The Taylor Swift phenomenon is a creation of affluence. If these young women had a husband and three children to take care of, they wouldn't have much time for Taylor Swift.
Nah. Housewives can be music fans too. My mother back in the day had her favorites, albeit mainly from the Big Band era that was her youth. Though she liked some more contemporary stuff too ("Sweet Caroline" was a favorite of hers-- I think of her when I hear that still).
I am going to venture that this is the least important Presidential election of modern times. Both leading candiates are loser hacks. Each hated by a different half of the population. Congressional gridlock will prevent major legislation. (I think is a plus; most of the time the legislature has no idea what they are doing.)
Whoever is elected will rule by Imperial Ukase which can be repealed by their successor the first day in office in January of 2029. The already happened to Trump when Biden assumed office in 2021.
2024 is the last 'Boomer Election'. Millions of us will be gone by November of 2028. At that time a very different America will vote and a new era will begin.
Yes, we have lost Respect… It used to be that opposing parties brought balance, when all peoples in the USA appreciated that and still regarding their neighbors as good friends worthy of respect. All we can do is model that and request it from our leaders.
"Congressional gridlock will prevent major legislation"
Doesn't matter. Massive change since at least Obama comes about from selectively enforcing the law (the border, anyone?), executive actions and sedimenting your people in massive executive agencies to effect new interpretations of rules that are effectively new, binding legislation.
What "massive change" have we seen, other than those changes predicated either on the public changing its mind (e..g, on SSM), or some external event overriding our preferences (e.g., Covid)? I see far more continuity in public affairs over time (certainly since Y2K) than change. Of things that were done politically, the ACA would be the top of the list. Too much else, including things that were ballyhooed as "big deals" (e.g., financial reforms after the 2008 meltdown), has been more business as usual than game changing.
I’ve made a similar argument but I’m probably wrong. The reason I’m wrong is because so much is now done through presidential order or is a product of regulations administered by appointed agencies. So unfortunately congressional gridlock which I agree tends to be good thing isn’t enough.
I’ve made a similar argument but I’m probably wrong. The reason I’m wrong is because so much is now done through presidential order or is a product of regulations administered by appointed agencies. So unfortunately congressional gridlock which I agree tends to be good thing isn’t enough.
I would like to think that as Boomers we have influenced ‘those (younger) with ears to hear’. In this case there are others to carry the torch and influence their own era with the sturdy American constitution we have known from our upbringing.
Maybe but I don’t remember the Democrats opposing that war( by and large).Further, I don’t know that Gore’s immense sense of his world historical importance would have allowed him to pass up the opportunity to wage a war.
Oh, he would have invaded Afghanistan! But Iraq was really a project of Dick Cheney and his colleagues. That influence would have been absent in a Gore administration.
Jon, I believe the original invasion of Afghanistan to destroy Al-Qaeda and their protectors, the Taliban, was universally supported in America in 2001. Nation-building is another story.
This is very sharp. If Congress remains as tight as it is right now--well, that's how the system works. On the other hand Dreher's post is about non-political politics, and that stuff is anything but inconsequential.
I somewhat agree, but when I think about it, what we've seen in many elections--at least in my lifetime--was a choice between two wings of the same oligarchical system.
Trump, for all of his divisiveness and personal lack of integrity, is a disrupter. He may have been ultimately ineffective in his first term (and I have no expectation of him being more effective in a second term), but he at least did challenge the narrative.
Before Trump, the choice was more "vote Republican, and vote for lower taxes and a bigger military, and noise about 'family values'"; or "vote Democrat, and vote for more social programs and noise about 'social justice'". In the end, the policies changed a bit around the edges, but were left fundamentally unchanged--deficit spending, tax breaks for the wealthiest, and interventionism evermore. At least Trump killed fewer people, and that's not nothing--though that policy earned more ire than anything else he did, and that among the people with the most real power.
So if, say, Romney or McCain won instead of Obama--do you really think things would be substantially better in any meaningful way? Or Gore or Kerry instead of W?
It's been mere political theatre for years. A true disrupter--say a Trump that was willing to work hard and had a coherent idea for America--may arise, but it's doubtful if he or she will ever be given a real chance to make a difference.
Living in Maryland in 2008, I didn't have to vote for two men I disliked intensely. But I preferred Obama to McCain because of McCain's fervent devotion to war. Had McCain won in 2008, the Republicans would have been reduced radically in Congress and America would still be in hot wars in the Middle East and likely in Iran. McCain was George C. Scott's character in "Dr. Strangelove", General Buck Turgidson.
Obama, however, went on to take the lead in destroying Lybia, expand the droning campaign, fail to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan, and participated in the war on Yemen.
Perhaps McCain would have been more reckless and would have sent more ground troops, and even start war with Iran...so maybe Obama was the lesser evil. But he certainly was a war-monger...just without the stupid "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" schtick.
This reminds me of a joke that is older than I care to say. But I'll repurpose it for the occasion:
"They told me if I voted for McCain we'd still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we'd be involved in new wars in the Middle East and North Africa. Well, sure enough, I voted for McCain and that's exactly what happened."
Try telling Obama fans that he and Hillary Clinton destroyed Libya and they look at you like you're crazy. It isn't even that they approved of it at the time or rationalize it in hindsight. They literally don't know or remember it happened.
It was not the US that took the lead on Libya but rather Italy (the former colonial power) and France, also with old ties to northern Africa. Though yes, once things were in motion the US jumped in with both feet.
And by the have no clue that the destabilization of Libya helped destabilize Mali and Niger but having never heard of those countries or heard of people called Turaegs , they wouldn’t know.
For what it's worth, I think this election is important for a handful of big issues, such as immigration and overseas wars. But for so many other issues, the real action is local. It's amazing what state and county legislators are getting away with while everyone is hung up on the national political shit-show. If I were running for a county or state position, I'd be overjoyed that people are obsessed with the Trump/Biden farce....
I very much agree here. Much of what we deal with in our own lives comes out of the state capital or city hall. We're not going to get answers from Washington on, say, crime or homelessness (and we shouldn't look to DC for that type of stuff either)
As others are pointing out, Congress is no longer where the action is. Congress has not functioned in its proper role for decades. The country is run by the unelected bureaucrats of the administrative state, in coordination with the expert class in their perches at the media, big tech, education, grant/grift-sucking "companies", etc, etc.
A Republican president can slightly pare some of the excesses of the administrative state back for a few years, but nothing more (the "non-partisan civil servants" will make damn sure the impact is limited). But a Democratic president can go full bore with abuses of executive power (yes the courts will slap some of it back, but that takes years, and meanwhile the Overton window continues to expand), and the denizens of the administrative state will slam into overdrive putting it all into action.
So the election does make a difference, just not in the actual rule of law way the Founders intended. (To be clear I think there is no positive outcome to be had coming up.)
They only get to the Supreme Court in the first place by abuses of executive power and/or poor legislation by Congress in the past. And I don't mean just "big national issues" - I mean the general running of the country. The agencies engage in "rulemaking" (effectively lawmaking) all the time (not only do they act in lieu of the self-emasculated legislative branch, they often even have their own internal "courts" to act as their own judicial branch, deciding on the fate of companies under the "laws" they themselves "wrote"). This is all based on 100 years of progressive-left ratcheting under decades of Dem majorities in Congress and a Supreme Court that sang their tune.
My hope is that the current Court eventually pushes this all back into line, but there's a long way to go with 100 years of precedent on the other side. Just tearing out Chevron, for example (ironically a decision hailed by the right at first), would be a baby step.
No, tearing up Chrevron would hamstring too much. What we really did is not some court rulings (that's just more rule bu unelected elite) but a Congress that does the job we elect and pay it for. If bureaucrats are overstepping their delegated authority, then it is Congress' job toi slap that down. Anything else just risks cures worse than the disease.
Legislation is almost impossible in a culture in which niche media preach to their choirs, thus creating a public discourse with zero shared information. Right?
Trump is a media guy. Swift is a media figure/creation. There has already been discussion/rumors how she will be used by the Biden campaign. No idea if there is an "organized" effort among the Trump faithful, but given there is seemingly organized efforts among the Dems and Swift, well...
It is the actions of media and celebs, and talking about it even this much has already bored me.
