeping taxes lower and allowing the individuals to dictate what they do with their money. Republicans support a government that holds up the infrastructure of the country. The country itself constitutionally supports equal opportunity for individuals. This is essentially what I mean by “Republicans call for a smaller government, putting greater freedom into each individual to govern their own lives, letting them live the way they want to live, striving to provide every individual equal opportunity.”
In conclusion, maybe rock and rollers should all be Libertarians.
I knew you were approaching it from an economic standpoint and somehow I failed to address that in my response.
Thanks for the clarification on some of your points. I’m still not convinced that the economic aspect of republican ideology best suits the rock n roll ethos. Avoiding a higher tax rate and qualifying for various deductions and credits is not the epitomy of freedom to some people. Nor is benefiting from Earned Income Credits or Unemployment considered by all the ultimate end of freedom, or dead end to true success - even if it does incentivize irresponsible behavior.
I don’t think social and economic ideologies can necessarily be separated (or one of them be ignored). Economic factors are probably integrated with the social concerns of rock musicians like Bruce Springstein, Coldplay, or Bono. The concept of redistribution of wealth, regardless of how many no good citizens (or unfree people) it has produced so far, is probably mixed in with the ideas of social or civil equality and isn’t perceived as denigration of freedom. The Boss would probably cringe at the idea that getting rid of unemployment would make the subjects of some his songs (working class people) more free.
And we’re probably making the same point.. sorry I only had a quick minute to respond.
Probably everyone should be libertarians.
Purchase mp3 music online…
Nice post… Thanks for sharing your such a nice person!……
…
Excellent brief and this write-up helped me alot. Say thank you I looking for your information….