The Pope of Bruce

It's no secret; I'm one of the small, misbegotten, misunderstood troupe of conservatives that are huge Bruce Springsteen fans.

I don't know who gives us more grief - conservatives like Jason Lewis, who mistake his marketing savvy and relentless blue-collar mien for socialistic diddling, or liberals who see his relentless blue-collar mien and often-dour lyrics about the dark side of American life as an indictment of capitalism and America itself.

Both are wrong, of course.

The most galling thing about Bruce, of course, is that some ultra-left demigog always manages to appoint himself the Pope of Bruce. During the first half of Bruce's career, Dave Marsh filled the role. Marsh was the most galling of rock critics - an able critic with impeccable musical taste (he wrote the definitive bios of the Who and Bruce, among many other great rock tomes), who nonetheless couldn't write a shopping list without slipping in a paeon to Castro or a condemnation of Ronald Reagan.

Eric Alterman has taken over the papacy of Bruce recently. The far-left pundit - most famous for the preposterous What Liberal Media? - also wrote Aint' No Sin to Be Glad You're Alive, a capable dissection of Springsteen's music as literature and social criticism which, despite being a fair set of opinions, is no less dogmatic than any of Marsh's neo-Maoist screeds.

Dexter Van Zile has written an interesting piece on Springsteen-via-Alterman in the Washington Dispatch.

In his recent piece in The Nation (“USA OUI! BUSH NON!” Feb. 10, 2003), Eric Alterman returns to a familiar trope – Bruce Springsteen’s moral and artistic superiority. It's an important theme in Alterman's writings and for good reason. Springsteen's body of work, shot through as it is with depictions of wounded manhood, mournful ambivalence and longing for redemption, provides convenient fodder for Alterman's proclamations of America's inherent greatness, the failure of Democratic leadership to live up to that greatness and the malign intent of Republicans to undermine it. But while mournful ambivalence and all that accompanies it may make for good artistry, it doesn't make for good foreign policy, which is why unlike Alterman, most Americans can embrace both Springsteen and George W. Bush in their respective realms. Americans may tolerate, even enjoy, watching artists grapple with self-doubt, but they realize that when it comes to responding to the challenges in the international arena, there are times when politicians must struggle with something aside from their own failings and face evil for what it is. In the cultural realm, Springsteen is the Boss; in the political realm, Bush is their man.

This is a fascinating point.

Alterman seems to feel that people must be consistent in all things; to favor action against terrorism, one must listen to Toby Keith and presumably eat steak twice a day and drive an SUV, while Springsteen fans must perforce be anti-war, vegetarian, and so on.

And yet hasn't art always been a vehicle by which people explore and soothe their self-doubts? An entry point into the insecure parts of the psyche to which one must tend before being able to put on one's war face?

Van Zile continues:

The main thrust of Alterman's piece, which discusses Europe's feelings toward the U.S., is that the people of Europe are disgusted by Bush’s alleged unilateralism, but love America, its people and its culture. To redeem its relationship with Europe, Alterman argues, America must fully embrace its values, adopt multilateralism and embark on a foreign policy that “protects and defends our values as well as our people.” Exactly what such a policy would look like in concrete terms, Alterman doesn’t say, but it appears we have three tasks before us. First, we must dump Bush as president, then give Europe veto power over the American use of force and lastly, appease Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq who has gassed his own people, invaded Kuwait and has lied to UN arms inspectors. Do these things, Alterman suggests, and all will be well between the U.S. and Europe.

The first proof Alterman offers to demonstrate Europe really, really does love us is the positive reaction of the crowd at a Bruce Springsteen concert Alterman attended at Paris' Bercy Stadium while reporting his piece. It seems that the crowd of 15,000 screamed the lyrics to “Born in the USA” at the “top of their lungs” and “with their fists in the air.” The scene inspired Alterman to write “You can't be anti-American if you love Bruce Springsteen.”

Oddly, it seems that Zacarias Moussaoui was a bit of a Bruce fan.

But that's a side issue. Whether one can be an anti-American Springsteen fan is as irrelevant as whether one can support the war and also admire Springsteen's music.

No, the real issue as far as I'm concerned is that people can simultaneously believe things that, to the overly-rigid mind, may seem contradictory, but for reasons that are thorougly consistent.

Even Springsteen himself.

Last summer, when The Rising was released, he did a series of interviews in which he said "The war in Afghanistan was handled well. It was deliberative, which I wasn't counting on. I expected a lot less from this administration." The muted praise of the President was more than some leftists could handle.

And after that, we saw the most amazing of phenomenae - the rock critic from the ultraliberal Village Voice lambasting the album and the artist, while a music critic from the conservative National Review lionized it.

It was an absolute gut-shot for many on the left. But many on the left have memories just as short as many on the right. Because while many leftist commentators still praise Springsteen for slamming Ronald Reagan for alluding to Born in the USA during the '84 campaign, many on both sides forget that he was equally quick to cut off Walter Mondale's attempt to exploit the incident for his own advantage as well.

Iraq is more complicated. Springsteen has taken some conservative heat during his current tour for asking people to be sure to stay on top of the situation, not to give to blind patriotism or revenge, to keep the Administration accountable. Fairly mild stuff, compared to the vast majority of the Hollywood "peace" movement, really. Some chalk it up to his being a lefty - and there's something to it. More importantly, there's an element of moral consistency to this stance; Springsteen is pretty forthright about the fact that he dodged the draft during the Vietnam war. According to the stories he's told in concert over the years, he managed to flunk the physical, on purpose. It's not something he's advertised, but neither is it something he's covered up (unlike a certain former president). He's said in previous interviews he doesn't believe it appropriate for someone who dodged the draft to be a hawk.

What's the point?

Demigogues of both sides (but especially the left) are quick to jam people into convenient, monochromatic containers. Dave Marsh and Eric Alterman may live, breathe and exude red to the cores of their beings - more power to them.

Most people aren't like that. I'm a conservative who still loves punk rock, Jersey-shore soul, and the date with the occasional Green.

Springsteen is a liberal who supported a war that the left roundly, and wrongly, condemned.

Life is complicated. More complicated than the likes of Alterman can usually gather.

Posted by Mitch at February 21, 2003 02:29 AM