America’s National Review has published a list of the 50 Conservative Rock Songs of All Time. The list contains some surprising choices such as The Who, at number one with Won’t Get Fooled Again. It’s the theme song for ‘disillusioned revolutionists’ according to the John Miller, author of the article.
Miller, a political reporter for the magazine, told The New York Times: “Any claim that rock is fundamentally revolutionary is just kind of silly.”
And so we find U2’s Gloria at number 6 in the chart, on the basis of its faith and its ‘reactionary’ Latin chorus.
Hmm, several mistakes. Dont Tread on Me by Metallica is NOT a tribute… in fact its the opposite. And isnt U2 the prime example of religioous inspiration that is NOT conservative?
Hmm, several mistakes. Dont Tread on Me by Metallica is NOT a tribute… in fact its the opposite. And isnt U2 the prime example of religioous inspiration that is NOT conservative?
Let me quote the article: “In several cases, the musicians are outspoken liberals. Others are notorious libertines. For the purposes of this list, however, we don’t hold any of this against them.” U2 is itself not a conservative band, but the individual song is conservative in its use of Latin in its chorus. I would argue that New Year’s Day also qualifies in its being inspired by 1983’s Polish Solidarity movement. In either case it’s not an insult to the band to describe a song as politically conservative, any more than it is to describe Bullet the Blue Sky as politically liberal; the songs are what they are.
Let me quote the article: “In several cases, the musicians are outspoken liberals. Others are notorious libertines. For the purposes of this list, however, we don’t hold any of this against them.” U2 is itself not a conservative band, but the individual song is conservative in its use of Latin in its chorus. I would argue that New Year’s Day also qualifies in its being inspired by 1983’s Polish Solidarity movement. In either case it’s not an insult to the band to describe a song as politically conservative, any more than it is to describe Bullet the Blue Sky as politically liberal; the songs are what they are.
How is the use of latin in the chorus ‘conservative’? Surely the sentiment is meant to rise above all earthly politics…
The Solidarity movement was a Trade Union, comprising of people associated with the Catholic church and crossing all the way to the Anti-Communist Left. Non-violent protest was the common denominator. How could that be considered ‘conservative’?
This kind of highlights the problem with having the need to define everything in terms of being ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, Left and Right- it is often unchallenging, too simplistic and divides people who usually have more in common than they realize. It prevents progress.
How is the use of latin in the chorus ‘conservative’? Surely the sentiment is meant to rise above all earthly politics…
The Solidarity movement was a Trade Union, comprising of people associated with the Catholic church and crossing all the way to the Anti-Communist Left. Non-violent protest was the common denominator. How could that be considered ‘conservative’?
This kind of highlights the problem with having the need to define everything in terms of being ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’, Left and Right- it is often unchallenging, too simplistic and divides people who usually have more in common than they realize. It prevents progress.
You have a point that the polarizing labels are limiting, but to the degree that they are useful — and to the degree that they apply — I *would* say that the use of a long-dead language and common cause with a movement that opposed Communism are more conservative (in the modern American sense of the term) than they are liberal.
You have a point that the polarizing labels are limiting, but to the degree that they are useful — and to the degree that they apply — I *would* say that the use of a long-dead language and common cause with a movement that opposed Communism are more conservative (in the modern American sense of the term) than they are liberal.
Well you *would*, wouldn’t you… It requires more investigation on your part-
As stated, Solidarity was a trade union movement, first and foremost- (when have unions ever been considered ‘conservative’)- which represented views of people across the political spectrum, who were united against injustice and oppression. In this case it was Communism and its totalitarian apparatus.
There were many ‘liberals’ in Solidarity!
In recent times, Lech Walesa (as had Pope John Paul), has lamented about the values that capitalism have brought to Poland.
The song is not about being anti-communist, it’s about people getting together to make change and to rise up to those who will refuse freedom and human rights- regardless of their political view- (believe it or not, most liberals I have met do not believe in communism…!)
If you ever attend mass in Europe, you would likely hear latin being used. That’s historical, not ‘conservative’.
‘Though torn in two, we can be one.”— why would you need ‘useful’ labels for something that simple?
Well you *would*, wouldn’t you… It requires more investigation on your part-
As stated, Solidarity was a trade union movement, first and foremost- (when have unions ever been considered ‘conservative’)- which represented views of people across the political spectrum, who were united against injustice and oppression. In this case it was Communism and its totalitarian apparatus.