I think you are right. The game is being choreographed even as we type. Travis Kelce will catch a thirty yard touchdown on the last play of the game and Taylor Swift and Kelce will embrace at the fifty yard line as the confetti flutters from the skies.
Oh, please - both teams have won multiple Superbowls. And if it weren't for the flaming romance between Swift and Kelce, I'd expect the uproar to be about the San Francisco 49ers, because "San Francisco" - GASP! They'll be out there in drag!
You must admit that if there was an engagement, a traditional marriage, and pregnancy, within the next say 14 months, it would do wonders for young white girls going forward....LOL!
I'm completely uninterested in Taylor Swift, but when I see photos of her with Kelcie, I see what appears to be a very sincere smile on the face of a young woman whose job requires her to fake-smile a lot. I'm wary of being jerked around by PR campaigns, but it seems real to me.
Even with no pregnancy it would be a wholesome influence-- instead of the two just moving in with together.
Swift has had some songs about bad romances. "We are never ever getting back together" is a classic f***-you break up song. "I Knew You Were Trouble" is about the mistake of going after a "bad boy".
I do think Taylor Swift is self-created. She has always been very savvy about her image and with how to connect to her fan base using media. If I remember correctly, I read in a “New Yorker” article from about 9 or 10 years ago that she was mining Twitter hashtags at her concerts, prior to going up on stage, and selecting tweets from her fans in the audience to broadcast over the Jumbotron, sending the girls into paroxysms of squeals and screams. She’s been a good songwriter since her teens.
I’m not a fan. And other than the song “Mean,” along with its accompanying video— which I think is brilliant—I really don’t care for any of her music. Yes, at this moment, she’s overhyped, and I’ll attribute the overhype to the media and the arrested adolescence of the females who make up the rank and file of media. But she’s the farthest thing from being an empty suit, dress, leotard, or what have you.
I decided to give one of her albums a listen on my morning walk just now. A song called "Exile" got my attention—but that was a duet with Bon Iver, who I think is great.
Good call! Huh, Big Red Machine? Wiki says that they're a collaboration between Justin Vernon (alias Bon Iver) and one of the guys from The National, so now I have their music to check out as well.
p.s. her two quarantine albums (folklore and evermore) were actually long distance collaborations with Aaron Dessner from the National. Both are very different from her pop anthems.
I’m not a fan either, don’t hate it (was exposed while my daughter was at the proper age a while back), but I do quite like Ryan Adams's entire album redo of her "1989". That made me think - when the music was performed in a different style I actually liked - that there was something there, at least with songwriting talent. Some of the songs, when redone by Adams, almost had an early Springsteen thing about them.
As a man approaching 70 I am not a Swift fan, but her songs are quite good as pop numbers and have seen stories about her doing a substantial amount of giving. I do not understand why her ticket prices are so high, though, many of her fans are not rich.
I mostly listen to bluegrass these days, not a Swift fan but I to some extent understand her appeal. Works hard too and doesn't seem to be sleazy as some popular artists are.
As a 70 y.o. musician, I can attest that I've heard just one song from Taylor Shvitz- her very first hit, the one about the short shorts, where she sings, 'You belong to me- hee-hee.' Can't hold a note. That was enough for me.
I spent years playing in country (among other) bands and as far as I'm concerned, country went into the ditch around 2000 with the the rise of people like Eileen (Shania) Twain , too much Garth channeling Styx, and the record companies ditching their mid-to-lower profitable artists (eg Pam Tillis.)
Everything got formularized and lyrics became (to me) a question of how many words can you fit into three minutes.
And the singers (especially females) seemingly started to compete with Celine Dion to see whose voice has more power.
To be sure, there are some really good country artists out there now- Kacey Musgraves, Jason Isbel, Lyle Lovett (hopefully still out there) , John Fullbright, etc. but you have to find them. I hope Vince Gill and Patty Loveless are still at it..,,,And the influence of 'rap' and hippity hop has been most destructive.
I’m not sure how Swift is any different than any other Post WW2 pop culture phenomenon: Beatlemania, Elvis, 90s Boy Bands, etc. I like the parallels to Hooligan Firms to explain how people can get caught up in something that makes them feel good and empowered. I think the article makes a nice tie-in there.
I simply think the Trump camp is overplaying this card, like they overplay everything. As Rod says right away, if you’re going to vote based on a celebrity endorsement, you’ve probably already decided Trump isn’t your man. Move on, end of story. Yes, you have a billionaire pop star with followers who might not like Trump. Who cares? Most people in her class don’t. The Trump crowd does not seem to understand that half the country doesn’t like Trump. I’m likely going to vote for him to kick Joe out, but I’m not happy about it.
Swift is pretty inoffensive as far as pop divas go. By today’s standards her music is pretty clean, not at all violent, and kind of plastic. Perfect for the times in which we live.
I’m dreading the next 10 months. This is an absolutely unnecessary election. Everyone knows how they feel about the two men helming the tickets. I think we conservatives are going to have our head in our hands a lot, and I think it’s going to be gas on the dumpster fire of decline. Swift is the least of our problems.
You know Sam Kriss? Opener to his recent meditation:
“Taylor Swift is, by any sensible measure, the most famous person in the world. The actual leaders of actual countries beg her to visit their dying lands, put on a show, make their miserable people spend some of their miserable money, maybe nudge the whole economy just a few points out of recession. When a war breaks out in Asia, both sides immediately try to argue that they’re fighting on the side of Taylor Swift. She is bigger than Elvis, bigger than the Beatles, bigger than God. She has blasted herself on a jet of pure sugary Americana into every quiet crevice of global culture. She provides the texture of daily life for thirteen year old Indonesian girls with hijabs and hard scraping eyes. There are swathes of rebel bushland in central Africa where children tear the guts out the earth at gunpoint and the central government has no power at all—but Taylor Swift does. In my travels across China, the only Western music you’d ever hear playing anywhere belonged to Taylor Swift. She’s not a solitary human being; she’s Coca-Cola. She has fundamentally changed the inner workings of the record industry, show ticketing, intellectual property—why not? Let’s say music theory too. She invented tone. She invented pitch. Taylor Swift seems destined to be remembered by our drooling, mud-eating descendants as a kind of culture hero, the mythical source of everything left for them to inherit. First was she who plucked strings and made pleasant sounds. Who taught man to spin thread and mark the hours of the sun.”
Hey, speaking of crackpot satirists, I picked up your book. Haha. I looked at the preview, and my eyes fell upon the line, "The rhino is a natural gnostic."
Wow, that is quite the fever dream of a story: the paranoia makes me think of Pynchon, like in *The Crying of Lot 49*.
Hm, I wonder if Taylor Swift is some sort of Rorschach test? For my part, I just see a rather normal woman who writes a lot of decent songs and sometimes even a few really good ones, when she veers into folk and indie rock. I wonder what that says about my relative level of derangement. . . . .
If someone asks whether Eve and Adam had belly buttons, I say yes; and if they ask why, I say, "For decoration." A ludicrious question deserves an answer in kind.
WE had peace with Trump… he has the talent of international relations, its called diplomacy. We had a thriving economy and low UE. We had grumblers, but as always they silently participated in the benefits while other side of mouth engaged in cut.throat. People can be better!
Actually, I think he did a pretty good job handling Kim, who is now making more noises than before. And he had the madman's gambit working in his favor: people didn't wanna mess around too much because they didn't know what he might do—and it was persuasive, since he also did not know.
It's interesting you bring up the Beatles. As somebody with kids who came of age in the zeros I can say with confidence TayTay's succession of hits has been like NOTHING since the Lennon and McCartney 1964-1970. And they quit!
I don't think the boys were glum to see the Beatles; it's just that they came to see a concert and it was drowned out by the girls' screams.
They unearthed a recording of a concert the Beatles gave at a private boarding school in Liverpool just as they were really hitting the big time. The recording was awful, but you could actually hear the band because it was an all-boys school. With improvements in technology, the "mix" can finally be corrected.
True, but I think the same could be said a few years earlier when boys knew their girlfriends would gladly dump them for Elvis or Ricky Nelson.
I think the only period in which girls wouldn't dump their boyfriends for some pop musicians would be in the '70s. I can't really visualize girls dumping their guys to be with Frank Zappa, Donald Fagen (Steely Dan), Simon & Bullwinkle, or Iggy Pop.
