Some Musings on Music and Politics

With the shock waves of the presidential election still spreading, I got to thinking about an artistic phenomenon that occurs in times of great change. Let me start with last Friday, when we had over some friends who were saddened by the election of Donald Trump. The conversation soon turned from politics to Leonard Cohen, the singer-songwriter who died the day before the election, and his amazing song "Hallelujah." We listened to various versions, from Jeff Buckley's well-known performance to an Israeli army choir interpretation in Hebrew. Then, the next evening, "Saturday Night Live" opened with Kate McKinnon, known for her satiric portrayal of defeated presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton, singing "Hallelujah." The song ends with Cohen's verse: "I did my best; it wasn't much. I couldn't feel so I tried to touch. I've told the truth; I didn't come to fool you. And even though it all went wrong, I'll stand before the Lord of Song with nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah!" The song is seen by many as sorrowful, but Cohen himself felt it was a "rather joyous song" and explained, "This world is full of conflicts and full of things that cannot be reconciled, but there are moments when we can transcend the dualistic system and reconcile and embrace the whole mess, and that's what I mean by 'Hallelujah.'" In that more positive spirit, McKinnon/Hillary followed the song's conclusion with an exhortation to those disappointed in the election outcome (the majority in terms of popular vote): "I'm not giving up and neither should you." All that got me thinking of the historic convergence of music and politics. After all, Bob Dylan, singer-songwriter and five-decade cultural influence, has just been awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. Dylan is well-known for a musical opus that includes "Blowin' in the Wind" and "The Times They Are a-Changin'," which became anthems for the American civil rights and anti-war movements of the 1960s. Looking for an exploration of politics in music, and vice versa, I found books such as Politics in Music: Music and Political Transformation from Beethoven to Hip-Hop by Courtney Brown, Music and Politics by John Street, Talkin' 'Bout a Revolution: Music and Social Change in America by Dick Weissman, and 33 Revolutions per Minute: A History of Protest Songs, from Billie Holiday to Green Day by music critic Dorian Lynskey. And as far as Cohen's song is concerned, there is The Holy or the Broken: Leonard Cohen, Jeff Buckley, and the Unlikely Ascent of 'Hallelujah' by Alan Light. But I note that none of these histories go past 2013. The defining songs of the next generation of political protest have yet to emerge. Watch and listen in 2017. I'm betting new rallying music is in the offing. In the meantime, for fans of "Hallelujah," see https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Broken-Leonard-Unlikely-Hallelujah/dp/1451657854

Peculiar Politics: Liar, Liar and Polls on Fire

In the current presidential race, charges of "liar" are being tossed back and forth by just about everyone. Journalistic fact-checkers don't seem to have much impact, probably because people distrust the media more than the politicians (a recent Pew Research Center survey found 65% of the public hold a negative view of the media). My only consolation is that by watching the endless debates and town halls, I will have a chance to hone my skills at detecting liars from a bevy of sources. I revisited lie-detection research I did back in 2014 and added some new input. My first task was to accept that I am pretty bad at deception detection; most of us have only slightly better than a 50-50 chance of spotting a liar. Second, I had to junk popular "tells" as unreliable; the nervous guy who can't make eye contact isn't necessarily a liar; liars can be glib and engage in more eye contact to sell their stories (watch those politicians ace closeups and sound bites). Researchers suggest some slightly more reliable clues to deceit: a slight shrug, usually of one shoulder, coinciding with a verbal statement of confidence is one example, or a slight head shake "no" when saying "yes." Also, beware the smile that does not include the eyes; if the eyes don't simultaneously narrow and produce crow's feet, that flash of white teeth is not an authentic expression of pleasure or good will. And it's been shown that the nose heats up while lying, so watch for a tell-tale Pinocchio nose rub! If I can detect the biggest political liar, I may even get ahead of the pundits in predicting the winner--because in this peculiar election season, there is an inverse relationship between honesty and success. For example, nonpartisan PolitiFact rated the truthfulness of presidential candidates before the Iowa caucuses, and Donald Trump led the pack in falsehoods (78% mostly false statements all the way to pants-on-fire lies), followed by Ted Cruz (68%) and Marco Rubio in third. On the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were running close, with Bernie at 29% false statements and Hillary at 26% untrue. Now look at the primary results, polls and projections since then. What does it mean? Is there so much anger at the political system that we prefer "authentic" emotions to "establishment" facts? Do we think the world is now a game of liar's poker, and we need to elect the best liar to win? I hope Honest Abe Lincoln and "I cannot tell a lie" George Washington wouldn't run at the bottom of the polls today! For more about political lying: http://whowhatwhy.org/2016/02/01/a-winning-gop-formula-lie-more-do-better/

