The ennobling populism of John Mellencamp: "Small Town" and "Our Country"

Music on Saturday @ The Reaction

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As we're doing fairly long NFL picks/analysis posts each Sunday (up at 11 am), we've moved Music on Sunday to Music on Saturday for the duration of the NFL season.

**********

No reason for this clip today other than that I really like John Mellencamp. Yes, I know, that whole "This is Our Country" thing for Chevy was annoying, mainly because the gratuitous, manipulative ad seemed to be everywhere and because it seemed like Mellencamp was selling out, but actually "Our Country," while schmaltzy, is pretty good. Besides, what's wrong with that sort of "up-with-all-the-people" populism? This is our country -- the country of ordinary folk, not the country of the Wall Street plutocrats, not the country of some ordinary folk, as Republicans would have us believe, a country united, not divided. That's a simple message, perhaps, but it's one that resonates, or should, particularly at a time when the right, as it usually does, wages relentless, class and moral/religious warfare, seeking to divide the country into "us" and "them."

By way of comparison, Springsteen has generally espoused a more complex populism, and his songs are more complex, but Mellencamp has always been admirably direct with his politics. There is a tendency, I think, to write Mellencamp off as too '80s, but I've always found his appeal much broader, with music and social commentary that transcended that generally horrible decade. And his great run through the '80s -- American Fool (1982), Uh-Huh (1983), the wonderful Scarecrow (1985), and The Lonesome Jubilee (1987) -- was pretty impressive. That's some of the best American music of the decade, music that holds up still. And his music since has been strong as well, with stand-out songs like "Human Wheels" (1993), "Dance Naked" (1994), "Peaceful World" (2001), and, yes, "Our Country" (2007) proving that he's still on top of his game after all these years.

Here are the videos for "Small Town" (off Scarecrow) and "Our Town." They're somewhat similar, though made many years apart, and they showcase, I think, what John Mellencamp is all about.

Lou Dobbs leaves CNN

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Lou Dobbs, nativist xenophobe extraordinaire (if still less noxious than Pat Buchanan), announced tonight that he will be leaving CNN, effective immediately.

As far as I'm concerned, it should have been effective years ago, long before he became an icon of fearmongering, back when he was still a newsman. (He was actually one of CNN's original anchors.)

Not that I care all that much about CNN, as I wrote a couple of weeks ago in a post on how even Geraldo Rivera and John Stossel think Dobbs is crazy, but it has been rather troubling that Dobbs has been able to call a major cable news network, ratings woes aside, his home, and even more troubling that that home, which is supposed to be, or at least claims to be, a news network that actually cares about reporting the news and not just about spewing partisan, ideological spin, that is, something other than Fox News, provided him with such a prominent platform, and with a bullhorn, for so long. Shame on CNN, though we should have learned a long time ago not to expect much from it.

But what does it matter? We haven't heard the last of Dobbs.

This move may boost CNN's credibility, but, in the grand scheme of things, not much will change. Dobbs will just find a new home with a similar platform, a similar bullhorn, and outrageous pay. However much we may wish it were otherwise, after all, his brand of right-wing, protectionist populism with an independent twist still plays well. Where a fascist like Pat Buchanan talks up the Nazis, Dobbs at least seems to care about jobs and the plight of the American working class. Beyond his extremist niche, Buchanan is widely reviled, or at least seen as an insignificant fool not worth paying much attention to. Dobbs holds repugnant views on immigration, but his populism is generally palatable to a wide swathe of the American people, more so than ever given the current economic climate.

Where will he go? Fox News makes the most sense, even if Rivera admirably continues to campaign against him. No, he is neither Christianist theocrat nor Ayn Rand disciple, the two types that rule the right these days, but his populism fits in well there, and there will be an audience for him. If not there, though, somewhere else, for some media outlet will decide that, whether it agrees with him or not, he's worth it.

Regardless, Dobbs went out tonight in a blaze of bullshit:

Over the past six months, it has become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us, and some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem-solving as well as to contribute positively to a better understanding of the great issues of our day and to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible.