But weren't the St. George Floyd riots in the same category as the soccer hooliganism? More like the storming of the Bastille, the participants were suffused with a sense of moral righteousness - they were on the "right side of history," which (supposedly) not only explained why they joined the rioting mob - but why the mob was good and virtuous and necessary. Swifties at least don't have that extra justification.
But at the end of the day, conservatives should welcome the Swift-Travis Kelce business. Whatever her politics, she is a conventionally attractive white woman; she is straight, not queer, in a relationship with a white male, a football player of all things. Politics aside, this is the definition of "normal," this is the very thing, the very dynamic the left has been trying to burn to the ground. We should be cheering for them to get married and have kids.
As someone who was involved with an English forerunner of Antifa, yeah entire books have been written reminiscing "battles" on the streets. A big overlap with football hooliganism too.
I am annoyed by the apparently manufactured Swift-Kelce relationship, but your point is really good and reminds me of how the whole "girlpower against the patriarchy" chorus surrounding Barbie last summer was ironically very "based" in many ways. I will never forget how Barbie's big moment, as a REAL woman, was to go to the gynecologist. Huge win for Team Reality right there.
I mean seriously, think about it: Rich, beautiful blonde girl falls for athlete. It's right out of high school. Most (if not all) lefties were nerds/geeks in high school - they were BULLIED by such people. But now they cheer them on!
It's almost like the Swift-Kelce thing is a conservative psy-op. They can endorse Biden all they like and Swift herself can sing the LGBT praises to the heavens - she's the epitome of cisgender, heterosexual white privilege. Let them praise her and make her an icon. Let them emulate her!
Ha-ha! Yours is the proper response. Nevertheless, I can’t help but add a touch of sarcasm:
“My word, if young American girls all decided to grow their hair out, stay thin, apply their make up just so, wear dresses, smile, and fall in love with a football hero, Heaven only knows what would happen to this country!”
There were some provocateurs from both the Left and Right but they seem to have showed up only after the lowlives started looting Targets. A more likely culprit would be local street gangs who very definitely were on board for a "purge" (as in the movies by the name) event. There was some evidence in Baltimore that *someone* was trying to gin up a riot from the protests, but the police, wiser than in 2015, refuse to take the bait, and the protest organizers ejected the troublemakers from their ranks.
This comes as no surprise to this ol’ boy. Sure seems like we’ve been sprinting away from all seriousness and decorum for a generation, and accelerating. We may be in the “Weak Men Create Hard Times” part of the national evolution cycle.
427 Grateful Dead show later, I would have to say my reason to attend all but the first was the sense of transcendence. My first was 1976 and I had run away from home at 14. I didn’t know the band existed but the hippies who picked me up hitchhiking insisted I come along. I stayed on the tour all summer, belonging and twirling. That continued, rather still does into my 60s - differently of course, but like Buford I can name the shows and songs and friends. I wonder how my life would have ended up if I was picked up by a trucker instead. I might never have encountered Robert Mueller, or maybe I would have been on his team.
427! Wow! I am somewhere around 130 before it all got too fuzzy. If I had it to do over, I would have see a lot more shows before 1975 and a lot fewer shows after 1990. Of course, I didn't have any money before 1975. (Actually I didn't have any real money until about 1982.) I was living the starving grad student life for many years. After Brent died, the ship began to take on water.
After Jerry died it grew past 427 - Ratdog, Dead&Co etc - but I’ve slowed to a stop. I might go to a Bobby show soon. But I’m not the lot lizard I used to be. Too many veggie burritos.
The majority of the times I’ve experienced that “sense of transcendence, of ‘absolute completeness’” has been when deeply immersed in nature: fields, marsh, river, forests, mountain lakes. All evidence that the world truly is enchanted, and if you know where to look, you find God.
This is true for me too. I seem to be quite immune to crowd passions. In fact crowds larger than a respectably populated dance floor or church nave are a turn off for me.
I remember when I was 18 I was in the boondocks of western New York and climbed up a very high hill with a vista that stretched for miles, and I felt as if I had "fallen" into, well, everything.
It took me a long while to realize that Taylor Swift is an actual musician: I thought she was one of those unholy creations brought forth by Disney and autotune. But then I saw that she had songs with bands such as Bon Iver and The National, which sure got my attention. Like, "Wait, is she indie-adjacent?" So that's how I learned that she writes real songs. I guess she's fine—not gonna listen to the stuff all day, but it's fine. Some people seem to truly hate her for her celebrity and success, which I think is about as wrongheaded as worshipping her for it.
Also, when it comes to playing the media game, I'd wager that Trump probably knows what he's doing. That's who he is, after all—he's in his natural environment. I sort of wonder if he would simply go up in a puff of smoke if no one was looking at him.
Her cult is sort of bizarre to watch: I'm just a year older than her, and she comes across as a talented but otherwise pretty normal woman to me, like anyone who might be around.
I believe that if Trump were to come back in another life and NOT BE Trump, he would want to come back as Rodney Dangerfield, Alan King, Jackie Mason, or some other Ed Sullivan - era comedian.
Just look at how he works a crowd and his on stage mannerisms.
"...a crowd creates the leaders who create the crowd...the crowd’s latent desire for someone to create them manifested in those individual figures being propelled to leadership"
My first thought upon reading that it's possible to microwave a cup of water so that it's not boiling when you pull the mug out - the water looks calm, but stick a spoon in it - the boil over is an instant phenomenon. People under heat, like water, sometimes want to spill; each awaits the impetus to do so.
Re: DeSantis as the Republican nominee would have occasioned a landslide, most likely.
DeSantis might well win against Biden (heck, I'd rate that at better than 50%) As I have said on many occasions there will be no landslides, not for president at least. DeSantis is too far to the Right, especially on social issues*, to rack up more than a bare majority. Also, on things like workers right and middle class entitlements, DeSantis' record is somewhere between Not Good and Abysmal- Florida has still not accepted ACA Medicaid and there are ugly quotes of his that could be exhumed concerning Social Security.
* Six week abortion bans are politically toxic even in red states and come November there's a good chance Florida voters will tank that law in a referendum which will be on the ballot.
The overturning of Roe vs Wade has turned into a massive electoral winner for the Left. There is no denying it. In Victory, the Pro-Life movement failed.
It was correct Constitutional law. But the end of Roe v- Wade helped the Democrats in the short term. But in the long term, the solidification of abortion rights helps the right. Abortion in America kills many more potential Democrat voters than Republican voters.
I agree that Roe vs Wade was bad constitutional law, and I was glad to see it go for that reason. But the pro-Life movement got way out ahead of the voters-- even the Republican, even the MAGA voters.
Voting behavior is not hereditary and on a generational timeline these things change-- a lot (look at the differences between the GOP and Democrats today, and what these parties were like forty or fifty years ago).
Jon, I never expected abortion rights would end. Abortion rights are expected by most Americans and in states where abortion rights can be codified, the rights will be codified. At this point, pregnancy crisis centers and regulation of abortion will be more effective in reducing abortions than legislation.
My take is that Roe short-circuited the democratic process for the public to come to a consensus about abortion (yes, by state), and so now it's going to be a holy mess for decades to work out what should have been worked out 50 years earlier.
If the 6 week bans are way out of line with public consensus in the states where they’ve passed (as I suspect they mostly are), the legislative process should eventually correct that. But it will take years. In the meantime, chaos and lots of self-owns for the GOP.
Today's journal entry is one of the most thought-provoking you've done. Your description of your experience at the U2 concert is a good example of that swarm effect. And I think live musical events are where a lot of us have experienced it. But it's a rare thing. I've probably seen over ten thousand live shows, from big stadium concerts to small clubs. Most were good, some were great, but I went to one that I still think about today where what I can only describe as magical happened.
It was around 1979. There was a venue in south Denver called the Rainbow Music Hall, which was really a converted strip-mall bargain movie theater that probably seated a thousand or so. I saw a lot of great shows there: Devo; Tom Waits: Roxy Music, U2 (first US tour!); and a bunch of others. But the absolute best by orders of magnitude was the New Zealand band Split Enz. This is when they had their big hit "I Got You". I wasn't a huge fan, but I had always liked them. The tickets were cheap, so a couple of buddies and I went.
