Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[kidsmoke]

Even Ted Nugent should stop listening to Ted Nugent.

[uncool2pillow]

Cat Scratch Fever is an awesome riff, but that's about it.

[Magnetized]

As to whether you can or should be able to appreciate music from someone whose political perspective differs from your own, there are lots of factors and degrees in play. I could probably enjoy an opera or a piece of jazz or other instrumental music without knowing or caring about the composer's beliefs. And theoretically I should be able to enjoy love songs and ballads from someone who's a gun toting, pro-life Republican, since those beliefs wouldn't necessarily translate into the songs.

 

But for music I feel passionate about, I need to feel a connection to the artist, and it just intensifies my good feelings when they're on the side of the angels, so to speak--i.e., that they agree with me! For me, the personal is political, and I can't imagine feeling good about listening to artists whose ideas I find repugnant. I'll make an exception for generational or cultural differences--I can enjoy some hiphop or classic country music even if I know or suspect that I would strongly disagree with the artist's sociopolitical views. (This is probably a pretty condescending viewpoint, come to think of it--like, I'll overlook wrongheaded personal beliefs if I feel the artist just doesn't know any better. )

 

I think most people aren't that political by nature, though, so they wouldn't have the dissonance problem that I have. To bring it around to Wilco, for instance, I absolutely KNOW that I would find myself slowly start to sour on their music if Jeff Tweedy came out as a Romney supporter. I can't help it--I would turn right off.

[kidsmoke]

That's very well put, Diane, and I feel very much the same...I've always had a problem listening to artists with whom I had strong personal differences in social outlook. Intellectually I feel it shouldn't really matter so much, but I have to admit that for me it does. Even when I can appreciate that the music itself isn't bad...or even that it's rather good!...if I am turned off by the individual "delivering" it, it somehow comes through in the songs, for me.

 

It's that elusive emotional component of music, which is hard to put a finger on, but when an artist connects for you, you just know it. (And what a jarring disconnect that can create if you fall for the songs first, and only later learn that the musician behind them is an asshat!)

[mpolak21]

Cat Scratch Fever is an awesome riff, but that's about it.

 

I'll go to bat for this one too:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN2VNFpiGWo

[mountain bed]

I had that 45 when it came out (I was maybe 7, I was a really weird kid). What an amazing thing, huh - the guy who is in a band that does a song called "Journey To The Center Of Your Mind" was an avowed "teetotaler" who allegedly 'never took any drugs'. That just cracks me up for some reason.

 

I guess we'd want to expect our artistic heroes to be above the fray of the real world's mundane concerns but apparently that's never been the case, anyway. There's obviously a few exceptions. But I don't think unless things are directly stated by the artist lyrically that would ever cause me to not enjoy the music for what it is.

 

And I don't always pay attention to words, anyway.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

 

 

No one could tell me I can't enjoy things on these terms, but it's still a strange kind of fandom.

 

Bumped for good use of irony

[LouieB]

If I never hear another Ted Nugent or Hank Williams Jr. song it will be too soon. Somehow I can't see how anyone can listen to Rage Against the Machine and not hear their lyrics or their intent. Some instances of political attitudes by artists have to color how a listener feels about them, which is the point of this article. Can you truly enjoy Woody Guthrie's songs without understanding and at least partially agreeing with his politics? I don't think so, but maybe others are able to divorce themselves from the lyric content.

 

LouieB

[LouieB]

To bring it around to Wilco, for instance, I absolutely KNOW that I would find myself slowly start to sour on their music if Jeff Tweedy came out as a Romney supporter. I can't help it--I would turn right off.

Sorry I didn't read this before posting. Four years ago we had this conversation here about Jeff's overt support of Obama and how people felt about it. He did and people didn't like it. So it goes.

 

Edit again-I saw Tom Morello at a Woody Guthrie show here in Chicago. I am not a RATM fan, but just on the basis of seeing the guy one time I can't imagine Paul Ryan enjoying their music. Morello was extremely outspoken on any number of issues. What about Rage does Ryan actually like? If I was at a show where people were espousing racism or anti-semitism, I sure wouldn't just ignore that and think, hey it has a good beat you can dance to it.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Sorry I didn't read this before posting. Four years ago we had this conversation here about Jeff's overt support of Obama and how people felt about it. He did and people didn't like it. So it goes.

 

Edit again-I saw Tom Morello at a Woody Guthrie show here in Chicago. I am not a RATM fan, but just on the basis of seeing the guy one time I can't imagine Paul Ryan enjoying their music. Morello was extremely outspoken on any number of issues. What about Rage does Ryan actually like? If I was at a show where people were espousing racism or anti-semitism, I sure wouldn't just ignore that and think, hey it has a good beat you can dance to it.

 

LouieB

 

Is it bad of me to think that Paul Ryan's love of RATM is probably solely limited to "Bulls on Parade?" I mean he probably has Evil Empire on his iPod, but "Bulls on Parade" probably get's him pumped up when he does his P90X.

