Conservative Politics & Rock Music


The National Review has published a list of the 50 all time top conservative rock 'n' roll songs. #1 is The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again". Other artist on the list include Beatles, Stones, U2, Rush, Aerosmith, Creed, Metallica, Beach Boys, Dylan and the Kinks.

Here's a link to the list.

I'm not familiar with every song on the list, but I do have a few observations. I find it incredible that only a single non-white artist made the list. A number of the songs have a very cynical bent ("Revolution", "Sympathy For the Devil", "Won't Get Fooled Again", etc.). Is cynicism a purely conservative trait? "Wouldn't It Be Nice" - I always thought it was a spoof of the Ossie & Harriet lifestyle. "I Fought the Law" - the fact that the law won doesn't make this song politically conservative. It's the verbal equivalent of a Born To Lose tattoo. It's giving the system the finger. Also, there are a number of songs that are about abortion, but only one is by a woman. Maybe the slogan should be changed to "Sex, Drugs, Rock 'n' Roll & Birth Control".

Rock music encompasses a vast number of musical styles and it only stands to reason that it would also include a wide spectrum of political beliefs. Rather than actually debating politics per se, I'm interested in responses to particularly songs being on the list and whether you see them a political or apolitical.
128x128onhwy61
I really don't get some of the comments above that move from the premise that rock and roll has strong anti-establishment roots to the assertion that someone with a political viewpoint defined as conservative in today's political vernacular can't legitimately understand certain songs in a way that resonates with their beliefs.

Rock and Roll is the province of one American political party or ideology? Please, this is ludicrous. Conservative political ideology is the synonymous with the establishment or "the man"? Also ludicrously simplistic: American society is diverse, with the establishment comprised of people with all sorts of political leanings. (Indeed, the New York Times is far more part of the establishment than the comparatively obscure National Review.)

If a self-described conservative wants to find meaning in a song, more power to him. If a liberal is so inclined, likewise. It just seems way over the top to me that some with a certain political leaning are trying to exclusively claim an entire genre of music.
Ah, politics and audio, what a swell thread. Where's Mrtennis when we need him most?
What? No Neil Young? I'm another former lhcpf (though the US Army took care of the lh for a couple of years, since then nature has taken care of the rest...) Now, how many versions of 'God Bless the USA' are there?
Race (social construct or not) and rock-n'-roll no longer need to be in the same discussion (IMO). Yes, many forms of music can be traced directly back to black culture (be that South Eastern US or Africa) as well as many other non-white cultures. Asside from knowing and enjoing the historical significance of the roots of the music why does this matter? Every category and genra you think has been established has been "eclecticized" and otherwise expounded upon.

Rock-n'-Roll Hall of Fame is the measuring stick by which teh deaf (no offense to tthe hearing impaired - really) judge rock music. Can you say minnor attraction in a boring city?

I have been surprised at the great difficulty in pigeon-holing people on the criteria of politics, musical taste, race, IQ, and SES. I know an ultra-conservative who absolutely loves Neil Young and is incredibly intelligent (two qualities I would not normally associate with ultra-conservatives). I know a earthy/hippy farmer woman who has a Bush sticker on her little chicken truck.

Rock is neither conservative nor liberal, it is both conservative and liberal, it is apolitical... it's freakin' rock. Music (rock or otherwise) is an expression of its creator that would not acheive "pop" status without something catchy or otherwise mass-apealing. Most people don't catch nor care to catch the message of any given song. They want something they can hum too. Otherwise WEEN would be more popular.

The National Review, Rush (the junky, not the band), and Fox "News" are all just forums for ultra-conservative masturbation. Surprisingly some of these guys have decent taste in music. I guess you can't judge a book by it's political affiliation.
Totally agree with Onhwy61 about the myopically parochial definitions of what constitutes "rock" music, and the cause: ignorance (and/or revision) of history -- if not downright narcissism, or yes, racism. (Don't anybody get their pants in a twist! In this society we are all, every last one of us -- black, white, whatever -- racists to varying degrees, meaning we prejudge and assign qualities and catagories to people based on our perceptions and preconceptions about race; it's our unavoidable inheritance, and only a question of our honesty and consciousness whether we acknowledge it.) Just an accurate reflection I'm sure of the racial/political/socioeconomic makeup of an audiophile website...

As for the topic at hand (and let me stipulate to being, if not always doctrinaire "liberal" or particularly supportive of the Democratic party, at least in no way Republican-leaning myself), I agree with those pointing out the actual or likely social/political stances of many of the artists listed. This apparent dichotomy is indicative of a perfectly understandable desire to personally "possess" the art one values, and any artist eventually comes to understand (unless they check out prematurely in disgust like Kurt Cobian) that once you put it out there in the world, your work *will* be taken as something other than what you intended by people with whom you violently disagree. Multiply that factor by the confounding, often contradictory definitions -- depending on who is doing the defining -- of what is "liberal" and what is "conservative", and you quickly see that almost anything can go.

One example will illustrate this perfectly, "My City Was Gone" by Chrissie Hynde and The Pretenders. I have little doubt that Ms. Hynde probably abhors Rush Limbaugh and all that he stands for, but he evidently loves her music. There is really no contradiction in that -- music is universally appealing, and a good beat plus a memorable bassline knows no political boundaries. As for the lyric, the list presents the song as a complaint against big government:

Virtually every conservative knows the bass line, which supplies the theme music for Limbaugh's radio show. But the lyrics also display a Jane Jacobs sensibility against central planning and a conservative's dissatisfaction with rapid change: "I went back to Ohio / But my pretty countryside / Had been paved down the middle / By a government that had no pride."
I admit to having no idea who Jane Jacobs is -- nor do I suspect that I'd want to -- but my interpretation, which I quite naturally see as being much more reasonable and true to the artist's intent, is that Hynde is probably anti-development and pro-environment, and rails against a government she describes as having "no pride" because it failed, maybe due to corruption among other things, to protect the natural world as she knew it when she was younger from capitalistic exploitation and destruction. Am I right?

I don't know for sure, but I do know this shows that oft-repeated, overly-literal nostrums such as "conservatives are the ones against change and for preserving tradition" are highly conditional statements at best, empty or even misleading sloganeering at worst. But I also smell a whiff of cynical dishonesty on the part of the authors: I think they know damn well that it's generally not conservatives -- as that philosophy is projected by the modern Republican party and for whom the listmakers presumably carry water -- who decry paving over and developing countryside in this nation (the "exurbs" of costly, widely separated "McMansions" exploding around the previously rural areas outside my own city -- an instance of "rapid change" if ever there was one -- are dominantly populated by white dittoheads with SUVs in every driveway). But even that fact is not devoid of irony or interpretation: Any farms that were lost were probably owned by self-described conservatives, yet who probably accepted big government subsidies to grow their crops and sought government protections to help sell them in artificially regulated markets, while the Interstate roadway system that helped beget the whole situation is a classic case of big government that has been well-supported by administrations of both parties.

What does all this really have to do with rock and roll? Probably not much. At base, rock is about S-E-X. If they're true to their proclaimed philosophies -- or even just seeking publicity -- then conservatives should (and sometimes do) have a problem with rock because it's immoral or ammoral, while liberals should (and sometimes do) have a problem with it because it's sexist or exploitive. Which only goes to show that, since we all seem to like the music anyway, we are driven by deeper urges than ostensibly political/social ones.