I can't really explain what happened. For whatever reason, literally everything clicked that night. The band played their hearts out and played off each other like I've never seen. And they knew it; you could see them look at each other with this amazed "I don't know what's going on but I hope it lasts forever" look. And us in the audience did the same thing. They ended up playing "I Got You" three times and did five encores, the last of which was an acapella sea shanty accompanied only by the percusionist playing the spoons. When the finally band left the stage, I remember a woman in the row in front of us sobbing because the show was over. It was the must nuts concert I've ever seen. I saw Split Enz again a year later at the same venue, and while they were really good, that show wasn't even a shadow compared the one before. That one night was the only truly enchanted concert I've seen.
I had a similar experience seeing The Pogues just before they became semi-famous. It was the fall of 1987, 500 diehard fans packed into a 1920s dancehall, Joe Strummer (the one guy I idolized as a teenager) was filling in for the guitarist, and nobody in the place could stop smiling. Total communal bliss.
They played about half that album and half of Rum, Sodomy... and all of Poguetry in Motion, the EP they were touring. They also played a few songs from Fall From Grace, which hadn't been released yet, and Joe Strummer sang lead on Poguesesque versions of "I Fought the Law" and "London Calling." It was unbelievable
I recommend the Strummer documentary: The Future is Unwritten. He seemed like someone who was attempting an honest search for meaning. Great soundtrack too.
Jerrold Post, who was our nation's preeminent political psychologist, wrote several books on the theme of how it is the followers that create a charismatic leader for their age (and not vice versa). It is a wounded, entitled people, he argued, that call forth a narcissistic leader who will mirror their woundedness that brings forth demagogues to the world stage. His "Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World" is a good book to start with.
The way celebrity, tribal affiliation, and "trustworthiness" work in 2024, Taylor Swift would likely win a presidential election, if she ran to replace Biden as a "rescue candidate", or in another cycle as a kind of "independent movement candidate".
She would, in effect, be an even much stronger version of Trump in that regard, because she shares many things with him from a characteristic point of view (not in substance, of course -- in substance she's very different, which is why she would be punting for the "other" team).
She has celebrity, and a good deal more of that than Trump had prior to 2016. This is a massive political advantage in today's culture, because it allows one to more or less completely sidestep the vetting and "who is this person" process of our political culture and simply show up in the final round, so to speak, where you will often cut an attractive contrasting figure to the vetted career politicos sharing the stage with you.
She has a massive army of extremely emotionally engaged, viscerally loyal fans that is certainly no weaker than the hardcore of MAGA, and is much bigger.
The core demographic of her fanbase -- young, single, white women -- is already core to the political success of that side, just as Trump's core of white guys is for his side. And her broader appeal to other segments of the female population, including suburban married women (many of whom adore her), would be substantial, and attract those women as swing voters who otherwise might vote Republican.
She encapsulates a powerful contemporary perspective which is not hyper political in an activist sense, but nevertheless is very concerned about political optics (the ability to self-perceive as being on the nice/empathetic "side" of any political issue), while also exemplifying a kind of effortless girlboss vibe that doesn't even need to be articulated, yet remains powerful.
And, perhaps most importantly in 2024, people trust Taylor Swift. They trust her more than they do any politician. And the alignment is therefore even stronger, I think, than the MAGA alignment is, because Trump is often supported simply because he will give libs the finger, whereas Swift would actually be trusted, as a person -- an appeal which is, perhaps, unique in our political system and political culture at present. She therefore has an incredible amount of personal credibility.
--
Of course, Swift has no political experience at all. I am not sure that would matter to most voters given the other options on the table. It didn't matter to Trump's voters in 2016. Swift is currently too young to be sworn in, but she would be eligible in January, having turned 35 in December of this year.
Now, do I think Swift will actually run for President? No, I don't, because I don't think she's interested in being President. If she wants the job, though? It would be hard for the DNC to resist replacing Biden with Swift at the convention if his numbers haven't vastly improved by then.
I suspect all of that has a lot to do with why the Trump Camp is going on an anti-Swift tact at the moment. They "get" the threat, because it's so similar to their own guy -- she's a kind of "Anti-Trump" figure -- like him in various ways, but substantively completely the opposite. Yes, that's a potential threat, and a large one, if she ever were to be in a position to be his opponent.
I have never listened to a Taylor Swift song but I do know that's she's been around for a long time. Even the Beatles limped into the 70s. I don't get it. I can only guess that tens of million of girls and young women have huge holes in their lives.
We are so different there. I listen to nothing but music in the car. I used to have satellite radio; these days it's mainly via my extensive Amazon play lists or occasionally a classic techno station (it makes me feel old that what was once cutting edge, and edgy, dance music is now merely "classic")
Sure, I play CDs in my car but all the acts are fifty years old. Beatles to Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard. I'm listening to a CD of Dickens' "Bleak House" a novel I heartily recommend.
I'll tell you who would win if SHE ever ran for President and that's Dolly Parton. She's the same age as Trump, and she's pretty universally loved in this country. And world famous.
I don't like what she's been doing lately, trying to make herself 'current
' and hip. Totally tasteless.
But when she was was just Dolly, from the Porter Wagonner years up till the great 'Trio' recordings with Emmylou Harris and Linda Ronstadt..........she really had it going.
I think Dolly just likes being Dolly and doesn't care what anyone in the world thinks about her. And why should she? Believe me, the people of Tennessee love her with all their hearts.
John Lee Hooker...same thing....brilliant
Hank Williams Sr. was an American musical genius.
The Taylor Swift phenomenon is a creation of affluence. If these young women had a husband and three children to take care of, they wouldn't have much time for Taylor Swift.
Well, my sister-in-law would be an exception to your hypothesis, though admittedly she has a very gainfully employed husband.
Nah. Housewives can be music fans too. My mother back in the day had her favorites, albeit mainly from the Big Band era that was her youth. Though she liked some more contemporary stuff too ("Sweet Caroline" was a favorite of hers-- I think of her when I hear that still).
It's a current day version of bread and circuses. The parallels to Rome's decline are there.
I am going to venture that this is the least important Presidential election of modern times. Both leading candiates are loser hacks. Each hated by a different half of the population. Congressional gridlock will prevent major legislation. (I think is a plus; most of the time the legislature has no idea what they are doing.)
Whoever is elected will rule by Imperial Ukase which can be repealed by their successor the first day in office in January of 2029. The already happened to Trump when Biden assumed office in 2021.
2024 is the last 'Boomer Election'. Millions of us will be gone by November of 2028. At that time a very different America will vote and a new era will begin.
Yes, we have lost Respect… It used to be that opposing parties brought balance, when all peoples in the USA appreciated that and still regarding their neighbors as good friends worthy of respect. All we can do is model that and request it from our leaders.
"Congressional gridlock will prevent major legislation"
Doesn't matter. Massive change since at least Obama comes about from selectively enforcing the law (the border, anyone?), executive actions and sedimenting your people in massive executive agencies to effect new interpretations of rules that are effectively new, binding legislation.
Substantial agreement.
What "massive change" have we seen, other than those changes predicated either on the public changing its mind (e..g, on SSM), or some external event overriding our preferences (e.g., Covid)? I see far more continuity in public affairs over time (certainly since Y2K) than change. Of things that were done politically, the ACA would be the top of the list. Too much else, including things that were ballyhooed as "big deals" (e.g., financial reforms after the 2008 meltdown), has been more business as usual than game changing.
You make a good case for this.
I’ve made a similar argument but I’m probably wrong. The reason I’m wrong is because so much is now done through presidential order or is a product of regulations administered by appointed agencies. So unfortunately congressional gridlock which I agree tends to be good thing isn’t enough.
I’ve made a similar argument but I’m probably wrong. The reason I’m wrong is because so much is now done through presidential order or is a product of regulations administered by appointed agencies. So unfortunately congressional gridlock which I agree tends to be good thing isn’t enough.
"...most of the time the legislature has no idea what they are doing."
The more pages are in a bill, the truer this is.
I would like to think that as Boomers we have influenced ‘those (younger) with ears to hear’. In this case there are others to carry the torch and influence their own era with the sturdy American constitution we have known from our upbringing.
Many of the younger people (particularly some of the college educated) hate Boomers and Boomer Culture.
The Bush-Gore election was of little importance except in the negative. I don't think Gore would have been foolish enough to invade Iraq.
Maybe but I don’t remember the Democrats opposing that war( by and large).Further, I don’t know that Gore’s immense sense of his world historical importance would have allowed him to pass up the opportunity to wage a war.
