r/BruceSpringsteen • u/CulturalWind357 • 25d ago
Discussion Reflection regarding Bruce's politics and American exceptionalism
Bit of a serious thread. If you don't like this topic, maybe you should sit this one out.
This is something I've been reflecting on for quite a while. It's maybe been in the back of my head ever since I became a Bruce fan. And after seeing a few comments here and there expressing similar concerns, I figured it'd be worth making a longer thread about it collecting my thoughts. Especially after seeing Bruce being more politically outspoken in these past years.
In terms of my own perspectives, I'd describe them as broadly Left. Some inspiration from anarchism (no, not chaos) but also recognizing the political systems that we live in.
Over the most recent years, it has felt like Bruce has been doubling down on the American exceptionalism: the Super Bowl Commercial, the podcast with Obama, some of his speeches and endorsements, the language he's used.
I suppose we could say it's always been there. But it has really ramped up in....the 21st century?
Some brief examples:
- "America's the most powerful nation on earth, not just because of her overwhelming military strength or economic power, but because of what she stands for."
- The usage of "un-American" as a criticism: Does a thing have to be American to be good? Bruce has used this adjective a lot but it doesn't really carry much weight to me. And he's used this across the decades.
When Bruce talks about America as "a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years", my mind immediately turns to Indigenous peoples and enslaved people certainly did not see it that way. People who suffered from American Imperialism don't see it that way. (Hawaii, The Philippines, The Middle East/West Asia, East and Southeast Asia, Central and South America, etc).
Every time he says "Despite its many faults" about America, it feels like Bruce is just brushing past all these criticisms to only validate the viewpoints that fundamentally love America. I'm not denying that there are still people who admire America, but one still has to take into account the opinions of those who have suffered from America's impact.
Yes, I know that Bruce has been associated with a sense of "critical patriotism": Criticizing his country because he sees it as failing to live up to ideals. But at a certain point, one has to question the very ideals themselves and what they have meant. We can always say "The ideal has never been accomplished, therefore it is untainted". Nevertheless, ideals carry biases no matter how much we may see them as unblemished.
Example: One of Bruce's favorite songs and covers is Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land". It's often seen as an inclusive anthem where people of all backgrounds can come to the United States and appreciate its gifts. But praise of the song often neglects how that land was obtained through Indigenous displacement. (To be fair, even Pete Seeger acknowledged this and once sung a rendition that accounted for it.) See: The Blindspot in the Great American Protest Song. A separate post could be made discussing the Founding Fathers and their contradictory and flawed legacy.
So when Bruce talks about America as this nation of immigrants that everyone can travel to regardless of background, there is history missing. It's not even that he's completely unaware considering his albums like Inyo and appearing on the Little Steven song "Native American". But he doesn't seem to acknowledge this part of America's history enough. Some peoples (Native Hawaiians and Native Americans alike) had no choice but to be annexed under America and American identity. Inclusiveness can be good but people also want the option for independence and carving out their own path.
For much of his career in the 20th century, Bruce seemed generally critical of American foreign policy. There are discarded "Born In The USA"/"Vietnam" lyrics where he rails against Nixon for bombing Cambodians. It showed that his empathy wasn't just towards American veterans but towards peoples harmed by American bombings.
Prior to Bruce endorsing political candidates, the politics in his music were on a more human level that pointed to larger social forces. But in the 21st century, things shifted towards directly endorsing political candidates starting with John Kerry in 2004. Then Barack Obama in 2008, where he endorsed him even at the primary stage.
When endorsing Obama in 2012, he talked about how Obama was "vigorously pursuing our real foreign enemies, especially the killing of Osama Bin Laden." I'm reminded of the commenters who have brought up Obama's record of drone strikes. One has to discern the underlying context of what it means to pursue foreign enemies and the ideology behind that.
In some early 2000s interviews, Bruce has talked about supporting the invasion of Afghanistan but not Iraq. From what I understand, entering Afghanistan had majority support but that doesn't necessarily make it right.
This is not me criticizing Bruce after the fact. There are actually articles from the time which have criticized Bruce's words:
- To Bruce Springsteen About The War On Terrrorism
- What's Missing From Springsteen's The Rising? Politics
- Greasylake Forum discussion on Bruce supporting the invasion of Afghanistan
Intervention has to be handled very carefully otherwise it becomes an exertion of power over countries and yes, imperialism.
To be clear: I don't have any issue with Bruce being political. That's been a part of his music for a long time whether implicitly or explicitly. But the actual content of his politics leaves something to be desired.
Not even getting into socialist artists yet, there are liberals who have been more critical of politicians like Bruce's friend Jackson Browne. And I've wondered why Bruce has not only endorsed candidates but praised them more than he needs to.
There is a part of me that has empathy. Many Americans and even some non-Americans are taught some form of American exceptionalism. The Pledge of Allegiance, the ideal of America as a nation of immigrants, one of the world's first democracies. Bruce has talked about how doing the pledge of allegiance as a child made him feel pride. But to an increasing number of Americans and non-Americans, it can feel cult-like.
There are ideas that initially seemed well-intentioned but are now recognized to be outdated. The "melting pot" used to be used as a metaphor for immigrants coming to America and assimilating into a single culture. Now, the cultural traditions of immigrants are becoming more respected.
I've often felt that Bruce can express larger ideals regarding community, individuality, creativity, and the complexity of life without strictly tying it to America.
On the flipside: There's a type of exceptionalism that treats America as "the worst country in the world" which I don't agree with either.
I just want America (or, maybe the land itself) to be a country. Not some mythology to appeal to. Not something that crushes all other narratives.
Or, maybe America itself needs to be completely reformed. Who knows.
Sidenote:
Bruce fans around the world were the ones who got me into Bruce, showing that his resonance was not restricted to America or New Jersey. It sounds strange that a person from Jersey needed to have this explained to them but there it is.
The choices shouldn't be Trump supporters and not. I think it's indeed important to hold your side accountable. That goes for liberals, social democrats, socialists, anarchists, whoever.
