After August’s announcement of the Vote For Change tour, American musicians entered a new era in their relationship with politics. In the past, musicians tended to support causes or issues without attaching themselves to specific candidates or parties. But then in 2004, something changed.
It suddenly became commonplace for musicians to proclaim their dislike of the current administration. And while talk of a free Bruce Springsteen concert during the Republican National Convention excited some, Americans could never have fathomed he and some of the country’s most accomplished recording artists would band together to stage concerts in the election’s key swing states.
Nor could they have expected the dozens of other concerts and tours, which are either in support of John Kerry or opposing the president. These concerts may appeal to a broad range of potential voters, but one group in particular, — voters aged 18 to 30 — stands out as the most targeted. Younger voters have consistently voted in low numbers, and for years politicians have tried to figure out how to motivate one of the country’s largest electoral blocs. Now 32 years after the first election in which 18-year-olds could vote, members of the music community are trying their best to finally mobilize the youth and influence the outcome of this year’s presidential election.
He’s just another Republican. Why all this opposition?
A striking feature of the musical landscape in 2004 is the general sense of urgency on the part of those who lean toward the political left.
“There’s a feeling that there is no effective formal opposition,” said Richard Iton, NU associate professor of political science. “Now there’s a sense that the stakes are really high, that people can’t afford four more years of the GOP.”
General negative feelings toward the president may play a role in motivating the opposition, but to create a historically abnormal amount of resistance, a specific event must act as a catalyst. One thing people on both sides seem to agree on is what this catalyst is: the war in Iraq.
“The war in Iraq is identified as completely President Bush’s war,” said Medill junior Henry Bowles, president of College Republicans. “Whenever there’s a war, it’s easy to make an antiwar message resonate with the youth and to get them afraid of war.”
The antiwar movement has long been associated with the rock ‘n’ roll scene, most prominently since Bob Dylan gained recognition in the early ’60s with songs such as “Blowin’ In The Wind” and “Masters of War.” But opposing war is just one aspect of a larger sentiment in the rock ‘n’ roll community that causes it generally to lean liberal.
“There’s a thread in rock ‘n’ roll that’s a little dissonant and against restraint and control,” said Abe Peck, chairman of Medill’s magazine department and former associate and contributing editor for Rolling Stone. “That tends not to align with what today’s Republican Party stands for.”
Political views aside, musicians also have been exposed to harsh criticism of U.S. policy during their travels overseas.
“This is not a popular country right now,” Iton said. “Artists (like the Dixie Chicks, who criticized Bush while in Britain) may be responding to the anti-American feelings (abroad).”
Are they pro-kerry or just anti-bush?
Most of the energy put forth by musicians during this election season has not even mentioned John Kerry’s name. Although July’s Concert for Kerry at New York City’s Madison Square Garden raised $7.5 Million for the senator’s campaign, tours such as Vote For Change and Rock Against Bush have hesitated to align themselves with the Democratic nominee. The money raised by most of these concerts instead goes to political action committees, which will then use those resources to help unseat Bush. This has resulted in the left creating a bigger stir by criticizing the president than it has by enthusiastically supporting Senator Kerry.
Peck, who refers to this phenomenon as “ABB (Anything But Bush),” sees a multi-faceted goal in the left’s efforts.
“It’s not only about endorsing a candidate, but defeating one,” Peck said. “That’s stronger and perceived as an attack rather than an endorsement.”
And for some Northwestern students, endorsing the Democratic candidate still presents problems.
“Most people I know are voting for Kerry because Bush is such a weak candidate,” said Kyle Weber, a Weinberg junior. “At the same time, people don’t think Kerry is much of a candidate himself.”
Hasn’t this happened before?
The actions and involvement of 20th-century artists such as Dylan, Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger might be the first examples that come to mind when thinking about political agitation by U.S. artists. But according to Iton, artists have been involved in the political process since the 19th century, when they mainly supported Democratic candidates over Whig or Republican competitors and often got involved in municipal campaigns.