Oh, he would have invaded Afghanistan! But Iraq was really a project of Dick Cheney and his colleagues. That influence would have been absent in a Gore administration.
Jon, I believe the original invasion of Afghanistan to destroy Al-Qaeda and their protectors, the Taliban, was universally supported in America in 2001. Nation-building is another story.
Six Republican Congresmen voted against the Declaration of War. 3 of them were not re-elected. 3 were - I like Ron Paul.
This is very sharp. If Congress remains as tight as it is right now--well, that's how the system works. On the other hand Dreher's post is about non-political politics, and that stuff is anything but inconsequential.
I somewhat agree, but when I think about it, what we've seen in many elections--at least in my lifetime--was a choice between two wings of the same oligarchical system.
Trump, for all of his divisiveness and personal lack of integrity, is a disrupter. He may have been ultimately ineffective in his first term (and I have no expectation of him being more effective in a second term), but he at least did challenge the narrative.
Before Trump, the choice was more "vote Republican, and vote for lower taxes and a bigger military, and noise about 'family values'"; or "vote Democrat, and vote for more social programs and noise about 'social justice'". In the end, the policies changed a bit around the edges, but were left fundamentally unchanged--deficit spending, tax breaks for the wealthiest, and interventionism evermore. At least Trump killed fewer people, and that's not nothing--though that policy earned more ire than anything else he did, and that among the people with the most real power.
So if, say, Romney or McCain won instead of Obama--do you really think things would be substantially better in any meaningful way? Or Gore or Kerry instead of W?
It's been mere political theatre for years. A true disrupter--say a Trump that was willing to work hard and had a coherent idea for America--may arise, but it's doubtful if he or she will ever be given a real chance to make a difference.
Living in Maryland in 2008, I didn't have to vote for two men I disliked intensely. But I preferred Obama to McCain because of McCain's fervent devotion to war. Had McCain won in 2008, the Republicans would have been reduced radically in Congress and America would still be in hot wars in the Middle East and likely in Iran. McCain was George C. Scott's character in "Dr. Strangelove", General Buck Turgidson.
Obama, however, went on to take the lead in destroying Lybia, expand the droning campaign, fail to withdraw from Iraq or Afghanistan, and participated in the war on Yemen.
Perhaps McCain would have been more reckless and would have sent more ground troops, and even start war with Iran...so maybe Obama was the lesser evil. But he certainly was a war-monger...just without the stupid "Bomb bomb bomb Iran" schtick.
This reminds me of a joke that is older than I care to say. But I'll repurpose it for the occasion:
"They told me if I voted for McCain we'd still be in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we'd be involved in new wars in the Middle East and North Africa. Well, sure enough, I voted for McCain and that's exactly what happened."
Try telling Obama fans that he and Hillary Clinton destroyed Libya and they look at you like you're crazy. It isn't even that they approved of it at the time or rationalize it in hindsight. They literally don't know or remember it happened.
But Obama was so cool and his dress pants were nicely pressed. So said David Brooks.
Like MLK he spoke pretty words...
It was not the US that took the lead on Libya but rather Italy (the former colonial power) and France, also with old ties to northern Africa. Though yes, once things were in motion the US jumped in with both feet.
And by the have no clue that the destabilization of Libya helped destabilize Mali and Niger but having never heard of those countries or heard of people called Turaegs , they wouldn’t know.
Obama did wind down our Iraq involvement-- and I remember voices on the Right (though not Rod, to be clear) harshly criticizing him for it.
Yet we still have 2500 troops there...why? https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2023-03-15/why-us-troops-remain-in-iraq-20-years-after-shock-and-awe
The article you link to appears to be almost a year old. I looked for more recent data and couldn't find any deployments in Iraq in 2024.
McCain would have been a Disaster as president. War 'r US.
For what it's worth, I think this election is important for a handful of big issues, such as immigration and overseas wars. But for so many other issues, the real action is local. It's amazing what state and county legislators are getting away with while everyone is hung up on the national political shit-show. If I were running for a county or state position, I'd be overjoyed that people are obsessed with the Trump/Biden farce....
I very much agree here. Much of what we deal with in our own lives comes out of the state capital or city hall. We're not going to get answers from Washington on, say, crime or homelessness (and we shouldn't look to DC for that type of stuff either)
As others are pointing out, Congress is no longer where the action is. Congress has not functioned in its proper role for decades. The country is run by the unelected bureaucrats of the administrative state, in coordination with the expert class in their perches at the media, big tech, education, grant/grift-sucking "companies", etc, etc.
A Republican president can slightly pare some of the excesses of the administrative state back for a few years, but nothing more (the "non-partisan civil servants" will make damn sure the impact is limited). But a Democratic president can go full bore with abuses of executive power (yes the courts will slap some of it back, but that takes years, and meanwhile the Overton window continues to expand), and the denizens of the administrative state will slam into overdrive putting it all into action.
So the election does make a difference, just not in the actual rule of law way the Founders intended. (To be clear I think there is no positive outcome to be had coming up.)
The big national issues are not decided by bureaucrats, but by presidents wielding executive orders, or by the Supreme Court.
They only get to the Supreme Court in the first place by abuses of executive power and/or poor legislation by Congress in the past. And I don't mean just "big national issues" - I mean the general running of the country. The agencies engage in "rulemaking" (effectively lawmaking) all the time (not only do they act in lieu of the self-emasculated legislative branch, they often even have their own internal "courts" to act as their own judicial branch, deciding on the fate of companies under the "laws" they themselves "wrote"). This is all based on 100 years of progressive-left ratcheting under decades of Dem majorities in Congress and a Supreme Court that sang their tune.
My hope is that the current Court eventually pushes this all back into line, but there's a long way to go with 100 years of precedent on the other side. Just tearing out Chevron, for example (ironically a decision hailed by the right at first), would be a baby step.
No, tearing up Chrevron would hamstring too much. What we really did is not some court rulings (that's just more rule bu unelected elite) but a Congress that does the job we elect and pay it for. If bureaucrats are overstepping their delegated authority, then it is Congress' job toi slap that down. Anything else just risks cures worse than the disease.
You are a little naive on this.
Legislation is almost impossible in a culture in which niche media preach to their choirs, thus creating a public discourse with zero shared information. Right?
To the Question you posed: February of 1969, Filmore West, The Grateful Dead. I came home to My People.
Correction: Early February of 1970
Trump is a media guy. Swift is a media figure/creation. There has already been discussion/rumors how she will be used by the Biden campaign. No idea if there is an "organized" effort among the Trump faithful, but given there is seemingly organized efforts among the Dems and Swift, well...
It is the actions of media and celebs, and talking about it even this much has already bored me.
Maybe the fix is in for the Chiefs.
I think you are right. The game is being choreographed even as we type. Travis Kelce will catch a thirty yard touchdown on the last play of the game and Taylor Swift and Kelce will embrace at the fifty yard line as the confetti flutters from the skies.
Oh, please - both teams have won multiple Superbowls. And if it weren't for the flaming romance between Swift and Kelce, I'd expect the uproar to be about the San Francisco 49ers, because "San Francisco" - GASP! They'll be out there in drag!
You must admit that if there was an engagement, a traditional marriage, and pregnancy, within the next say 14 months, it would do wonders for young white girls going forward....LOL!
I'm rooting for their romance. I honestly don't care who wins the Super Bowl.
I'm completely uninterested in Taylor Swift, but when I see photos of her with Kelcie, I see what appears to be a very sincere smile on the face of a young woman whose job requires her to fake-smile a lot. I'm wary of being jerked around by PR campaigns, but it seems real to me.
Even with no pregnancy it would be a wholesome influence-- instead of the two just moving in with together.
Swift has had some songs about bad romances. "We are never ever getting back together" is a classic f***-you break up song. "I Knew You Were Trouble" is about the mistake of going after a "bad boy".
Re: They'll be out there in drag!
I cannot unsee the picture this conjured in my mind.
A beautiful sentiment. I can just see many in the homosexual community fantasizing over Christian McCaffrey of the Niners.
The 49ers do have the only male NFL cheerleader....Jonathan. Google tells me he's "out" in case I was wondering!
See my reply below to Derek.
