Bruce Springsteen's Op-Ed Today in the NY Times

[damo]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
EXACTLY, wvrevy. I actually have to laugh out loud at the criticism of celebs stating their opinions......since the very people roasting them about it are, in fact, stating THEIR opinion publicly. So......does that make them the very thing they are accusing the celebs of being?

Or advertising their choice at the bottom of every post they make(whether it be political or not) on a public message board.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Yes, bsnyder, I do agree with that point; if they choose to endorse any particular issue, I don't believe their free speech is being impinged upon if consumers then choose not to purchase their products or attend their movies/concerts/what-have-you. But then, I haven't ever heard of any celeb complaining as such.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy


Why is it that some people can't seem to disagree with something a "hollywood liberal" says without trying to make them seem like complete idiots? Ben Affleck was in front of more cameras during the DNC convention than John Kerry was, and quite frankly, he made the "experts" on Faux News look like complete bafoons....yet I don't think he has much more than a high school education...

If you have a criticism of Bruce's argument, then say so....

Oh, please! I obviously have a problem with Springsteen's political argument. On my other posts on other threads, I have explained my view and why (not specifying springsteen). This time, to clarify, I am tired of celebrities USING their celebrity status to push ahead their agenda to us "common folk".

Of course there is freedom of speech, and with that said, they have every "right" to do that, just as you and I have a right to do that. The difference is cameras are on them, microphones are faced towards them, and some people take what they say and adopt those opinions without having the knowledge base they really need to have. For these people, their celebrity heroes know all. And, they repeat their opinions as their own.

Also, to be honest, what gives Bruce Springsteen--other than his celebrity status-- credibility? You and I wouldn't get a featured op-ed piece in the NYT printed! I've gotten many letters to the Editors printed, yes, and compliments regarding my writing style or opinion. However, nobody offered to give me a feature-length forum. He's not a senator, a congressman, a member of the current or former administration. The only reason his opinion was printed in the NYT is because he's a celebrity and because his opinion furthers the agenda of the NYT.

That is the issue i have with this.

And, I really beg to differ regarding the intelligence of many actors and actresses. Uhh, did you hear Sean Penn on Larry King some months ago? Do you follow Barbra Streisand's comments and the blame she gives to her assistants every time she makes a mistake? These people are fawned over and treated as if they are so special--by so much of the public, they begin to believe that their opinions, in fact, are actually important and relevant.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

With all due respect, Kendra, I have to disagree. First of all, celebrities aren't to blame if someone takes their word as gospel. Of course it's foolish to do so; but I also think it is foolish to take ANYONE'S opinion as gospel. It is valuable to create public awareness, and perhaps even controversy, because it forces people to think and, as in this case, discuss the issues.

And need I remind you, Ronald Reagan was once "nothing more" than a celebrity. And I would say Arnold Schwarzneggar still *is* a celebrity. Yet they not only spoke out about political issues, they became involved in politics, and were elected by the people. Is their political service somehow deemed less valuable because of their celebrity status? I would say not; but it seems that many here would, by virtue of them having "used" their celebrity to speak out on political issues.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Ugh! So Dave Matthews, James Taylor, REM, and Pearl Jam jumped on the bandwagon and are now all on my non-listening list, too! Most of these lefty musicians and actors in Hollywood barely have a high school education! Why do they continue to spew out what they do as if they are making important points?

I am an educator, and while I am passionate about people advancing themselves through education, I also think that calling someone unintelligent who only has a high school degree extremely unfair. Different people have different live experiences that contribute to thier political views, school only being one contributor to social ideas/ideals. Wisdom, knowledge, intellect- these all have subtle shades of difference.

I find actors to be particularly smart individuals (I've worked with many in my career). For every role they take on, they do extensive research into history, social politics, etc. Their willingness to "become" the person they are representing generally leads them to become empathetic people- so how could this not influence thier perception of the world?

