Artists and Politics

Every weekday evening, ABC's Nightline is rebroadcast in Japan on BS1, a satellite station that focuses on news and sports. Last night, Ted Koeppel was discussing the involvement of artists in the current US election campaign. Essentially, the argument against their involvement centres on an artist being unable to grasp and intelligently discusses the matters of great import that face the United States and the world.

As many artists pointed out, the idea that artists should be politically silent is a relatively new concept. Being relatively familiar with music of the 1960's, much of the work was politically charged with commentary denouncing the war in Vietnam, discrimination or other injustices. More recently, Robbie Robertson released a song that was based on an interview with Leonard Peltier, a Native American who many believe was wrongly imprisoned.

We don't question an artist when they discuss love or other life issues but when "serious issues" are raised, their credibility is questioned. Why is this?

The main reason for attacking the appropriateness of a politically active artist stems from fear; fear from those in power that the artist will actually succeed in mobilizing and influencing the usually apathetic masses. From what I perceive, the US media market is split into two main streams; the news/talk format and entertainment format. The news/talk format is predominantly right wing and continually espouses views that are supportive of the current administration. I would assume that people who listen to this format are politically active and they vote in line with the views expressed by the hosts of the shows. The entertainment stream generally avoids discussion of politics unless it has some entertainment value; a sex scandal is always good fodder. Since politics are largely ignored, they become unimportant and the listener would be less likely to engage in the political process.

Thus, a popular artist who discusses politics and activates this previously uninvolved group, especially if they do not toe the right wing line, presents a substantial threat to the current administration and their supporters. This fear leads to attempts to discredit the artists and prevent the political activation of a substantial number of potential voters.

A common argument against politically active artists is that they are unequipped to deal with substantial issues that are facing the world. They will be denounced as not in touch with the harsh realities that face the world and are misguided, perhaps idealist, in their simplistic view of the world. In certain cases, this may be true. There have been many occassions where an artist will make a daft comment or have a shallow grasp of an issue. However, this should not brand all artists as ill-informed soap boxers. President Bush has one many occassions shown substantial lapses in comprehension of important issues and an inability to appreciate the incongruity of his statements "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003. And he is paid to be informed and articulate in these matters.

I would argue that well-informed artists are, in many ways, more able to discuss issues in a disinterested and unbiased manner. A business leader will support a government that implements policies that allow for more profits and an expansion of the business. His or her views are ultimately self-serving although they will wrap it in the rhetoric of creating jobs for the unemployed. Members of a religious group will fight to ensure that their ideals are forced upon the general public. They seek direct personal benefits for their political activity.

Artists, rather than benefitting from expressing their views, can risk alienating part of their audience and face admonishment from the record company that holds their contract. The Dixie Chicks were severely criticised by many right-wing groups for their disparaging remarks against President Bush. Well organized groups pressured radio stations to limit their airplay and stifled their right to freely express their opinions. When Bruce Springsteen was asked by Ted Koeppel if he was being politically active for his one personal benefit, Bruce replied that he was unhappy with the direction the country is heading and he doesn't want his children to live in the country that the current administration is creating. To me, being motivated politically to create a country that benefits future generations is refreshing rather than a cry for tax cuts or the imposition of religious fundamentalism.

There is much more that I wish to write on this topic as I feel that I have just begun. I will come back to it in the future. However, I wish to close for the moment with this thought:

How can a country that prides itself on freedom of expression be so paranoid about dissenting opinions that conflict with the current administration's policies. Is that not what makes a healthy democracy? Isn't the free exchange of ideas and opinions the best way to create a country that is inclusive and free from domination by a select group of people? Shouldn't everyone be able to express their opinion regardless of their occupation? Why should business people be considered superior to artists when politics are involved?

It is unfortunate that the coroporate culture, one that shuns the common person, is becoming accepted as the norm. People shouldn't be involved in the government; let the business leaders, the lawyers, and the rich deal make the sacrifice as they grapple with such difficult matters while you consume our products and help perpetuate the huge inequality gap that separates the rich from the rest. Political involvement by all members of society is probably the most important aspect of a democracy. Without this involvement, the government will be over-run by special interests and cease to be government for the people by the people but government for the rich by the rich.