Where is the Love?: The Political Divisions in Music Prometheus Institute editorial
The fact that PI can unequivocally promote the work of artists and musicians whose opinions - and often work itself - might represent political issues at odds with ours seems to confound certain individuals. How do we, they ask, reconcile our love of hip-hop with the hip-hop community's often blatant afro-centric socialism? Or how do we reconcile our interest in rock with rock's own traditionally statist positions?
Our response is to ask, What would you opinionated bigots have us do to ensure agreement? Would you prefer we bowdlerize and filter our exposure of all media until every news outlet, comment and musician we watch, listen to or write about is a card-carrying libertarian - simply because we can't handle another viewpoint? Or better yet, should we refuse to recognize the existence of differing opinion at all, content to delude ourselves into a world - as the establishment does - where everyone thinks like we do?
In essence, should we assume that a disagreement over politics is such a big deal that people can't even cave in and, say, listen to some good music or watch some good movies produced by those who have different opinions?
The larger question then is, Have we discovered all there is to know for us to believe what we believe? Have we nothing to learn from the other side?
If so, we must have known it all for a while. It's been at least since we were teenagers. Perhaps it dates from third grade, when our parents told us which political party was the right one. Is the ideal of these critics, one must ask, to inherit a political position and spend an entire life avoiding all human beings who promote anything else?
Or are we political writers, with degrees in the subject, and we admit that a divergent opinion of a musician can stultify all of our weapons? We've got twenty years of economic data supporting free trade, and the lead singer of Coldplay comes out against it, and we're what, beaten and bloodied?
The advantage of libertarianism, as opposed to the tired socialism of the music establishment, is that it doesn't require stereotypical behavior. So when you can find common ground, if not politically, with an artist, why would you deny it? Should we meet Jack Johnson and congratulate him on brilliant music, or lambaste his Luddite tendencies? Should we meet Mos Def and congratulate him on being a brilliant rapper, or argue with him about his contention that war is a "global economic phenomenon?"
Libertarianism indeed is the likely force behind this behavior. It is a position that holds, at its base, that people should be free to make decisions individually. Its promotion of consistent freedom - socially as well as fiscally - makes a philosophy of tolerance and latitudinarianism mostly natural for us.
If any artist takes issue with our uninhibited admiration of his/her artistic talents and simultaneous respectful disagreement with his/her political issues, then let the sentiment be public. We certainly will win the public relations battle.
Musicians tend to think their proclivity to hold dissenting viewpoints from the establishment is cool. Well, quite often, we hold dissenting viewpoints from them.
It seems to be forgotten in these times that no two people are identical. Yet why is it political views must create schisms in personal lives? The state of discourse has apparently devolved so completely that each side now confidently accuses the other of deliberate and pervasive evil. What type of brainwashing must one endure to believe that one who holds the mainstream reverse of their political views automatically holds them for diabolical and immoral purposes?
Apparently, the American Left thinks we support Social Security reform because we have a vested interest in starving old people. The American Right thinks we are trying to book American society a one-way train ticket to Hades with the allowance of gay marriage and the end of censorship. It's these type of responses that are causing the divisions that are so criticized - not the other way around.
It's about time someone grew up and moved past it.
While we rightly destroy the work of our opposing pundits, we do so with a concentration on the fact that a pundit is a public representation of a political position - a musician is an artist.
It goes both ways - from leftist artists accusing us of hypocrisy ("You can't be a fan of rock and not liberal!") to Christians employing similar illogic ("You can't support the allowance of immoral behavior and be a Christian!").
It must be observed, however, that there is an unspoken agreement that you don't step outside of your talents. We're not professional musicians - and we're not really trying to be. So when someone who is a musician does something like, oh, *cough* Live 8 *cough* attempting to formulate public policy without the slightest clue, we rightly pan it as everyone would rightly pan a PI concerto in E minor.
Political references in songs are thus about as frustrating as a movie reference or quote thrown into a column or a speech. Annoying? Often. Cause for boycott? Never.
Railing against a corporation in a rap song doesn't make the rapper Jean-Paul Sartre any more than a movie review on our website makes us aspiring Steven Spielburgs. You get it?
Here's a paraphrased PI reaction to Live 8, for example:
"Oh, sweet, a punk band signed a declaration begging for someone to send someone else's money to corrupt African dictatorships instead of African people. The campaign, naturally, costs the user/activist/occasional celebrity absolutely nothing, it's as easy as ordering a free lunch from the free lunch factory. The fact there is no such thing as a free lunch is not such an obstacle in the glamour world where knowledge equals being rich enough to gawk at starving Africans on shows paid for by MTV.
"Our response? We oppose it because we'd like to actually make things better in Africa - and improvement is not traditionally defined as subsidizing the problem. Does anyone actually think, when the subject is pondered thoroughly, that a problem as severe as African poverty can be solved with a reapportionment of the wealthy's (quick observation - anyone notice that when "The Rich" are supposed to be paying for something like aid to Africa, the liberals are really quiet about how much money they have compared to the poor?) tax contributions that could be creating jobs in America?
"Oh, but their music f*ckin rocks."
Our charge to elevate public discourse no doubt begins here - to celebrate similarities in the face of ideological differences and social unity in the face of political dissent. PI is the first mainstream political organization to respect intelligent disagreement over mindless agreement.
