The Punk Political Party

Very good analogy and it expresses the cognitive dissonance some of us feel when we genuinely like the kind of people McCain and Palin are, while being absolutely terrified at the idea of them getting their grubby paws on our country. Just like I can listen to The Clash and still go about my white-bread existence.

Simple, fast and loud has it's place, preferably running Alaska or telling war stories. Please leave running the US someone else.

Thanks, bb--glad you got the analogy and didn't just rip me to shreds. Though I have to admit that I'm not a huge fan of the kind of people McCain and Palin are, because I see their primary traits as 1) a desire for power and 2) ignorance they don't want to overcome. They probably have other admirable traits, but those crappy ones outweigh their virtues.

Geez, you must really hate punk rock…

Let me start by crediting what’s right in your analogy: there is something worryingly stupid in the punk sensibility that the best punks haven’t really figured out how to deal with politically. It’s not entirely strange that simple, loud, fast, anthemic music would also be embraced by some of the most reactionary people in the US and the UK, such at the Aryan Nations people who saw punk scenes as good recruiting grounds. Punk’s only political response, it seems to me, was a slogan: "fuck off, Nazi punks." Necessary, but not sufficient. Still it is heartening that in this rather strange turn taken by John Lydon, an advertisement for butter, the tag line of the ad explicitly rejects nationalism.

And I don’t know if you already realized this, but there is a real connection between Republicans and punks in the person of Johnny Ramone, who when inducted into the Rock and Roll hall of Fame said “God Bless President Bush” and had earlier referred to Reagan as the best President in his lifetime. Johnny was one of the founding members of the Ramones and was behind the basic idea of the band to return to rock roots: three chord songs but played very fast. He was a real disciplinarian in the band and insisted on loads of practice to get the sets very tight – no mean feat given the speed at which the Ramones played. Still, is there a necessary relationship between discipline and hard work, on the one hand, and political conservatism, on the other?

In the end, your analogy doesn’t entirely convince me. Certainly punk privileges raw emotion and anger, but not necessarily over expertise and merit. “Here’s three chords; now go start a band” was not so much a rejection of skill in music, rather it was an argument that being a beginner ought not be a barrier to entry and that forming bands and creating a scene was a matter of urgency. If you’re in a punk band that really can’t play, people let you know about it. And punk’s “do it yourself” ethic spawned a lot of very sophisticated bands: Wire, Fugazi, This Heat, Erase Errata. What’s more, the idea that anyone could form a band did more to open the doors to women rock musicians than anything previously or since: you mention the rock band Heart, but how many more all-women punk bands there have been! Slits, Raincoats, Lilliput, Bikini Kill and Autoclave and all the Riot Grrls, Sleater-Kinney… When the Slits started, they were by all accounts really terrible; but they got started, had the support of the Clash, practiced a lot, and ended up doing some wonderful dub-inspired punk. There have been some important Republican women but no one would accuse the party of promoting mass political participation by women (at least not women as women, maybe as abortion foes).

And I’m not sure that the ruling emotion in the Republicans’ appeal is anger. I think it’s fear: be afraid of the world of threats and all the enemies, foreign and domestic, who threaten your “way of life.” Republicans don’t want you angry; they want you afraid, cowering in your basement or worrying in your kitchen while they loot the Treasury. I think anger, on the contrary, is an entirely appropriate emotion at the moment: Congress is about to give away $700 billion, with no effective oversight, to prop up an unregulated finance industry when it can find no money for meeting the Millennium Development Goals or for fighting climate change or for greening the nation’s transport infrastructure. We should be mad!

And we should be angry about the Republican lies, from the petty and obvious ones about the Bridge to Nowhere right up to the Big Lie they tell every minute of every day: that they are anti-elitists! One candidate owns seven or eight homes and got into Annapolis as a legacy and the other shoots wildlife from a helicopter – just like you or me? Certainly the success of the party in getting middle and working class white people to think that Republican party hacks are "more like them" than people who come from poor or difficult backgrounds who worked as community organizers or achieved some success on the basis of hard work deserves some thought and analysis but I don't think that most of those Republican-identified voters think punks are "like them."

I also have a different interpretation of the performance settings. The Republican convention did not resemble a mosh pit; it was a stadium rock concert, as was the Democrats. Admittedly, the Democrats draw in crowds like the Rolling Stones while the Republicans drew them in like a Kansas cover band, but the performances were similar to each other and very dissimilar to a punk show. Chanting is not peculiar to punks or Republicans; there were chants on the Dems floor and there were chants at Pink Floyd concerts (“hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!”). The big differences were that I could not imagine Fred Thompson or John McCain or Sarah Palin (or Biden or Obama) stage diving and crowd surfing; even less could I imagine people from the crowd taking their turn on stage.