Then in the 1940s, artists often campaigned for both Democratic and Workers Party candidates. This group of artists, as part of the popular front, included a legendary actor and musician named Paul Robeson.
Robeson, who identified with the left and was later implicated in connection with the Communist Party, was at one time the most popular singer in the country. After falling victim to the red scare he was banned from concerts, and the State Department revoked his passport privileges.
Robeson’s fate might be seen as the predecessor to the backlash after the Dixie Chicks’ famous comment (Lead singer Natalie Maines said she was “ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas”), though the consequences they’ve dealt with have been significantly less severe than the ones Robeson faced in his time.
But while such direct identification with a political party or candidate has become rarer in the last few decades of American rock ‘n’ roll, it has happened across the Atlantic.
The Red Wedge tour of 1986 featured British artists such as Paul Weller, Billy Bragg and The Smiths in support of Britain’s Labour Party against incumbent Margaret Thatcher. Iton mentioned there were no such protest tours against Ronald Reagan in the United States.
As Peck points out, though, that election was not nearly so close as the one in fewer than five weeks is expected to be, perhaps explaining the lack of significant opposition from the music community.
So who exactly are they talking to?
A significant number of the Vote For Change concerts will take place at arenas on college campuses, including this Tuesday’s show at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, which will feature the Dave Matthews Band and Ben Harper. Large concerts often are held at college arenas, but in this case, it is clear that the college setting is no coincidence. The historically untapped resource of the young voter is a major target of tours such as Vote For Change, which hope to attract those who might not otherwise be inclined to vote in the election. To succeed in this endeavor they must make these individuals feel like part of a greater whole.
“There’s enthusiasm and it creates the sense of community that might not otherwise be there,” Iton said.
While most concerts mainly target 18- to 30-year-olds, some feel Vote For Change and similar tours consciously appeal to a particularly receptive part of that population.
“Music acts cater to an anti-Bush niche,” Bowles said. “That’s wealthy, urban and suburban youth.”
But those involved with Vote For Change and similar tours often face an uphill battle in getting alienated college students to vote.
“Kids our age are very indifferent to what’s going on outside of their own college world,” said Sara Patrawala, a Weinberg sophomore. “Your biggest concern is what’s going on Saturday night, rather than who will win the election or what’s going on in Washington.”
But is music the place for politics?
Musicians’ involvement in the 2004 election h
as rekindled a debate about whether art is the proper forum in which to discuss politics. Some musicians, such as Alice Cooper, feel that “rock should never be in bed with politics.”
Other artists, such as Tyler Rann of Midtown, who is playing on the Rock Against Bush tour, take an opposing viewpoint.
“An artist certainly has a place being involved in something like this, as music is a voice for the many,” Rann said.
Pat Thetic of Anti-Flag, who also is on the Rock Against Bush tour, has a similar perspective.
“Artists’ passion is to express their personal ideas,” Thetic said. “If you take these ideas out of it, its nothing but commercialism.”
Weber feels that musicians’ involvement with politics is fine, as long as it is “covered under freedom of speech.” But this is unlikely to compel him to get more involved or change his opinion of a candidate.
“Music plays very little role in my politics,” Weber said, though he did concede that he might be enlightened on a particular issue as a result of a musician’s involvement.
Though Weber may not be affected by musicians gone political, other voters could be swayed by these new musical politicos.
“Rock ‘n’ rollers have a lot of influence, as they’re respected by people who don’t respect much else,” Peck said.
Whether musicians’ efforts to oust Bush from office succeed will be difficult to tell. Even if Kerry wins the election, we probably will never be able to gauge the effect that tours such as Vote For Change had on the 2004 election.
What is certain, however, is that, at least in this country, another element has been added to the political landscape. Electoral politics is now fair game for musicians to fight for and to discuss. Fans might not listen to their opinions as loyally as they do their albums, but they will at least have to consider one with the other.4
Weinberg junior Sam Weiner is the PLAY music editor. He can be reached at [email protected].