I do think Taylor Swift is self-created. She has always been very savvy about her image and with how to connect to her fan base using media. If I remember correctly, I read in a “New Yorker” article from about 9 or 10 years ago that she was mining Twitter hashtags at her concerts, prior to going up on stage, and selecting tweets from her fans in the audience to broadcast over the Jumbotron, sending the girls into paroxysms of squeals and screams. She’s been a good songwriter since her teens.
I’m not a fan. And other than the song “Mean,” along with its accompanying video— which I think is brilliant—I really don’t care for any of her music. Yes, at this moment, she’s overhyped, and I’ll attribute the overhype to the media and the arrested adolescence of the females who make up the rank and file of media. But she’s the farthest thing from being an empty suit, dress, leotard, or what have you.
I decided to give one of her albums a listen on my morning walk just now. A song called "Exile" got my attention—but that was a duet with Bon Iver, who I think is great.
You may like her song "Renegade" with the National.
Good call! Huh, Big Red Machine? Wiki says that they're a collaboration between Justin Vernon (alias Bon Iver) and one of the guys from The National, so now I have their music to check out as well.
You'll like their stuff!
p.s. her two quarantine albums (folklore and evermore) were actually long distance collaborations with Aaron Dessner from the National. Both are very different from her pop anthems.
I’m not a fan either, don’t hate it (was exposed while my daughter was at the proper age a while back), but I do quite like Ryan Adams's entire album redo of her "1989". That made me think - when the music was performed in a different style I actually liked - that there was something there, at least with songwriting talent. Some of the songs, when redone by Adams, almost had an early Springsteen thing about them.
As a man approaching 70 I am not a Swift fan, but her songs are quite good as pop numbers and have seen stories about her doing a substantial amount of giving. I do not understand why her ticket prices are so high, though, many of her fans are not rich.
What instrument does she play?
Sings and dances, plays a little guitar.
I mostly listen to bluegrass these days, not a Swift fan but I to some extent understand her appeal. Works hard too and doesn't seem to be sleazy as some popular artists are.
Does she cover songs like "Get Off of My Cloud", "I Feel Fine" or "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road"?
For great covers of that era by present day women you need Morgan James or Reina del Cid.
James is classy and tasteful. Reina del Cid and her stable remind me of friends I had at that age.
LOL. Nailed it!
As a 70 y.o. musician, I can attest that I've heard just one song from Taylor Shvitz- her very first hit, the one about the short shorts, where she sings, 'You belong to me- hee-hee.' Can't hold a note. That was enough for me.
I spent years playing in country (among other) bands and as far as I'm concerned, country went into the ditch around 2000 with the the rise of people like Eileen (Shania) Twain , too much Garth channeling Styx, and the record companies ditching their mid-to-lower profitable artists (eg Pam Tillis.)
Everything got formularized and lyrics became (to me) a question of how many words can you fit into three minutes.
And the singers (especially females) seemingly started to compete with Celine Dion to see whose voice has more power.
To be sure, there are some really good country artists out there now- Kacey Musgraves, Jason Isbel, Lyle Lovett (hopefully still out there) , John Fullbright, etc. but you have to find them. I hope Vince Gill and Patty Loveless are still at it..,,,And the influence of 'rap' and hippity hop has been most destructive.
I like Bluegrass as well. One of my favorite CDs is the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band's "Will the Circle be Unbroken."
I’m not sure how Swift is any different than any other Post WW2 pop culture phenomenon: Beatlemania, Elvis, 90s Boy Bands, etc. I like the parallels to Hooligan Firms to explain how people can get caught up in something that makes them feel good and empowered. I think the article makes a nice tie-in there.
I simply think the Trump camp is overplaying this card, like they overplay everything. As Rod says right away, if you’re going to vote based on a celebrity endorsement, you’ve probably already decided Trump isn’t your man. Move on, end of story. Yes, you have a billionaire pop star with followers who might not like Trump. Who cares? Most people in her class don’t. The Trump crowd does not seem to understand that half the country doesn’t like Trump. I’m likely going to vote for him to kick Joe out, but I’m not happy about it.
Swift is pretty inoffensive as far as pop divas go. By today’s standards her music is pretty clean, not at all violent, and kind of plastic. Perfect for the times in which we live.
I’m dreading the next 10 months. This is an absolutely unnecessary election. Everyone knows how they feel about the two men helming the tickets. I think we conservatives are going to have our head in our hands a lot, and I think it’s going to be gas on the dumpster fire of decline. Swift is the least of our problems.
Seeing as she's singing about Romeo while others are busy describing their genitalia, yes, agreed—she's not that bad at all.
You know Sam Kriss? Opener to his recent meditation:
“Taylor Swift is, by any sensible measure, the most famous person in the world. The actual leaders of actual countries beg her to visit their dying lands, put on a show, make their miserable people spend some of their miserable money, maybe nudge the whole economy just a few points out of recession. When a war breaks out in Asia, both sides immediately try to argue that they’re fighting on the side of Taylor Swift. She is bigger than Elvis, bigger than the Beatles, bigger than God. She has blasted herself on a jet of pure sugary Americana into every quiet crevice of global culture. She provides the texture of daily life for thirteen year old Indonesian girls with hijabs and hard scraping eyes. There are swathes of rebel bushland in central Africa where children tear the guts out the earth at gunpoint and the central government has no power at all—but Taylor Swift does. In my travels across China, the only Western music you’d ever hear playing anywhere belonged to Taylor Swift. She’s not a solitary human being; she’s Coca-Cola. She has fundamentally changed the inner workings of the record industry, show ticketing, intellectual property—why not? Let’s say music theory too. She invented tone. She invented pitch. Taylor Swift seems destined to be remembered by our drooling, mud-eating descendants as a kind of culture hero, the mythical source of everything left for them to inherit. First was she who plucked strings and made pleasant sounds. Who taught man to spin thread and mark the hours of the sun.”
Whole piece is typical Sam.
https://samkriss.substack.com/p/taylor-swift-does-not-exist
Ah, Sam Kriss is fun, and in my opinion a fantastic writer. I'll check that out.
An amazingly learned crackpot satirist. This piece wasn’t great, but has its moments.
Hey, speaking of crackpot satirists, I picked up your book. Haha. I looked at the preview, and my eyes fell upon the line, "The rhino is a natural gnostic."
Hope you’re getting some laughs from it. One friend, rather gnostic, finds the rhino piece his favorite.
Wow, that is quite the fever dream of a story: the paranoia makes me think of Pynchon, like in *The Crying of Lot 49*.
Hm, I wonder if Taylor Swift is some sort of Rorschach test? For my part, I just see a rather normal woman who writes a lot of decent songs and sometimes even a few really good ones, when she veers into folk and indie rock. I wonder what that says about my relative level of derangement. . . . .
I like his speculations on her navel. And the Aramaic bowl!
If someone asks whether Eve and Adam had belly buttons, I say yes; and if they ask why, I say, "For decoration." A ludicrious question deserves an answer in kind.
Well, you assume they need such decoration because your aesthetic sense is postlapsarian. Pre-Fall, the smooth look was Beauty itself.
A couple of months back, even Justsome Trudeau was pleading with her to visit Canada.
“Come on up! We can have a girl’s night, play dress up!”
Hilarious! I've got to check this guy out....
As a goof my wife gave my daughter as a stocking stuffer the new Taylor Swift Little Golden Book:
https://images.app.goo.gl/NPBS28bizHEvSCNH6
WE had peace with Trump… he has the talent of international relations, its called diplomacy. We had a thriving economy and low UE. We had grumblers, but as always they silently participated in the benefits while other side of mouth engaged in cut.throat. People can be better!
Re: he has the talent of international relations, its called diplomacy.
Yes, assassinating an Iranian general by drone, and getting all bosom buddy with one of the world's most noxious tyrants is the epitome of diplomacy.
Actually, I think he did a pretty good job handling Kim, who is now making more noises than before. And he had the madman's gambit working in his favor: people didn't wanna mess around too much because they didn't know what he might do—and it was persuasive, since he also did not know.
My late father had a saying: 'Some people can't cope with prosperity.'
It's interesting you bring up the Beatles. As somebody with kids who came of age in the zeros I can say with confidence TayTay's succession of hits has been like NOTHING since the Lennon and McCartney 1964-1970. And they quit!
Have you ever seen the four Beatles shows on the old Ed Sullivan Show? The girls in the audience are insane. The boys just watched glumly.
I saw them on the hoof, D. That's how old I am.