Yes, I suppose there is the possibility that Dobbs will throw his hat into the political arena, and I'm sure he'd find a good deal of support there.

I would only point out that those "strong winds of change" aren't exactly blowing at his back. Dobbs plays to the darker part of America, the part where fear and hatred rule, where nativism is a leading virtue, and where "constructive problem-solving" involves targeting Mexicans and other foreigners and blaming the Other, both internal and external, as the cause of all ills.

Call me a naive optimist, but I just don't think the world is going in that direction. Some of it is, yes, without doubt -- just watch Fox News or listen to the Republican Party -- but as long as Dobbs and those like him continue to be given prominent positions on the media and political landscape, all they'll be are obstacles to progress.

(Photo: MSNBC.)

Sarah Palin and the politics of resentment

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's our Quote of the Day, from Frank Rich's excellent Sunday NYT column on Palin, Palinism, and the GOP:

No less than 71 percent of Republicans said they would vote for her for president. That overwhelming majority isn’t just the “base” of the Republican Party that liberals and conservatives alike tend to ghettoize as a rump backwater minority. It is the party, or pretty much what remains of it in the Barack Obama era.

That’s why Palin won’t go gently into the good night, much as some Republicans in Washington might wish. She is not just the party’s biggest star and most charismatic television performer; she is its only star and charismatic performer. Most important, she stands for a genuine movement: a dwindling white nonurban America that is aflame with grievances and awash in self-pity as the country hurtles into the 21st century and leaves it behind. Palin gives this movement a major party brand and political plausibility that its open-throated media auxiliary, exemplified by Glenn Beck, cannot. She loves the spotlight, can raise millions of dollars and has no discernible reason to go fishing now except for self-promotional photo ops.

The essence of Palinism is emotional, not ideological. Yes, she is of the religious right, even if she winks literally and figuratively at her own daughter’s flagrant disregard of abstinence and marriage. But family-values politics, now more devalued than the dollar by the philandering of ostentatiously Christian Republican politicians, can only take her so far. The real wave she’s riding is a loud, resonant surge of resentment and victimization that’s larger than issues like abortion and gay civil rights.

*****

It’s more likely that she will never get anywhere near the White House, and not just because of her own limitations. The Palinist “real America” is demographically doomed to keep shrinking. But the emotion it represents is disproportionately powerful for its numbers. It’s an anger that Palin enjoyed stoking during her “palling around with terrorists” crusade against Obama on the campaign trail. It’s an anger that’s curdled into self-martyrdom since Inauguration Day.

Brilliantly put -- Rich at his finest. (Make sure to read the whole thing.) And, as of right now, it is true, I think, that Palin is the Republicans' "last presidential candidate standing":

Such would-be competitors as Mark Sanford, John Ensign and Newt Gingrich are too carnally compromised for the un-Clinton party. Mike Huckabee is Palin-lite. Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal — really? That leaves the charisma-challenged Mitt Romney, precisely the kind of card-carrying Ivy League elitist Palinists loathe, no matter how hard he tries to cosmetically alter his history as a socially liberal fat-cat banker. Palin would crush him like a bug.

I would just caution that the 2012 election is still a long way off. It's Obama's to lose, of course, but there's ample time for the Republicans to regroup -- if not for that election, then certainly for 2016. (It could be Jeb by then, or perhaps Cantor, or another who isn't currently on the presidential radar.)

I'm hoping the Republican Party continues to embrace Palin -- if not Palinism, a far more noxious and malevolent phenomenon, a genuinely dangerous political movement -- for a good long time. The reality, though, is that it will eventually emerge from its Palin obsession, perhaps sooner rather than later, and, when it does, it will be stronger and more of an electoral threat to the Democrats than it is now (or may be in 2012).

Let's enjoy the GOP's Palin Era while it lasts, but let's not forget to look with sober anticipation to its successor, whatever and whomever it may be.