The boss endorses
Very Awesome
Bruce Springsteen endorses Barack Obama just before the Pennsylvania primaries:
He has the depth, the reflectiveness, and the resilience to be our next President. He speaks to the America I’ve envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that’s interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit. A place where “…nobody crowds you, and nobody goes it alone.”
The endorsement of superstars shouldn’t really matter than much. They are, after all, just talented artists at best and marketing vehicles at worse (you wouldn’t care who the Jolly Green Giant endorsed would you?). But Springsteen may be slightly different, because millions have identified with his songs in a profound and personal way beyond what a normal musician achieves. Mariah Carey will likely never have someone claim Hero defined their life. But it’s possible someone might keep a copy of The River for just that reason.
For confirmation of Bruce’s cool (though not precisely his relevance), check out this video of him performing Dancing in the Dark with a street musician in Copenhagen.
Tags: endorsement, obama, springsteen
April 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I love the boss.
chuck norris aside, I often wonder why artists on the whole tend to lean towards liberal political viewpoints. what is it about the way that they are wired matches up with the philosophy? is it the idealism? the compassion? the environment?
(an aside: as a conservative, in all these things I tend to see the potential for MORE good being done by limiting gov’t and allowing people to maximize their own efforts, but that’s another point…)
April 16th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
That’s a huge question Peter.
I’d say that there are a number of factors at play. It could be that musicians and artists have more free-time to research positions, thus are more able to make educated political decisions. Or it could be that they’ve found more of their market is liberal, thus making a marketing move.
Or maybe it’s the compassion or hope. I would say we’ve been barraged for years with the notion we need to be terribly afraid of “them”. And that we need to protect “us”.
It could be that most artists had periods of extreme poverty in their stories, and might have more personally rooted empathy with those in need. Perhaps they also have less faith in individuals freely acting to help those in need based on those same experiences.
It could just be that most artists seem to live in California and New York, which seem to tilt liberally. In fact, it seems more major urban areas lean liberal in general, and it’s probable that artist concentrate in urban areas. Except Norris and the Nuge, that is.