On the roof? (Yesterday was the 55th anniversary of their last public performance - not that I'm paying attention or anything! *L*)
' . . . on the hoof'.
I think that he means he saw them in-person live somewhere (not necessarily the roof-top concert.)
I don't think the boys were glum to see the Beatles; it's just that they came to see a concert and it was drowned out by the girls' screams.
They unearthed a recording of a concert the Beatles gave at a private boarding school in Liverpool just as they were really hitting the big time. The recording was awful, but you could actually hear the band because it was an all-boys school. With improvements in technology, the "mix" can finally be corrected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYaMkVmlg3A
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65167799
No, they were glum. The boys knew that their girlfriends would dump them in a second to be with John, Paul, George or Ringo.
True, but I think the same could be said a few years earlier when boys knew their girlfriends would gladly dump them for Elvis or Ricky Nelson.
I think the only period in which girls wouldn't dump their boyfriends for some pop musicians would be in the '70s. I can't really visualize girls dumping their guys to be with Frank Zappa, Donald Fagen (Steely Dan), Simon & Bullwinkle, or Iggy Pop.
I was a teen at the time, and I remember seeing those on TV.
As a girl myself, I was so embarrassed for those hysterical girl fans ... and embarrassed by them.
One girl was flipping out wildly while Ringo sang "Act Naturally." An unnatural moment to say the least.
But weren't the St. George Floyd riots in the same category as the soccer hooliganism? More like the storming of the Bastille, the participants were suffused with a sense of moral righteousness - they were on the "right side of history," which (supposedly) not only explained why they joined the rioting mob - but why the mob was good and virtuous and necessary. Swifties at least don't have that extra justification.
But at the end of the day, conservatives should welcome the Swift-Travis Kelce business. Whatever her politics, she is a conventionally attractive white woman; she is straight, not queer, in a relationship with a white male, a football player of all things. Politics aside, this is the definition of "normal," this is the very thing, the very dynamic the left has been trying to burn to the ground. We should be cheering for them to get married and have kids.
I wonder if the soccer hooligans and the Antifa types sit around and debate which of their riots was the "best".
I don’t know about ANTIFA but the soccer hooligans do reminisce about their greatest performances.
M
As someone who was involved with an English forerunner of Antifa, yeah entire books have been written reminiscing "battles" on the streets. A big overlap with football hooliganism too.
I am annoyed by the apparently manufactured Swift-Kelce relationship, but your point is really good and reminds me of how the whole "girlpower against the patriarchy" chorus surrounding Barbie last summer was ironically very "based" in many ways. I will never forget how Barbie's big moment, as a REAL woman, was to go to the gynecologist. Huge win for Team Reality right there.
I mean seriously, think about it: Rich, beautiful blonde girl falls for athlete. It's right out of high school. Most (if not all) lefties were nerds/geeks in high school - they were BULLIED by such people. But now they cheer them on!
It's almost like the Swift-Kelce thing is a conservative psy-op. They can endorse Biden all they like and Swift herself can sing the LGBT praises to the heavens - she's the epitome of cisgender, heterosexual white privilege. Let them praise her and make her an icon. Let them emulate her!
Ha-ha! Yours is the proper response. Nevertheless, I can’t help but add a touch of sarcasm:
“My word, if young American girls all decided to grow their hair out, stay thin, apply their make up just so, wear dresses, smile, and fall in love with a football hero, Heaven only knows what would happen to this country!”
Except the Floyd riots were ginned up, rent-a-mobs.
And the evidence for this is....? (tinfoil hats are always a fashion don't!)
Um, BLM?
BLM organized protests, not riots.
There were some provocateurs from both the Left and Right but they seem to have showed up only after the lowlives started looting Targets. A more likely culprit would be local street gangs who very definitely were on board for a "purge" (as in the movies by the name) event. There was some evidence in Baltimore that *someone* was trying to gin up a riot from the protests, but the police, wiser than in 2015, refuse to take the bait, and the protest organizers ejected the troublemakers from their ranks.
Mitt Romney, agent provocateur.
This comes as no surprise to this ol’ boy. Sure seems like we’ve been sprinting away from all seriousness and decorum for a generation, and accelerating. We may be in the “Weak Men Create Hard Times” part of the national evolution cycle.
"May" be? Try "have been for too long" on for size.
427 Grateful Dead show later, I would have to say my reason to attend all but the first was the sense of transcendence. My first was 1976 and I had run away from home at 14. I didn’t know the band existed but the hippies who picked me up hitchhiking insisted I come along. I stayed on the tour all summer, belonging and twirling. That continued, rather still does into my 60s - differently of course, but like Buford I can name the shows and songs and friends. I wonder how my life would have ended up if I was picked up by a trucker instead. I might never have encountered Robert Mueller, or maybe I would have been on his team.
"We are everywhere!"
427! Wow! I am somewhere around 130 before it all got too fuzzy. If I had it to do over, I would have see a lot more shows before 1975 and a lot fewer shows after 1990. Of course, I didn't have any money before 1975. (Actually I didn't have any real money until about 1982.) I was living the starving grad student life for many years. After Brent died, the ship began to take on water.
After Jerry died it grew past 427 - Ratdog, Dead&Co etc - but I’ve slowed to a stop. I might go to a Bobby show soon. But I’m not the lot lizard I used to be. Too many veggie burritos.
Bobby is sleepwalking these days. Save your money for a goo-ball.
The majority of the times I’ve experienced that “sense of transcendence, of ‘absolute completeness’” has been when deeply immersed in nature: fields, marsh, river, forests, mountain lakes. All evidence that the world truly is enchanted, and if you know where to look, you find God.
This is true for me too. I seem to be quite immune to crowd passions. In fact crowds larger than a respectably populated dance floor or church nave are a turn off for me.
I remember when I was 18 I was in the boondocks of western New York and climbed up a very high hill with a vista that stretched for miles, and I felt as if I had "fallen" into, well, everything.
It took me a long while to realize that Taylor Swift is an actual musician: I thought she was one of those unholy creations brought forth by Disney and autotune. But then I saw that she had songs with bands such as Bon Iver and The National, which sure got my attention. Like, "Wait, is she indie-adjacent?" So that's how I learned that she writes real songs. I guess she's fine—not gonna listen to the stuff all day, but it's fine. Some people seem to truly hate her for her celebrity and success, which I think is about as wrongheaded as worshipping her for it.
Also, when it comes to playing the media game, I'd wager that Trump probably knows what he's doing. That's who he is, after all—he's in his natural environment. I sort of wonder if he would simply go up in a puff of smoke if no one was looking at him.
Taylor Swift is pleasant but very safe and bland to me.
Her cult is sort of bizarre to watch: I'm just a year older than her, and she comes across as a talented but otherwise pretty normal woman to me, like anyone who might be around.
Both of you better watch out. Forty is middle-age.
Ah, I'm a man and a writer, so I'm not too worried about it.
40? I would give up all my worldly possessions to be deposited naked and 40 again on a street corner.
Oh really!
Do you connections to facilitate any such arrangement? Asking for a friend.
I believe that if Trump were to come back in another life and NOT BE Trump, he would want to come back as Rodney Dangerfield, Alan King, Jackie Mason, or some other Ed Sullivan - era comedian.
Just look at how he works a crowd and his on stage mannerisms.
I’ve heard that he’s the second coming of PT Barnum.
"...a crowd creates the leaders who create the crowd...the crowd’s latent desire for someone to create them manifested in those individual figures being propelled to leadership"
My first thought upon reading that it's possible to microwave a cup of water so that it's not boiling when you pull the mug out - the water looks calm, but stick a spoon in it - the boil over is an instant phenomenon. People under heat, like water, sometimes want to spill; each awaits the impetus to do so.
Re: DeSantis as the Republican nominee would have occasioned a landslide, most likely.
DeSantis might well win against Biden (heck, I'd rate that at better than 50%) As I have said on many occasions there will be no landslides, not for president at least. DeSantis is too far to the Right, especially on social issues*, to rack up more than a bare majority. Also, on things like workers right and middle class entitlements, DeSantis' record is somewhere between Not Good and Abysmal- Florida has still not accepted ACA Medicaid and there are ugly quotes of his that could be exhumed concerning Social Security.
* Six week abortion bans are politically toxic even in red states and come November there's a good chance Florida voters will tank that law in a referendum which will be on the ballot.