Inspiring Histories of Collective Vision

I am currently cruising through the Panama Canal. To prepare for the journey, I waded through David McCullough's National Book Award-winning tome The Path Between the Seas about the creation of the Panama Canal between 1870 and 1914. It is a story of delusion and determination, political treachery and cooperation, engineering feats and medical breakthroughs, tragedy and triumph, and the collective effort of historic figures like President Theodore Roosevelt as well as many thousands of unknown toilers. I finished McCullough's book amid the testy GOP and Democrat debates, as popular rejection of the political establishment propelled unlikely outsiders to the top of polls amid looming challenges to energy, environment, infrastructure and health technology. I found myself naturally longing to visit times when American politics was capable of the grand and visionary progress of McCullough's history (minus the gunboat diplomacy). I turned to my copy of Tom Wolfe's space-program tale The Right Stuff about another national effort that pushed the envelope of technology and individual heroism. I searched out the Hoover Dam saga told in Colossus by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hitzik, and the well-reviewed Empire Express, David Bain's sprawling history of the building of the transcontinental railroad. And I was reassured. All histories reminded me that America's great national projects have been born amid, and survived in spite of, political conflict and even outright skulduggery. If history is a guide, our thirst for common purpose toward uncommon achievement will survive spates of political aridity. For inspiration from McCullough's Panama Canal tale, see http://www.amazon.com/The-Path-Between-Seas-1870-1914/dp/0671244094

The Art of the Politically Cunning Tweet

I noticed the other day, thanks to NPR reporting, that Twitter has published a 136-page manual for politicians, "The Twitter Government and Elections Handbook," addressing questions from the basic "Where Do Tweets Appear? Who Reads Them?" to why politicians should be creative with tweets: "In 'stepping out from behind the podium' and showing natural personality, these leaders humanize themselves and the political process — and gain followers to boot." Personally, I don't think 140 characters are conducive to thoughtful political discussion. But there's no arguing Twitter has been a great tool for Donald Trump to keep media buzz constant and display his "natural personality." Those who dismiss his tweets as ego-fueled embarrassments are missing the political strategy in the social media campaign that has kept him top of GOP candidate polls. A recent article by InsideGov.com ranked 30 of Trump's most popular tweets (based on retweets and media attention) by scoring them for arrogance, offensiveness and political cunning. Consider the tweet judged most "Trump-tastic," an April 2015 comment on Baltimore's troubles: "Our great African American President hasn't exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!" InsideGov rates it strong on all counts: "It's arrogant. Politically, it appeals to Trump's base by belittling Obama and emphasizing crime — a particularly prickly issue among many Trump conservatives. Most of all, however, it maximizes offensiveness, ensuring that the tweet will be reposted, retweeted and criticized around the world." Aristotle's classic analysis of rhetoric posited that effective persuasion is based on ethos (authority of the speaker), logos (logic and facts) and pathos (emotional appeal). Even if facts are given short shrift in Trump tweets, he consistently hits two out of three persuasive power points for followers. Twitter also keeps messages in line with the political virtue of simplicity. To quote Aristotle again: "It is simplicity that makes the uneducated more effective than the educated when addressing popular audiences." For InsideGov analysis of all 30 Trump tweets: http://tucson.com/news/data/ranking-donald-trump-s-best-worst-tweets/article_09035f9a-12d2-5002-92e1-df5379857d2f.html