Musicians and actors are an interesting group of people with different types of educational experiences. One reason why many of them lean to the left is pretty obvious, actually- conservative politicians don't support funding for the arts and arts education. If the Republicans want celebrities to support thier policies, they might want to consider this point.

 

[rcyannacci]

Originally posted by gina2000
As much as I like Springsteen's music, you won't see me at that concert. I don't believe in mixing politics with performances. I feel it's infringing on my right to listen to the music without bias or personal politics being espoused. I don't pay money to hear someone else's views. I pay money to hear music. If his views are in the music, that's one thing. If he's going to stand up there and give a political schtick (which he has, on occasion, been known to do), forget it.

I'm really intrigued by this prevalent (or what seems to be prevalent) belief that performance/performers and politics should not mix. This seems to me to be an impossible position. Granted, I'm not a big fan of Springsteen (although I might start paying more attention), but I understood that the lyrics of his songs were extremely political. For those of you who are against this mixing, what is so different from hear political views espoused in lyrics to hearing them from the artist once the song had ended?

Personally, I believe that artists have earned the right to state thier politics. These are people who decided to become artists long before they knew they would become famous- they took a big chance by selecting a non-conventional career and succeeded against overwhelming odds. I'm particularly supportive of artists such as Springsteen, or Spike Lee, for example, who despite thier celebrity continue to make thought-provoking, political work.

Artists have always been at the center of social/political controversies, just by the public nature of thier work. They have always been there to bring up questions of community, citizenship, nationality, civil rights and justice, etc., and I doubt this will change anytime soon.

 

[Cindy B]

Originally posted by rcyannacci
I am an educator, and while I am passionate about people advancing themselves through education, I also think that calling someone unintelligent who only has a high school degree extremely unfair. Different people have different live experiences that contribute to thier political views, school only being one contributor to social ideas/ideals. Wisdom, knowledge, intellect- these all have subtle shades of difference.

I find actors to be particularly smart individuals (I've worked with many in my career). For every role they take on, they do extensive research into history, social politics, etc. Their willingness to "become" the person they are representing generally leads them to become empathetic people- so how could this not influence thier perception of the world?

Musicians and actors are an interesting group of people with different types of educational experiences. One reason why many of them lean to the left is pretty obvious, actually- conservative politicians don't support funding for the arts and arts education. If the Republicans want celebrities to support thier policies, they might want to consider this point.

Wonderfully said!

 

[DukeStreetKing]

I just wanted to add the while Bruce's recent lyrics have more of a political/social slant to them, this is the first time he has gone on record to support a particular candidate. During the Reagan re-election campaign, both parties were trying to co-op his music and lyrics for their benefit and Bruce vehemently took exception to this, as is his right.

Again, I have always respected his views and opinions and will continue to do so. I guess he is truly concerned enough this time to speak out and lend whatever support he can.

He always kind of fit into the "everyman" catagory; nobody really being able to pin him down on a particular subject. He's made this comment in the past, "Trust the art, not the artist". I'll be interested to see and hear what songs he decides to perform, maybe a few new ones.

Another great quote from Bruce, "Blind faith in your leaders, or in anyone else, will get you killed."

 

[MJames41]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
Yes, bsnyder, I do agree with that point; if they choose to endorse any particular issue, I don't believe their free speech is being impinged upon if consumers then choose not to purchase their products or attend their movies/concerts/what-have-you. But then, I haven't ever heard of any celeb complaining as such.

How about Madonna, Dixie Chicks, etc. complaining that their 1st amendment rights were being violated because people were not buying their product because of what they said? Madonna in particular got really upset.

 

[BedKnobbery2]

Again, MJames, I hadn't heard that they particularly claimed that their first amendment rights were violated specifically because people were boycotting them/their music. I'd welcome a link showing such. (Again, I'm not saying it hasn't happened; just that I haven't heard of it.)

