Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 30 Comments
This post is in: Republican Stupidity
If you ever wanted to know why Democrats make a lot of headway by labeling Republicans as foolish and spiteful, check out this idiotic ‘fisking’ of a John Lennon song that appeared in the Weekly Standard. Not some third rate blog, not the local indie rag, but a so called serious magazine.
Yes, Imagine was idiotic. But so was the Macarena. Your point, Mr. Engel?
Comments are closed.
“Imagine” If Conservatives Took Pop Music Seriously
Imagine, if you will, a political speech that was actually delivered in 1971. That should be an easy task. It was the year of the Watergate break-in and the ratification of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution. Can you recite…
“Imagine” If Conservatives Took Pop Music Seriously
Think about a political speech that was delivered in 1971. That should be an easy task. After all, it was the year of the Watergate break-in and the ratification of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution. Can you recite any…
“Imagine” If Conservatives Took Pop Music Seriously
Think about a political speech that was delivered in 1971. That should be an easy task. After all, it was the year of the Watergate break-in and the ratification of the 26th Amendment to the Constitution. Can you recite any…
To hell with music!
After thinking over that last post, the manifest unfairness of singling out books for the carnage they’ve wrought began to get to me. After all, even if we grant for the sake of argument that books are dangerous, as I…
CleverNameHere
I have never heard or read anyone extolling the virtues of “The Macarena” as serious political philosophy.
Performers often use their art as vehicles for their particular ideology. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But if an artist makes a statement with a song, how is it ridiculous to answer him by addressing his song?
JKC
John: the only criticism I can make of your post is your calling the Weekly Standard a “serious magazine.” Hard to justify that label if this is what they’re printing these days.
CleverNameHere: It’s generally easier to debate the political merits of a song with an artist who hasn’t been dead for 13 years. I can see where you might need that kind of handicap, though.
tom scott
JKC: “It’s generally easier to debate the political merits of a song with an artist who hasn’t been dead for 13 years.”
Take that argument to the many Marxist professors infesting our colleges and universities. While you’re at it take your sarcasm with you.
CleverNameHere
JKC
So it’s poor form to analyze the statements of people who are now dead?
That’s going to come as a nasty shock to philosophers worldwide.
Seriously, it’s not as if Lennon’s song is without defenders. As the first two paragraphs show, the whole article is written because so many people seem to think Lennon had a good idea for how things could be better. Lennon himself can’t answer, but his legion of fans can.
I understand where you’re coming from, though. It’s generally easier to undercut the opposition by engaging in ad hominem. Dealing with relevant issues can be such a bother.
mark
Next week, a bold critique of “Yellow Submarine,” exposing its subliminal attacks against the Military Industrial Complex.
drew
“JKC: “It’s generally easier to debate the political merits of a song with an artist who hasn’t been dead for 13 years.”
Take that argument to the many Marxist professors infesting our colleges and universities. While you’re at it take your sarcasm with you.”
As a college student who has discussed politics outside of class with a few professors I can testify to the fact that there is no “Marxist infestation” on our college campuses. In fact our liberal poli sci chair hired a fairly conservative professor.
The vast majority of liberal profs leave their politics at home and just teach. The bad ones get all the attention.
Oliver
I have it on good authority that if you play Britney Spears backwards you become a commie. It’s true!
Slartibartfast
I’m convinced by drew’s conclusion regarding colleges everywhere based on a formidably large sample data set. This ought to go into some sort of journal, I think.
Jettison
I liked the article. People need to read the lyrics of the songs they humm. If Bush said his favorite song was “Imagine”, would Atrios not mock him?
JKC
So when I say “It’s generally easier to debate the political merits of a song with an artist who hasn’t been dead for 13 years”
Tom Scott replies:
I wasn’t aware that Marx or Lenin had a song catalog.
JKC
CleverNameHere:
My point is that people who think Lennon was as deep a political thinker as Marx or Adam Smith or Jefferson are not people who think seriously about politics.
Dean
Back before “fisking” had become a term, I remember PJ O’Rourke writing fiskings of both “We Are the World” and “Do They Know It’s Christmas Time”.
Both were amusing articles, noting both the fatuousness of the lyrics, and of the artists involved.
I don’t think O’Rourke meant it to be more than humor/a wry look; for that matter, I don’t know if Engel meant it to be more than humor/wry.
The defenses mounted in these comments of “Imagine” would suggest that perhaps some folks DO take its politics, however, quite seriously….
JKC
Dean-
I remember those O’Rourke articles and they were freakin’ hilarious. Really. The guy’s a great writer.
