As an artist, should Springsteen be less “political?”

Watch 1:15 To 2:30

O’Reilly makes 2 basic arguments here.  One is silly and reflects the way he talks about most political issues and the way that he treats his political opponents.  The second argument is one that is theoretically defensible and I think many people with reasonable politics would agree with.  But is also wrong.

Argument 1 – Springsteen is unpatriotic

O’Reilly calls Bruce a pinhead for saying our country has “illusions about itself” and likes to leave certain things out of our history as a people.  I don’t plan on spending much time here countering O’Reilly’s absurd claim that Springsteen has a one-sided negative view of America, because frankly, that claim doesn’t require or deserve much refutation.

I’ll make it quick:

- “There's treasure for the taking, for any hard working man who will make his home in the American Land”

- “Meet me in a land of hope and dreams”

- The constant use of patriotic American images (such as the Flag).

Yes – Springsteen sings a lot about problems America faces.  O’Reilly’s argument is a typical extreme right-wing claim that to be critical is unpatriotic.  Of course, nobody who actually listens to what Springsteen says can reasonably hold the belief that Springsteen would ever say “America itself is bad”.  To the contrary, not once does Springsteen reject America, he simply sings about (among other things) (a) what makes America great (for instance, the people who live there) and (b) things that call for reform and improvement.

By saying it’s unpatriotic to point out flaws in America, O’Reilly is making an intrinsically contradictory claim: his criticism of Springsteen and the left-swing politics that supposedly dominates the American political landscape is also itself a claim that America is flawed.  O’Reilly’s style of argument is anti-democratic in the most extreme sense because it calls for an end to all debating, questioning, and thinking.

There is one and only one reasonable argument about why Springsteen’s music and politics could possibly be construed as anti-American: an interesting interpretation of the cover of ‘Born in the USA’ that holds that Springsteen is urinating.

Argument 2 – Springsteen defines liberal politics, and that is bad

His second argument is that Bruce control’s the political left, and that he is an artist, not somebody who should be shaping political views on such a scale.  He says that Springsteen “defines how the far left sees this country.”

I think many people, including both reasonable liberals and reasonable conservatives (and probably extremists as well, like O’Reilly) hold that view that artists are not political scholars, and should not be defining America’s political beliefs.  At the very least, many people find the politics of some artists to be naïve, uninformed, and idealistic.

Of course, Springsteen has many listeners.  But he is not telling people how to vote on every issue.  Springsteen is not laying down proposals for how to reform social security, negotiate a settlement in the Middle East, or alter the economy.

True, he is very political.  But other than endorsing Senator Kerry and President Obama, Springsteen has largely stayed out of the details of specific policy proposals.  Instead Springsteen sings about broader themes and ideas; themes and ideas that might frame how people think and prioritize issues. 

The number of people who vote for a candidate simply because Springsteen told them to is very small (I’m skeptical any evidence exists that a politically significant number of undecideds changed their mind because of Springsteen).  Rather than effecting specific political opinions, Springsteen is more likely to influence broader political outlooks.  Maybe people will be sympathetic to the interests of minorities and the disempowered (“nobody wins unless everybody wins”).  Springsteen might affect the general lens through which people evaluate policymaking because that is what he sings about (unlike specific policy proposals).

On THOSE issues, Springsteen IS qualified.  He may be unqualified to evaluate statistical models predicting the outcome of economic policy, but he is qualified to shape how people generally feel and think about issues such as everyday struggle, hardship, redemption, and relationships (and these ideas certainly influence how people view many political issues).

These criticisms of Springsteen are analogous to the political criticisms people made of the Beatles and John Lennon.  It is argued, if congress listened to John Lennon, we’d have anarchy.

But Springsteen (like most musical artists) are not congress-people, policymakers, or policy advisors.  That’s not their job.  Other people do that. Springsteen is an expert in the field of human relationships and redemption, just as a labor economist is an expert in the field of labor policy.  Political opinions of the general public are the sum of many different beliefs informed by many different voices.  And just as people need to know what policies will have what effects, they also need to know how to prioritize and how to evaluate what’s good and bad, and wrong and right.

The world of political discourse is saturated with arguments about what politics can do for people’s individual needs.  “This foreign policy will threaten your security.”  “This economic policy will enhance your bank account.”  Voices of John Lennon and Bruce Springsteen are not voices that are overheard.  John Lennon and the Beatles helped promote themes such as love.  And Bruce Springsteen sings about many different themes and ideas that the general public may tend to forget, even though they are also important. 

Springsteen doesn’t pretend to be a political expert about every issue.  He is honest with his audience, and he sings about what he knows and believes.  And in those areas, he is certainly qualified to share his feelings with the general public.