 

[cubsfan]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Ugh! So Dave Matthews, James Taylor, REM, and Pearl Jam jumped on the bandwagon and are now all on my non-listening list, too! Most of these lefty musicians and actors in Hollywood barely have a high school education! Why do they continue to spew out what they do as if they are making important points?

LOL! As opposed to the President's Harvard education that gave us such verbal gems as....'misunderestimate' and all the others that I'm sure just make his professors so very proud.

 

[SyracuseWolvrine]

Why is it that people are accusing Springsteen or these other performers of "spewing" or "spouting" their opinions? "Spew", at least in my mind, has a fairly negative connotation. I know that some people don't necessarily agree with his opinion, but why is him expressing his opinion "spewage", and you expressing yours anything else?

 

[tonyswife]

Hmmm, I don't pay much attention to celebrity political opinion. The fact is, they do have the right to voice their opinions, but they are not any more or less valid than anyone else's opinion. I DO get a little annoyed that they are given SO MUCH air time to present their views because the ONLY reason they can do it is because of their celebrity. I would LOVE to have a featured Op/Ed in the NYT, but no one thinks 20 something stay at homes moms opinions are newsworthy.

I still enjoy my Dixie Chicks CD, I will still listen to Sprinsteen and Madonna and Dave Matthews, etc... I don't think that they are bad people or bad performers even if I think their politics are short sighted.

I would LOVE to see one of the millionaire celebrities put their money where their mouth is however. Perhaps, give up all their millions and live in the real world of budgets and choices, like the rest of us. I really don't like it when they lecture us on our fiscal social responsibility from their lives of luxury. A tax cut may be just another talking point for Springteen, but it's not for me, a tax cut is real to me, and to most middle class Americans.

As to the point made about Reagan and Schwartzanegger (sic) being "just" celebrities at one point as well. Yes, that is true, and a good point. But, I think the major difference is that they put themselves out there for the public to decide. They ran. We voted. IMO, running for election elevates their opinions to worthy to listen to, even if we don't agree. I can respect that. Another example would be Sonny Bono, just so I'm fair to both major parties.

Anyway, Springteen's most popular song, Born in the U.S.A. is a VERY political song and I'm not sure why Reagan wanted to use it on his campaign. Look up the lyrics, it's very left. I still love that song, even though I disagree with the inspiration behind it.

 

[Robinrs]

Amazing. I pointed out in the other thread about this about how so many country artists have been "spewing" their views for years and they're just fine. And I wouldn't consider them highly educated, either.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by gina2000
As much as I like Springsteen's music, you won't see me at that concert. I don't believe in mixing politics with performances. I feel it's infringing on my right to listen to the music without bias or personal politics being espoused. I don't pay money to hear someone else's views. I pay money to hear music. If his views are in the music, that's one thing. If he's going to stand up there and give a political schtick (which he has, on occasion, been known to do), forget it.

This concert is for us and obviously not for you. We are glad
you are staying home as we want no wet blankets booing while
we excersize our freedom of speech. Thanks for knowing
not to go, I'm afraid some oblivious folks will wander in and
expect these events NOT to be political. They are Kerry fundraisers, those of you who choose to go; we will be politicizing.
You have been warned. I can't wait to see the BOSS and R.E.M.
together!!! Bruce really would be happy you are not coming if
you are not heart and soul in the spirit of the concerts and gatherings. They are political events to be sure.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by tonyswife
Hmmm, I don't pay much attention to celebrity political opinion. The fact is, they do have the right to voice their opinions, but they are not any more or less valid than anyone else's opinion. I DO get a little annoyed that they are given SO MUCH air time to present their views because the ONLY reason they can do it is because of their celebrity. I would LOVE to have a featured Op/Ed in the NYT, but no one thinks 20 something stay at homes moms opinions are newsworthy.

I still enjoy my Dixie Chicks CD, I will still listen to Sprinsteen and Madonna and Dave Matthews, etc... I don't think that they are bad people or bad performers even if I think their politics are short sighted.