There were many ‘liberals’ in Solidarity!
In recent times, Lech Walesa (as had Pope John Paul), has lamented about the values that capitalism have brought to Poland.
The song is not about being anti-communist, it’s about people getting together to make change and to rise up to those who will refuse freedom and human rights- regardless of their political view- (believe it or not, most liberals I have met do not believe in communism…!)
If you ever attend mass in Europe, you would likely hear latin being used. That’s historical, not ‘conservative’.
‘Though torn in two, we can be one.”— why would you need ‘useful’ labels for something that simple?
It’s clear you disagree with me, but I’m not sure what your position is: are you saying that labels such as “conservative” and “liberal” don’t apply to any songs, ever? Or that they simply don’t apply to these two songs? If it’s the former, I’m not sure agreement is possible between us. If it’s the latter, I don’t think agreement is at all necessary.
It’s clear you disagree with me, but I’m not sure what your position is: are you saying that labels such as “conservative” and “liberal” don’t apply to any songs, ever? Or that they simply don’t apply to these two songs? If it’s the former, I’m not sure agreement is possible between us. If it’s the latter, I don’t think agreement is at all necessary.
Well, much like this original article, it’s all inconsequential.
I’m quite sure some of the artists mentioned would disagree with the pretext that “Any claim that rock is fundamentally revolutionary is just kind of silly”- (I disagree with that, but that’s another discussion)- that is the author basically stating that this type of music is not to be taken seriously, through the power of his pen he is superior to that notion, but hey, here’s a list of songs subjectively interpreted to suit his world view.
Who cares?? It’s the National Review, they should stick to what they’re good at, like supporting the least fiscally conservative president in at least a decade.
But, just to finish this, do you believe standing up against oppression in any shape or form is mutually exclusive to the ‘conservative’ point of view? If so, Caveat emptor.
That is the myopic bent that got me started on this…
Well, much like this original article, it’s all inconsequential.
I’m quite sure some of the artists mentioned would disagree with the pretext that “Any claim that rock is fundamentally revolutionary is just kind of silly”- (I disagree with that, but that’s another discussion)- that is the author basically stating that this type of music is not to be taken seriously, through the power of his pen he is superior to that notion, but hey, here’s a list of songs subjectively interpreted to suit his world view.
Who cares?? It’s the National Review, they should stick to what they’re good at, like supporting the least fiscally conservative president in at least a decade.
But, just to finish this, do you believe standing up against oppression in any shape or form is mutually exclusive to the ‘conservative’ point of view? If so, Caveat emptor.
That is the myopic bent that got me started on this…
Though you didn’t answer my questions, I’ll answer yours: no, opposition to oppression is not inherently contradictory to conservatism. What’s not conservative is expecting that such opposition can usher in a permanent revolution and immanentize the eschaton. And if I may say so, I think it’s foolish of you to insinuate that NR blindly supports “the least fiscally conservative president in at least a decade.” For one thing, there’s only been two presidents in the last THIRTEEN years; more substantively, NR has had, since New Year’s, TWO COVER STORIES denouncing the idealogical drift of Republicans in Washington, particularly on spending, and another cover story taking a position on immigration that is at odds with the Bush Administration. National Review’s editorial board believes primarily in political conservatism, not in partisan loyalty to the Republican party; though conservatism is often advanced by Republican gains, support for the idealogy does not entail blind loyalty to the party.
Though you didn’t answer my questions, I’ll answer yours: no, opposition to oppression is not inherently contradictory to conservatism. What’s not conservative is expecting that such opposition can usher in a permanent revolution and immanentize the eschaton. And if I may say so, I think it’s foolish of you to insinuate that NR blindly supports “the least fiscally conservative president in at least a decade.” For one thing, there’s only been two presidents in the last THIRTEEN years; more substantively, NR has had, since New Year’s, TWO COVER STORIES denouncing the idealogical drift of Republicans in Washington, particularly on spending, and another cover story taking a position on immigration that is at odds with the Bush Administration. National Review’s editorial board believes primarily in political conservatism, not in partisan loyalty to the Republican party; though conservatism is often advanced by Republican gains, support for the idealogy does not entail blind loyalty to the party.
“no, opposition to oppression is not inherently contradictory to conservatism” ??? I’m glad it’s not!
To answer your questions-
You can certainly apply the labels “conservative” and “liberal” to songs, but it’s a very limited way of describing a song.