The overturning of Roe vs Wade has turned into a massive electoral winner for the Left. There is no denying it. In Victory, the Pro-Life movement failed.
It was correct Constitutional law. But the end of Roe v- Wade helped the Democrats in the short term. But in the long term, the solidification of abortion rights helps the right. Abortion in America kills many more potential Democrat voters than Republican voters.
I agree that Roe vs Wade was bad constitutional law, and I was glad to see it go for that reason. But the pro-Life movement got way out ahead of the voters-- even the Republican, even the MAGA voters.
Voting behavior is not hereditary and on a generational timeline these things change-- a lot (look at the differences between the GOP and Democrats today, and what these parties were like forty or fifty years ago).
Jon, I never expected abortion rights would end. Abortion rights are expected by most Americans and in states where abortion rights can be codified, the rights will be codified. At this point, pregnancy crisis centers and regulation of abortion will be more effective in reducing abortions than legislation.
My take is that Roe short-circuited the democratic process for the public to come to a consensus about abortion (yes, by state), and so now it's going to be a holy mess for decades to work out what should have been worked out 50 years earlier.
If the 6 week bans are way out of line with public consensus in the states where they’ve passed (as I suspect they mostly are), the legislative process should eventually correct that. But it will take years. In the meantime, chaos and lots of self-owns for the GOP.
Today's journal entry is one of the most thought-provoking you've done. Your description of your experience at the U2 concert is a good example of that swarm effect. And I think live musical events are where a lot of us have experienced it. But it's a rare thing. I've probably seen over ten thousand live shows, from big stadium concerts to small clubs. Most were good, some were great, but I went to one that I still think about today where what I can only describe as magical happened.
It was around 1979. There was a venue in south Denver called the Rainbow Music Hall, which was really a converted strip-mall bargain movie theater that probably seated a thousand or so. I saw a lot of great shows there: Devo; Tom Waits: Roxy Music, U2 (first US tour!); and a bunch of others. But the absolute best by orders of magnitude was the New Zealand band Split Enz. This is when they had their big hit "I Got You". I wasn't a huge fan, but I had always liked them. The tickets were cheap, so a couple of buddies and I went.
I can't really explain what happened. For whatever reason, literally everything clicked that night. The band played their hearts out and played off each other like I've never seen. And they knew it; you could see them look at each other with this amazed "I don't know what's going on but I hope it lasts forever" look. And us in the audience did the same thing. They ended up playing "I Got You" three times and did five encores, the last of which was an acapella sea shanty accompanied only by the percusionist playing the spoons. When the finally band left the stage, I remember a woman in the row in front of us sobbing because the show was over. It was the must nuts concert I've ever seen. I saw Split Enz again a year later at the same venue, and while they were really good, that show wasn't even a shadow compared the one before. That one night was the only truly enchanted concert I've seen.
Musicians refer to that as being "in the pocket" and they live for it.
I had a similar experience seeing The Pogues just before they became semi-famous. It was the fall of 1987, 500 diehard fans packed into a 1920s dancehall, Joe Strummer (the one guy I idolized as a teenager) was filling in for the guitarist, and nobody in the place could stop smiling. Total communal bliss.
Ok I am envious of that. Particularly with Joe Strummer.
Funnily enough I was listening to Red Roses for Me last night.....it is pure joy. Can't beat Waxie's Dargle played very loud.
They played about half that album and half of Rum, Sodomy... and all of Poguetry in Motion, the EP they were touring. They also played a few songs from Fall From Grace, which hadn't been released yet, and Joe Strummer sang lead on Poguesesque versions of "I Fought the Law" and "London Calling." It was unbelievable
It sounds absolutely outstanding. Particularly the Strummer-Pogues fusion aspect.
I recommend the Strummer documentary: The Future is Unwritten. He seemed like someone who was attempting an honest search for meaning. Great soundtrack too.
Jerrold Post, who was our nation's preeminent political psychologist, wrote several books on the theme of how it is the followers that create a charismatic leader for their age (and not vice versa). It is a wounded, entitled people, he argued, that call forth a narcissistic leader who will mirror their woundedness that brings forth demagogues to the world stage. His "Leaders and Their Followers in a Dangerous World" is a good book to start with.
The way celebrity, tribal affiliation, and "trustworthiness" work in 2024, Taylor Swift would likely win a presidential election, if she ran to replace Biden as a "rescue candidate", or in another cycle as a kind of "independent movement candidate".
She would, in effect, be an even much stronger version of Trump in that regard, because she shares many things with him from a characteristic point of view (not in substance, of course -- in substance she's very different, which is why she would be punting for the "other" team).
She has celebrity, and a good deal more of that than Trump had prior to 2016. This is a massive political advantage in today's culture, because it allows one to more or less completely sidestep the vetting and "who is this person" process of our political culture and simply show up in the final round, so to speak, where you will often cut an attractive contrasting figure to the vetted career politicos sharing the stage with you.
She has a massive army of extremely emotionally engaged, viscerally loyal fans that is certainly no weaker than the hardcore of MAGA, and is much bigger.
The core demographic of her fanbase -- young, single, white women -- is already core to the political success of that side, just as Trump's core of white guys is for his side. And her broader appeal to other segments of the female population, including suburban married women (many of whom adore her), would be substantial, and attract those women as swing voters who otherwise might vote Republican.
She encapsulates a powerful contemporary perspective which is not hyper political in an activist sense, but nevertheless is very concerned about political optics (the ability to self-perceive as being on the nice/empathetic "side" of any political issue), while also exemplifying a kind of effortless girlboss vibe that doesn't even need to be articulated, yet remains powerful.
And, perhaps most importantly in 2024, people trust Taylor Swift. They trust her more than they do any politician. And the alignment is therefore even stronger, I think, than the MAGA alignment is, because Trump is often supported simply because he will give libs the finger, whereas Swift would actually be trusted, as a person -- an appeal which is, perhaps, unique in our political system and political culture at present. She therefore has an incredible amount of personal credibility.
--
Of course, Swift has no political experience at all. I am not sure that would matter to most voters given the other options on the table. It didn't matter to Trump's voters in 2016. Swift is currently too young to be sworn in, but she would be eligible in January, having turned 35 in December of this year.
Now, do I think Swift will actually run for President? No, I don't, because I don't think she's interested in being President. If she wants the job, though? It would be hard for the DNC to resist replacing Biden with Swift at the convention if his numbers haven't vastly improved by then.
I suspect all of that has a lot to do with why the Trump Camp is going on an anti-Swift tact at the moment. They "get" the threat, because it's so similar to their own guy -- she's a kind of "Anti-Trump" figure -- like him in various ways, but substantively completely the opposite. Yes, that's a potential threat, and a large one, if she ever were to be in a position to be his opponent.
I have never listened to a Taylor Swift song but I do know that's she's been around for a long time. Even the Beatles limped into the 70s. I don't get it. I can only guess that tens of million of girls and young women have huge holes in their lives.
You probably have listened to a Taylor Swift song without knowing it was her.
I am 63 and haven't listened to a music station for at least two decades.
Her music is played incessantly in restaurants and department stores. If you've avoided it you've done very well.
We are so different there. I listen to nothing but music in the car. I used to have satellite radio; these days it's mainly via my extensive Amazon play lists or occasionally a classic techno station (it makes me feel old that what was once cutting edge, and edgy, dance music is now merely "classic")
Sure, I play CDs in my car but all the acts are fifty years old. Beatles to Johnny Cash and Merle Haggard. I'm listening to a CD of Dickens' "Bleak House" a novel I heartily recommend.
Yes! Her music is like that. I know that I have heard numerous Taylor Swift songs. I just don't remember *any* of them.
There's no way she's going to run for President.
I'll tell you who would win if SHE ever ran for President and that's Dolly Parton. She's the same age as Trump, and she's pretty universally loved in this country. And world famous.
Plus, she can write and sing.
I don't like what she's been doing lately, trying to make herself 'current
' and hip. Totally tasteless.
But when she was was just Dolly, from the Porter Wagonner years up till the great 'Trio' recordings with Emmylou Harris and Linda Ronstadt..........she really had it going.
I think Dolly just likes being Dolly and doesn't care what anyone in the world thinks about her. And why should she? Believe me, the people of Tennessee love her with all their hearts.