I don’t recall, though, seeing any impassioned defense of the political philosophy espoused by “Imagine” in this comment thread. I do see people making fun of the allegedly serious Weekly Standard for wasting space on an article demonizing a 20+ year old pop song.
Or are you guys sore because liberals have John Lennon and you’re stuck with Ted Nugent? ; )
Kimmitt
O’Rourke’s a pretty funny guy.
Sebastian Holsclaw
“My point is that people who think Lennon was as deep a political thinker as Marx or Adam Smith or Jefferson are not people who think seriously about politics.”
Quite a few people who don’t think seriously about politics vote anyway. Though I doubt they read the Weekly Standard. :)
CleverNameHere
JKC
If you meant in your comment to ridicule those who take Lennon’s song seriously as political philosophy, you failed utterly.
You implied that debating a dead person is somehow unfair, and that I needed the advantage of a silent opposition.
Now, I don’t know if you actually don’t understand the plain meaning of the language you used, or if you’re simply now trying to beat a hasty retreat. I don’t suppose it matters much either way.
As Sebastian notes, the vote is not limited to serious political thinkers. I support idiot’s suffrage as a matter of principle, but that means I have to address even the most unserious of drivel.
JKC
CNH-
Debating (as opposed to analyzing the works of) dead songwriters does strike me as a bit one-sided. As I said, though, I see why you’d need the uneven playing ground.
I’d like to know where you and Sebastian got the idea that lack of “political sophistication” equals stupidity. Your electrician may not understand the difference between libertarian and social conservatism, but he’s a lot less apt to burn down your house installing a new circuit than you are.
Russ
Oliver wrote:
No. Rather, the listener’s brain melts and runs out his ears.
The effects are much the same.
Kimmitt
If you play recordings from the Mormon Tabernacle Choir backwards, you get some really excellent jello recipies.
Nick
I don’t see what the controversy is here. Lennon wrote a stupid utopian song (with a beautiful melody, I might add). Millions of ex-hippies and hippie wannabes (who vote and just generally make my life harder with their various day-to-day stupidities) take the lyrics to heart and don’t actually think about them. The author of the “fisking” wanted to actually take them to task by showing them the childish absurdity of their supposed ideals. It isn’t relevant if Lennon is alive or dead. His idiotic ideas are quite alive- and are therefore subject to scrutiny.
CleverNameHere
JKC
If you can see why I’d need an uneven playing ground, you’re doing your best not to share your understanding with the rest of us. Vague, haughty and mysterious is one way to go, I suppose.
I further suppose if you can’t even understand the plain meaning of your own posts, it’s asking a bit much to actually expect you to remember them too, but you might go back over the thread and notice that you, JKC, were the one who first claimed that the people who place Lennon up their with Jefferson etc. are “not people who think seriously about politics.”
Having thus ridiculed the Lennonists, your sudden switch to defending “the common man” seems quite peculiar.
You should probably just accept that you shot your mouth off without thinking and move on. Or, if you’re a masochist, I guess we can continue. I wouldn’t want to try to silence you or anything.
John Cole
Shrug.
I just felt the column was pointless and mean. Besides, even if Lennon was wrong in his thoughts, his sentiments were admirable. Besides that, I like the song.
CleverNameHere
John
I don’t really doubt that Lennon had the best of intentions, and the article may very well be mean, but you know what road is paved with good intentions, and being mean doesn’t preclude one from also being right.
A commenter earlier joked that next we’ll see a takedown of “Yellow Submarine” as a polemic decrying the military industrial complex. It was humorous because of course no one really thinks that “Yellow Submarine” is anything of the sort.
But that’s where the two songs are different, one is a political anthem which many people believe encapsulates their view of world affairs, and one’s just a silly little pop song.
In a very real sense, what Lennon actually said or meant is irrelevant, because the Lennonists have adopted his song as their own. They are the parties to the conversation; they’re just quoting Lennon as support.
Besides, I hardly think it unfair to Lennon for us to actually do what his song requested: Imagine what the world would be like if it were as he described.
Andrew Ian Dodge
Lennon was a terrorist loving (IRA et al) piece of excrement who should be exposed at every possbile moment.
Ok, it could be argued he was less of a complete an utter arsehole before he met Yoko (and made much better music too) but Imagine is a political rant and thus deserves all it takes.
Jon H
Huh. Here I thought ‘Imagine’ was about LSD and written by Charles Manson.
Dave Violence
“Imagine” made JL a lot of money. It should be praised on that alone. As far as what it “says”, well, just imagine.