I’ve gone on far too long, but can I make one more quick defence of the punk approach? It’s in the way you wrote this: angry, pointed, immediate, on the stage and then off, calling the rest of us out to take our turn. That’s not exactly the twenty-minute guitar solo with diminished 9th chords and quirky key changes and odd meters; that’s “God Save the Queen.” Punk doesn’t have to be unsophisticated (for me, at least, Anton Webern’s string quartets come pretty close to punk) but it is about brevity, emotional focus, and anger. I don’t think these characteristics have any necessary political content but it’s certainly important that the vast majority of punks have taken them in anarchist and libertarian directions. And all the same, they want you to vote.

Hi Spike--

thanks for responding with such care, though I'm going to disagree with much of what you say.

Geez, you must really hate punk rock…

I think it would be more accurate to say that I’m bored by most of it. I think a great deal of it fails to bear up well under repeated listening.

I don't admire punk. I admire Pink Floyd.

Let me start by crediting what’s right in your analogy: there is something worryingly stupid in the punk sensibility that the best punks haven’t really figured out how to deal with politically.

That’s a very important admission. Given that I’m an intellectual with a PhD, given that one of the most important endeavors I engage in is critical thinking, the fact that even a staunch defender of punk will admit that there is something “worryingly stupid in the punk sensibility” is a very damning statement. And it’s this worrying stupidity that is the basis for all my other comparisons.

I would also point out that the term punk was chosen to name the movement because it meant “something of inferior or poor quality.”

And I don’t know if you already realized this, but there is a real connection between Republicans and punks in the person of Johnny Ramone.

I remember this now that you mention it, but I wasn’t thinking of it at the time. I’m not sure that strengthens my analysis, but it doesn’t hurt it.

Still, is there a necessary relationship between discipline and hard work, on the one hand, and political conservatism, on the other?

I’d like you to answer that question. Do you think so? I don’t think Sarah Palin demonstrates much discipline or hard work. I don’t think Cindy McCain demonstrates much discipline or hard work–she just inherited her money. I don’t think George Bush demonstrates much discipline and hard work. Do you?

In the end, your analogy doesn’t entirely convince me. Certainly punk privileges raw emotion and anger, but not necessarily over expertise and merit. “Here’s three chords; now go start a band” was not so much a rejection of skill in music, rather it was an argument that being a beginner ought not be a barrier to entry

In other words, as I said, "Whether or not you have the ability to play an instrument isn't as important as whether or not you want to play an instrument, just as whether or not you have the ability to govern wisely isn't as important as whether or not you want to govern in the first place."

I don’t think you’re making a sound critique here of my critique. Everyone is a beginner at some point, and there’s such a thing as “entry level.” That doesn’t mean people don’t need to take time to learn a craft.

Keep in mind, people are using precisely that “being a beginner ought not to be a barrier to entry” argument to defend Sarah Palin as a valid candidate. So what if she’s raw, untried on the national level? She keeps it real!

As I acknowledged, anyone can indeed start a band. That doesn’t mean I need to pay attention to them. Same goes for writing: anyone can write poetry. Doesn’t mean I need to read it.

and that forming bands and creating a scene was a matter of urgency.

why? Why is “creating a scene” a matter of urgency? Why is “formatting bands” a matter of urgency? For whom? For audiences? For performers? And how does that "urgency" confer any sort of legitimacy?

Choosing a vice-presidential running mate is a matter of urgency. That alone does not legitimize any choice made in the matter.

If you’re in a punk band that really can’t play, people let you know about it. And punk’s “do it yourself” ethic spawned a lot of very sophisticated bands.

The Beatles did it themselves--just went off and started a band, and when they started, they weren’t sophisticated, though they became extremely sophisticated with time. What is so special about the “do it yourself’ ethic of punk, as opposed to the early efforts of any other performer who hopes to be successful in a particular art form?

That's not a rhetorical question, by the way. I really would like to understand why there's supposedly something unique about punk's "do it yourself" attitude--aside from what I discuss below, if I'm wrong about that.

What’s more, the idea that anyone could form a band did more to open the doors to women rock musicians than anything previously or since.

Even more than all the girl groups of the 50s? even more than all the female hip hop or rap artists of today? Do you really believe this? Have you done a comparison of the number of women actually selling records in the 1980s to the number of women selling records now?