Deconfliction: If Leaders Speak in Jargon, Beware

This week I learned a new word: deconfliction. I wasn't exactly sure what it meant. It sounded generally positive and appropriate to U.S. efforts to defuse the tense situation created by Russian aerial bombing of Syria. But then I looked up the definition in the Oxford English dictionary. Deconfliction seeks to "reduce the risk of collision between (aircraft, airborne weaponry, etc.) in an area by coordinating their movements." So it is a word that, once understood, reveals the poverty of U.S. response: negotiations between two armed behemoths over how to avoid bumping into each other while they go about opposing policies that drop bombs with lots of "collateral damage" (coincidental civilian carnage) while seeking "targets of opportunity" (people and places for destruction). I comment on this in a blog about writing because it is an illustration of how much words matter, and not just to writers. According to an Oct. 1 article in Great Britain's The Guardian newspaper, "deconfliction" is a piece of jargon that appeared in U.S. military parlance in the mid-1970s, entered into Pentagon Gulf War reports in 1991, was wielded by Pentagon doublespeak master Donald Rumsfeld in 2006, and now is popping up in the mouths of President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry. For a nice example of how to use the word deconfliction in a sentence, I turn to Brit Hume, a commentator with whom I don't generally agree, who summed up in a tweet: "Russian general to U.S.: We're bombing Syria in an hour. Get out of the way. Sec'y Kerry: We need a deconfliction discussion." Whenever leaders use jargon to conceal, abstract, excuse, dehumanize, euphemize and generally confuse the public, George Orwell turns over in his grave. His warning that "in our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible" has gone unheeded. I fear we may be better informed by Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary, where politics is defined as "a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." For Orwell's prescient essay "Politics and the English Language," see http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit/

'Tis the Season When Children Star

It's the time of year when children dominate in public media and private ceremonies, symbols of hope and innocence to be showered with gifts. We forget how recently children became "economically worthless but emotionally priceless," as sociologist Viviana Zelizer has said.  Even in early 20th century America, children were economic assets who worked in fields and factories; they were soldiers and sexual partners; they were traded in marriage by families seeking financial and social gain; and they were regularly parents themselves in their teens. In many places in the world, children still perform roles today's Americans believe should be reserved for adults--and they are still political pawns in deadly adult conflicts, as the recent headlines about the Pakistani Taliban's school massacre prove. So it seems especially apropos now to remember one of our earliest and most popular icons of the child as innocent source of joy: child star Shirley Temple, who died just this year at age 85. Some of the curly-topped moppet's 1930s-era Christmas-themed movies used to be seasonal TV fare, including Heidi, I'll Be Seeing You, Bright Eyes (with the signature song "On the Good Ship Lollipop"), and Stowaway with its final Christmas scene. Now little Shirley is the subject of a new book, The Little Girl Who Fought the Great Depression by John F. Kasson. Yes, this is one little girl who was economically priceless (to the movie studios), emotionally priceless to a nation seeking optimism in hard times, and politically priceless to leaders like President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who publicly enlisted Shirley in his "politics of cheer" to back economic revival programs. Kasson also credits Shirley's impact with a new view of the child as coddled consumer, of children cared for through the purchase of things. To borrow from her hit debut song, "Baby, Take a Bow" for the seasonal shopping frenzy, Shirley.  To see a review of Kasson's book, go to http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/judith-levine-john-kasson-shirley-temple

Politics and Religion: Book Discussion Taboos?

My mother always told me that "polite company" avoided talking about politics and religion. Friends and book club members often tacitly follow the same rule. Here are some best-selling books that may be "taboo" because they touch on religious and political sensitivities:  Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan; Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead by Sheryl Sandberg; and This Town, a blistering insider look at Washington by journalist Mark Leibovich. Yet surely well-meaning people can have a productive discussion about ideas that matter to them! Maybe we just need to set rules for civil discourse, rules opposite to the ones that seem to govern "debates" in the media arena. Here are my five suggestions: 1) Don't start a conversation unless you can all agree to be open to, and respectful of, other viewpoints; the goal should be self-education not changing others' beliefs or lecturing about your own. 2) Tread carefully and tactfully into unknown opinion waters; don't assume you already know other people's positions since they may agree, disagree, or not care a flip. 3) Stick to the facts (generally accepted information or research) and avoid expressing personal judgment or criticism. 4) Know when to keep quiet and when to quit (prepare an appeasing exit line such as "I'll have to consider that..."). 5) Steer the discussion from personal convictions, specific institutions and doctrines to more general theories. Turn "Do you believe in Jesus Christ?" into "What is the role of religious faith today?" Please share your tips for successful discussion of a controversial book!