The Rolling Stones and Philosophy_ It's Just a Thought Away - Luke Dick [106]
In terms of its contribution to the cultural conversation, “Sweet Neo Con” continued to advance the same kind of antiestablishment undermining of authority that has always been associated with The Stones. What made this particular song different, therefore, is not that it made a break from what The Stones have always been, but that it took the covert message and made it overt. It is a direct form of political messaging. The Rolling Stones—wrinkles and all—have not changed their identity or reinvented themselves. “Sweet Neo Con” simply makes explicit the battle-lines that have always existed between rock that challenges authority and neo-conservative principles that seek to use political power to impose social order and preserve traditional institutions and a way of life.
If You Turn Out Right, I’ll Eat My Hat Tonight
A major lesson of “Sweet Neo Con,” and the history of The Rolling Stones leading up to it, is that the traditional distinction between what counts as a political message and what doesn’t is in fact very blurry. In an age of mass media, the internet and the news cycle, politics has saturated all facets of social and economic activity. Trying to sort out public sphere activities of political discourse and activism from private sphere activities of identity development and preference formation is no longer relevant. There simply is not a well-defined space outside of politics—nearly all activities are now political.
The Rolling Stones have long recognized that fact, and have embraced it with both indirect and direct challenges to the status quo. They have always sought to push back against the rigid organization of society into a single mold or framework of the kind that neo-cons work to establish. They were covertly part of that wave in the 1960s, but in contemporary politics where the personal is fully political, and neo-cons held sway for so long, this more overt confrontation between The Rolling Stones and the structures of modern power should not have surprised us. It may not even be the last time.47
17
Keef for President
LUKE DICK
I was walking through the East Village when a cloud of pot smoke hit me—common occurrence around NYU. I turned to see a fellow walking with a joint in his mouth. His shirt had a picture of an indignant, twenty-something Keith Richards. Just above the picture, it read: “Keef for President.” Too bad Richards wasn’t born in the US, or else voting for him would actually be an option. Perhaps someone like Keef would be just what the country needs—someone rough enough, tough enough, and rich enough to keep himself from being beholden to the Big Mac and be the country’s beast of burden. This would also mean Keef ’s soul would set the agenda for the nation. That’s a decadent hypothetical worth exploring.
My Name Is Called Disturbance
Actors stateside have led many successful political campaigns. The Terminator. Ronald Reagan. Al Franken. Jerry Springer. Jesse “the Body” Ventura (I classify “professional” wrestling as a form of acting). Maybe, just maybe, the political platforms of these actors were so brilliant that the public couldn’t help but vote them into office. I’m inclined to believe it has at least something to do with their thespian talents. After all, the more somebody practices the art of provoking emotions, the more adept at it they become. It’s difficult to differentiate just how much of an actor’s campaign effectiveness has to do with acting school, craft, and need for attention, and how much has to do with actual political competence and care for their constituents.
Actors aren’t really poets or musicians, though. There’s a difference. Ever notice how actors make horrible musical “artists”? I believe there are more Russell Crowe and Dudley Moore albums in used CD stores than in people’s stereos. Sure, there are many musicians who’ve turned into successful actors (Johnny Depp, Dwight Yoakam, Tom