[lost highway]

Bumped for good use of irony

 

I'm not trying to be ironic... there's an individual liberty vs power of rhetoric thing going on. A Westboro Baptist member can lace his boots in the morning to Elton John. That is a right. We are all free to tell the person there's something they "don't get".

 

You are also free to believe that Mitt Romney has the ability to make the country better, you express that in your vote. I will try and explain why it's a bad idea, because strong rhetoric and critical thinking are essential components of the Democratic process.

 

I guess what I'm saying is people shouldn't act wounded about someone critiquing their perspective when it enters the political. You are at every liberty to park your BMW in the Executive Officer Only spot while spinning a Woody Guthrie disc. That is probably an evocative image for our post-modern era. That doesn't change the fact that the original article brought up: our relationship with pop culture has been growing more tepid, and its fair to critique some people taking in their music (films, books) the same way they take in their vanilla yogurt.

[bleedorange]

This whole conversation has turned ridiculous. The fact that there is an attempt to make any correlation whatsoever between the politics of an artist and whether that means you can be a fan. So there is no room for opposing viewpoints anymore? There are plenty of artists I love who have differing political views. And even in the context of an overtly political song, I can hear and understand the artist's point of view, respectfully disagree (if that's the case), and go right on enjoying the hell out of the song.

 

I used to think that this kind of thinking was reserved for the redneck conservatives who were so quick to burn their Dixie Chicks albums. Apparently, this neanderthal us-vs.-them mentality when it comes to politics exists everywhere.

[JUDE]

OK, so I tend to run more to the conservative side so in LouieB’s mind I would be a neocon. I am pretty much pro-choice because I’m not a woman so it really ain’t my business but I’m not a real fan of abortion. I think our current progressive tax system is inherently failed and ends up being a debate that ends up being a distraction from other issues. I would support a flat tax across the board with a floor on income somewhere above the poverty rate to reduce the impact on lower incomes and eliminate many deductions and the EIC. I think Social Security is a con that would make Carlo Pietro Giovanni Guglielmo Tebaldo Ponzi proud and jealous at the same time but it has become so ingrained in our society as to becom almost holy. I support the option of current workers being allowed to invest a portion oftheir SS withholding into a self directed account but I am not in support of full privitization, unless the entire system is scrapped, and a schedule of increased retirement ages should be put into place.

 

I like many different artists and don’t really pay much attention to their individual politics.

 

[KevinG]

I agree with bleedorange, this conversation has gotten ridiculous. People hear what they want in music, some can divorce an artist with their politics some cannot.

 

So anyone want to turn the conversation to rape and abortion?

 

This is what Mo. Republican Senatorial candidate Todd Akin said on the subject of rape and abortion:

 

[F]rom what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape] is really rare," Akin told a St. Louis TV station. "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something. I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.

 

Maddow had some interesting things to say about this and the relationship with Akin has with Ryan. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/20/13375158-the-larger-significance-of-todd-akins-ridiculousness?lite

 

There are a couple of things that really struck a pure politics standpoint (I really don't want to get into the whole abortion debate).

1. With the whole recent GOP flaps on women's health issues to come out and say something like this (believing it or not) is politically troubling for Akin, who led in a recent poll by 3 points (taken before the comments where made). And if McCaskill keeps her seat, this would more than likely keep the Senate in the Democratic control. Thus ending almost any chance of RR of pushing their agenda of Obamacare repeal if they win.
   
2. It pushes the focus of the presidential campaign further from economy. Which is what the GOP needs to make this campaign about if they want to win.
   
3. Lastly it will connect Ryan with Akin as Maddow clearly points out. This is something that is not going to help RR win in Nov.
   

[bleedorange]

It would be refreshing if both candidates came out and said matter-of-factly, "Look, people, I'm going to have to raise taxes. It's an economic certainty. And, you know what, that guy across from me is to. So let's cut the BS about tax cuts, etc., and talk about how we're going to do this."

 

It would also be refreshing for both parties to come out and say, "Oh, and as for the abortion debate, it's legal...so deal with it. Also, we're both going to do our best to ensure LGBTs can marry whomever they want. So let's stop that distraction."

[KevinG]

It would be refreshing if both candidates came out and said matter-of-factly, "Look, people, I'm going to have to raise taxes. It's an economic certainty. And, you know what, that guy across from me is to. So let's cut the BS about tax cuts, etc., and talk about how we're going to do this."

 

It would also be refreshing for both parties to come out and say, "Oh, and as for the abortion debate, it's legal...so deal with it. Also, we're both going to do our best to ensure LGBTs can marry whomever they want. So let's stop that distraction."

 

There is only one party that has come close to that line of thinking and it ain't the GOP.

 

The GOP has been taken over since the mid 80's by the religious right (so you are not gonna get any rational debate on abortion or marriage equality). And in recent years Gover Norquist and the TEA party has taken any real chance of sane tax reform off the table.

 

And with the GOP being pushed so far to the right, it pushes the Dems to left and the cycle continues to divide the country.

[Winston Legthigh]

It would be refreshing if both candidates came out and said matter-of-factly, "Look, people, I'm going to have to raise taxes. It's an economic certainty. And, you know what, that guy across from me is to. So let's cut the BS about tax cuts, etc., and talk about how we're going to do this."