We all always knew that anyone could start a band. As I said, the Beatles proved that--after all, Paul McCartney still can’t read music. Mick Jagger can’t play an instrument. Punk didn’t come up with that lesson--it just used it as a defense for why people should be interested in mediocre bands. Whether or not you use that defense doesn't mean that others haven't--I've heard it. You argue that there are lots of punk bands with great musicians in them. But you also cite the example of the Slits, who, when they started, “were by all accounts really terrible.” So why did they have the support of the Clash? What really would have been wrong with practicing BEFORE they went out performing, instead of waiting until they got the Clash to back them before they went into rehearsal?

Sarah Palin might someday be a well-informed, articulate politician. But would it have been so terrible to wait until she is that before nominating her for the position of vice-president?

Wire, Fugazi, This Heat, Erase Errata

With the exception of Erase Errata, which I've never heard of, those are all bands that get on my nerves--even Wire, and I own a couple of Wire albums. So maybe we're arguing partly about a matter of taste. I never listen to the Wire song that goes "we're milling through the grinder, we're grinding through the mill. If this is not an exercise, could it be a...DRILL" without wishing they'd say something else too. But they don't. It's just the same phrase repeated until you want to DIE.

for the record, I feel the same way about the end of "Leila" by Eric Clapton. Just end that fucking song already and don't make me hear that damn musical phrase one more time, goddamnit! (Now that's an angry comment.)

And I’m not sure that the ruling emotion in the Republicans’ appeal is anger. I think it’s fear.

I think fear and anger can be closely related, and I think people like Cheney and Bill O’Reilly demonstrate and foment a lot of anger.

I will agree that there are a great many reasons to be angry about the current political situation. The question is one of how anger influences important decisions.

I also have a different interpretation of the performance settings. The Republican convention did not resemble a mosh pit;

The Republican convention is NOT the only performance McP has delivered. What about all of McCain’s stops at the likes of Schmitty’s Pancake house? That’s what I was referring to in saying that McP “plays primarily [not exclusively] to small and mid-sized local venues.”

That ticket--which is still touring--is still visiting lots of small venues.

Chanting is not peculiar to punks or Republicans; there were chants on the Dems floor and there were chants at Pink Floyd concerts (“hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!”).

Absolutely. But the chant “Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!” has a much more complicated meaning than “rock, rock, rock & roll high school” and a much less selfish meaning than “Drill, baby, drill!”

“Drill, baby, drill!” is just two words. “rock, rock, rock & roll high school” is five words, but really only two phrases stuck together. Whereas “Hey, teacher, leave those kids alone!” is six words, none of which are repeated. It's a specific thought designed to provoke thought, not suppress it.

We’re back to the problem of stupidity, which, as I’ve already said, is to me what the matter really hinges on.

I’ve gone on far too long, but can I make one more quick defence of the punk approach? It’s in the way you wrote this: angry, pointed, immediate, on the stage and then off, calling the rest of us out to take our turn.

the thing is, that characterization in no way describes how I see this blog entry--or my work in general--except maybe the pointed part, and by and large I prefer discursive to pointed. I don’t think the piece was angry. I wanted to be critical and biting, but that’s not the same as angry. (Compare the piece to some of my angry emails if you don’t believe me.) The piece most definitely was not immediate. I have been thinking about the matter for weeks, and once I posted the piece, I still revised it and tinkered with it for three hours after I put it up. Furthermore, the piece is still on the stage. I purposely posted only a very brief sentence linking to something else today, because I wanted the piece to be the most substantial thing up there.

Finally, I didn’t call anyone out to take their turn. I didn’t say, “I demand that you comment.” I know blogs don’t work that way. I wanted to acknowledge, however, that I’d posted something others would object to, and to leave space for comments IF someone wanted to leave them. And the move as I made it is more related to Mormonism and bearing testimony, or to inviting comments in a college class.

That’s not exactly the twenty-minute guitar solo with diminished 9th chords and quirky key changes and odd meters; that’s “God Save the Queen.”

Here’s the thing: I’d rather deliver the verbal equivalent of Pink Floyd’s “Dogs” from Animals, which is 17 minutes long, and has a very famous guitar solo, than “God Save the Queen.” You’re really telling me that you think my writing is on a par with this?

God save the queen
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
Potential H-bomb

God save the queen
She ain't no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming

Don't be told what you want
Don't be told what you need
There's no future, no future,
No future for you

I like to think my thoughts are a little more complex than that, and even at my most despairing, I don’t think I’m quite that nihilistic. If you truly think that’s an appropriate comparison, then I’m doing something wrong.