But in the context of New Year’s Day, I disagree with what your argument is founded on, based on how I have read the songwriter describe his own lyrics, in the context of his world view (strangely enough, I find that is the best way to interpret what a song is about…) Back in the day he also described it as a love song about Walesa being separated from his wife. A ‘conservative’ love song, perhaps?
I wanted to point out the historical facts behind Solidarity which you might not have been aware of, and that people who wouldn’t normally agree with each other got together behind a common cause- and that’s why it worked. (and what’s wrong with that?)
Anyone is free to interpret what they want, but just like with anything else, if the basis wrong, then it’s a question of “just not getting it.” And the article is nothing but an interpretation.
The song “Gloria” is ‘conservative’ only because the chorus is in latin? Did you know that latin is often used in religious ceremony, in countries like Ireland? The catholic church is conservative, but it doesn’t ‘own the rights’ to latin. And if you ‘got’ the song, you’d understand that neither the word ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ apply to it.
What I mean by 10 years, is that Clinton was not considered to be fiscally conservative at first, with programs like national healthcare on his desk, and that around the late 90s, the US was staring at the largest budget and projected budget surplus in history. (Am I going to give Clinton all the credit? No. Does his administration deserve some of it? I don’t doubt facts.)
I’m actually aware that Buckley and other fiscal conservatives have been giving the president stick, but what is foolish, is the NR giving support to the president at election time when he had already supplemented the budget on a war, cut taxes during war time, and showed no signs of curbing spending- during a Republican Congress- and now whining about it. And who are you kidding- just when was the last time NR supported a fiscal conservative Democrat?
Tax and spend or spend and borrow later- and having a country with eyes on becoming a superpower being our second largest creditor? It’s a Republican Congress! By your definition, the whole Congress has strayed, so why is the NR not supporting any fiscal conservative that isn’t Republican?
In fact, this discussion has strayed– you started it!— it’s slow news days at U2.log but I don’t want to waste any more storage space… Thanks.
P.S. I’m not saying “stick to Ted Nugent and ZZ Top” either, OK?
“no, opposition to oppression is not inherently contradictory to conservatism” ??? I’m glad it’s not!
To answer your questions-
You can certainly apply the labels “conservative” and “liberal” to songs, but it’s a very limited way of describing a song.
But in the context of New Year’s Day, I disagree with what your argument is founded on, based on how I have read the songwriter describe his own lyrics, in the context of his world view (strangely enough, I find that is the best way to interpret what a song is about…) Back in the day he also described it as a love song about Walesa being separated from his wife. A ‘conservative’ love song, perhaps?
I wanted to point out the historical facts behind Solidarity which you might not have been aware of, and that people who wouldn’t normally agree with each other got together behind a common cause- and that’s why it worked. (and what’s wrong with that?)
Anyone is free to interpret what they want, but just like with anything else, if the basis wrong, then it’s a question of “just not getting it.” And the article is nothing but an interpretation.
The song “Gloria” is ‘conservative’ only because the chorus is in latin? Did you know that latin is often used in religious ceremony, in countries like Ireland? The catholic church is conservative, but it doesn’t ‘own the rights’ to latin. And if you ‘got’ the song, you’d understand that neither the word ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ apply to it.
What I mean by 10 years, is that Clinton was not considered to be fiscally conservative at first, with programs like national healthcare on his desk, and that around the late 90s, the US was staring at the largest budget and projected budget surplus in history. (Am I going to give Clinton all the credit? No. Does his administration deserve some of it? I don’t doubt facts.)
I’m actually aware that Buckley and other fiscal conservatives have been giving the president stick, but what is foolish, is the NR giving support to the president at election time when he had already supplemented the budget on a war, cut taxes during war time, and showed no signs of curbing spending- during a Republican Congress- and now whining about it. And who are you kidding- just when was the last time NR supported a fiscal conservative Democrat?
Tax and spend or spend and borrow later- and having a country with eyes on becoming a superpower being our second largest creditor? It’s a Republican Congress! By your definition, the whole Congress has strayed, so why is the NR not supporting any fiscal conservative that isn’t Republican?
In fact, this discussion has strayed– you started it!— it’s slow news days at U2.log but I don’t want to waste any more storage space… Thanks.
P.S. I’m not saying “stick to Ted Nugent and ZZ Top” either, OK?