 

It would also be refreshing for both parties to come out and say, "Oh, and as for the abortion debate, it's legal...so deal with it. Also, we're both going to do our best to ensure LGBTs can marry whomever they want. So let's stop that distraction."

 

Can someone explain to me the pledge that many legislators have signed that says something about promising never to raise taxes? Who is the dude behind it, and why are so many legislators afraid of him?

[KevinG]

Can someone explain to me the pledge that many legislators have signed that says something about promising never to raise taxes? Who is the dude behind it, and why are so many legislators afraid of him?

 

The guy behind it all is Grover Norquist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

 

He came out with the Tax Payer Protection pledge. Which in part pledges anyone who signs it to:

oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rate for individuals and business; and to oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.

 

This is very big in the TEA party and was one of the driving forces to the GOP/TEA party surge in 2010. 238 of 242 House republicans and 41 of 47 senate republicans have signed the pledge. Those that have signed the pledge have held firm. It is seen by many as the main reason for the obstructionist ways of the GOP. It is also away to have a single issue that defines a candidate. I am not sure if the GOP is afraid of Grover, or the many people who believe the pledge is worth something.

 

Also it is funny, there was no pledge, no real consideration of the effect of massive deficit spending when GWB was in office. Heck there are several stories out there how Ryan (and other GOPers) voted for increase spending (hell even stimulus) under GWB. But now, when a Dem is in office, we have to cut spending and everyone has become a deficit "hawk."

 

If RR gets elected, I wonder how long before the GOPers go back on their pledge, but if PBO stays in office I would bet dollars to donuts that they will stand firm on the pledge.

[lost highway]

This whole conversation has turned ridiculous. The fact that there is an attempt to make any correlation whatsoever between the politics of an artist and whether that means you can be a fan.

 

I don't think anyone on here said that, and if I came off that way I certainly explained myself poorly. I was reaching towards something a little more nuanced than that, but it might be above my verbal skills.

 

It would be refreshing if both candidates came out and said matter-of-factly, "Look, people, I'm going to have to raise taxes. It's an economic certainty. And, you know what, that guy across from me is to. So let's cut the BS about tax cuts, etc., and talk about how we're going to do this."

 

It would also be refreshing for both parties to come out and say, "Oh, and as for the abortion debate, it's legal...so deal with it. Also, we're both going to do our best to ensure LGBTs can marry whomever they want. So let's stop that distraction."

 

I totally agree with this. Both sides of the two party coin have shrunk the conversation considerably. I feel that the right wing has especially mislead people in making promises about abortion that they can't keep. It would be better to talk about real problems that can/ need to be solved.

[lost highway]

More Paul Ryan analysis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/opinion/krugman-an-unserious-man.html?_r=1&smid=fb-share

 

From the article:

 

"The answer, basically, is a triumph of style over substance. Over the longer term, the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it — and in Washington, “fiscal responsibility” is often equated with willingness to slash Medicare and Social Security, even if the purported savings would be used to cut taxes on the rich rather than to reduce deficits. Also, self-proclaimed centrists are always looking for conservatives they can praise to showcase their centrism, and Mr. Ryan has skillfully played into that weakness, talking a good game even if his numbers don’t add up. "

[LouieB]

If you are a fiscal conservative these days, you get linked to the social conservatives at the hip, which is certainly a bad place to be.

 

LouieB

[ih8music]

There are plenty of fiscally conservative independents and democrats. The only ones who get linked to social conservatives are those who've stuck with today's GOP.

[KevinG]

There are plenty of fiscally conservative independents and democrats. The only ones who get linked to social conservatives are those who've stuck with today's GOP.

 

The GOP is strictly antiabortion, even in the case of rape and incest. As show by the official Republican Party Platform of 2012. http://thecaucus.blo...party-platform/

 

I am glad the republican party is so focused on the economy.

 

Yes I know this wasn't the only thing in their platform, but compounded with the Todd Akin comments this puts another spotlight on what the GOP is all about.

 

The GOP doesn't care about fiscal responsibility, deficit spending, and all the other BS out there. They want to push their moral agenda.

 

***Update***

found this link with more highlights of the GOP party platform.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/22/723241/gop-approves-most-conservative-platform-in-modern-history/

 

I am really interested in seeing and reading the full platform, just to see how economic issues are weighed against the social agenda.

[LouieB]

There are plenty of fiscally conservative independents and democrats. The only ones who get linked to social conservatives are those who've stuck with today's GOP.

Okay, I will buy that. But few of the fiscal conservatives that are truly fiscally conservative speak out enough to be noticed.

 

LouieB

[lost highway]

I do feel like this election (although full of entertainingly crappy attacks) is more economics oriented than the last two. Maybe I'm just noticing more, but I feel like the right wing is trying to give a voice to specific economic theories instead of just condemning people on social issues. I like to see someone's tax plan get looked over by a bunch of economists who write editorials about it. In this way I feel like the Ryan pick actually has heightened the conversation a bit.