My Photo


  • Creative Commons License

« Which makes Batman the liberal fascist of what now? | Main | Is there a blog in this course? »

Wednesday, 29 August 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


"Won't even begrudge you a 'Fuck You?'" I think the problem is precisely that Springsteen does, in fact, begrudge Christie even the respect of a "Fuck You."

I, on the other hand, have no such compunctions -- so fuck you, Chris Christie.


Not sure what's more disconsonant, this or Paul Ryan claiming his favorite band is Rage Against the Machine. I wonder if Ryan knows Tom Morello has been protesting his ass and Scott Walker all year at the Wisconsin state capitol building.

But there's always the 1984 election; Reagan beat Christie to pop music cognitive dissonance re: Bruce Springsteen.


I was wondering why he would use such a bizarre (at least in the context of the Amero-fascist consistency of everything else) color scheme. Still doesn't explain the swirling clouds behind him during the speech that made it look like our medications were wearing off....

jeff kaufman

I'm sure you listened to the speech with an open mind. there a political litmus test for appreciating the work of an artist? Liberals can only listen to liberal musical artists and vice versa? Seems pretty small minded. I can appreciate the talent and creativity of an artist without having to know his/her political leanings....can you?


So Jeff, you wouldn't find any inconsistency if Cory Booker used Ted Nugent at the Democratic National Convention, or if Joe Biden walked out to Hank Williams Jr.?

The argument isn't about small-mindedness or the ability to appreciate a song, it's about the political recruitment of cultural work the content of which argues against the political positions for which they're being recruited to support. Sort of like if the NSA sent out complimentary copies of 1984 to all Americans to help roll out the USA PATRIOT act. Sure, it's a beloved piece of literature, but you'd have to be pretty tone-deaf not to recognize that 1984 doesn't celebrate a surveillance state.

And that's the point: When so many other people recognize the cognitive dissonance of Christie putting forward that particular piece of cultural work, they begin to ask questions: Is he that really that tone-deaf, or is he just that cynical? If he's that tone-deaf, what does that say about his attention to detail when it comes to policy matters if he can't even parse a pop song? If he's that cynical, is that worse than being tone-deaf? Either way, is that someone you want as a leader -- someone who either can't get past the chorus and the riff, or someone who thinks you can't?

Don't forget a prime motivator for this blog is the relationship between form and content in cultural work. The form here -- recruiting the bard of the working class -- doesn't work with the content of Christie's policies or rhetoric.


Is he that really that tone-deaf,

"'You know, politicians they only hear the chorus, they never hear the verse.' But the thing is, the verse is the story and the verse is the message."

(I really like that introduction and, a propos of this blogs interest in visual iconography I do find the contrast between Gretchen Peters and everybody who's dressed up for the fundraiser really interesting.

jeff kaufman

OK, MXYZPTLK...that does it. When you go back to the fifth dimension you are banned from watching any Clint Eastwood movies......oh, yes....and then there's a fifteen minute time out in the empty chair

The comments to this entry are closed.