I would LOVE to see one of the millionaire celebrities put their money where their mouth is however. Perhaps, give up all their millions and live in the real world of budgets and choices, like the rest of us. I really don't like it when they lecture us on our fiscal social responsibility from their lives of luxury. A tax cut may be just another talking point for Springteen, but it's not for me, a tax cut is real to me, and to most middle class Americans.

As to the point made about Reagan and Schwartzanegger (sic) being "just" celebrities at one point as well. Yes, that is true, and a good point. But, I think the major difference is that they put themselves out there for the public to decide. They ran. We voted. IMO, running for election elevates their opinions to worthy to listen to, even if we don't agree. I can respect that. Another example would be Sonny Bono, just so I'm fair to both major parties.

Anyway, Springteen's most popular song, Born in the U.S.A. is a VERY political song and I'm not sure why Reagan wanted to use it on his campaign. Look up the lyrics, it's very left. I still love that song, even though I disagree with the inspiration behind it.

These concerts are Kerry/Edwards fundraisers, they are for Kerry/Edwards supporters and ALL the money raised goes to
the campaign. There are a couple dozen fundraisers all over
the swing states from Oct 1 to the 10th. These performers earn
loads per concert. Each group is donating proceeds from about
7 concerts. That's a pretty hefty contribution to the effort, wouldn't you say? Much more than I can afford to give. how about you?

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Ugh! So Dave Matthews, James Taylor, REM, and Pearl Jam jumped on the bandwagon and are now all on my non-listening list, too! Most of these lefty musicians and actors in Hollywood barely have a high school education! Why do they continue to spew out what they do as if they are making important points?

As my grandma used to say, "sour grapes!"
Your other posts show jealousy as well. "Ugh" to be sure

 

[WillyJ]

Well, a I mentioned in another thread I was curious as to why Bruce decided after all these years to take such an overtly political stance concerning the up-coming election. . .


While I think what he wrote in the Op-Ed peice was quite profound and consistent with his work over the years, the answer isn't in there- rather, the answer was in something he said to Ted Koppel in a Nightline interview aired last night. . .


Springsteen has a 14 year-old-son.

He lived through Vietnam and it affected him deeply- he saw thousands upon thousands of American boys come home broken and battered, and 50,000 die because our government lied to us and then didn't have the guts to admit they were wrong.

He doesn't know for sure, but based on rhetoric and actions he thinks there's a good chance if Bush is re-elected that there will be more "pre-emptive" wars and considering how streched the military is now a draft will be inevitable.

He's not sure about Kerry, but he thinks/hopes it will be less likely that his son and other American sons and daughters will be forced to fight wars of choice rather then necessity if Bush is gone and Kerry is in.


I feel the same way. I don't want to see his kid or anyone's kid forced to put thier life on the line because some politician wants to live a "tough-guy" fantasy he did everything to avoid when he had the chance.

 

[buddy&wooz]

Very well said, WillyJ, ITA.

As far as celebrities using their fame to put forth their "agenda", what makes Springsteen any less worthy to be heard than someone like Sean Hannity? He has something to say, and a platform to say it, and he believes enough of his fans agree with him that it's worth the risk to speak out, and maybe lose a few who disagree.

I guess I don't see how anyone could have been a fan of Springsteen's without recognizing his progressive politics. He may never have come out and said it until recently (toward the end of his last tour he made no secret that he wanted Bush/Cheney gone) but just listen to the words he's written over the past quarter century.

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by shortbun
These concerts are Kerry/Edwards fundraisers, they are for Kerry/Edwards supporters and ALL the money raised goes to
the campaign. There are a couple dozen fundraisers all over
the swing states from Oct 1 to the 10th. These performers earn
loads per concert. Each group is donating proceeds from about
7 concerts. That's a pretty hefty contribution to the effort, wouldn't you say? Much more than I can afford to give. how about you?

I'm sorry, I'm missing your point.