“I remember when they used to call ‘conservative punks’ skinheads.”
In the grand tradition of Stryper and “Down Wit’ G.O.D.” comes this retarded movement (Link and subject of this post are from the always hilarious TBogg) :
“Punks will tell me, `Punk and capitalism don’t go together,’ ” Mr. Rizzuto said. “I don’t understand where they’re coming from. The biggest punk scenes are in capitalist countries like the U.S., Canada and Japan. I haven’t heard of any new North Korean punk bands coming out. There’s no scene in Iran.”Mr. Rizzuto is the founder of Conservative Punk, one of a handful of Web sites and blogs that have sprung up recently as evidence of a heretofore latent political entity: Republican punks. With names like GOPunk, Anti-Anti-Flag and Punkvoter Lies, the sites are a curious blend of Karl Rove and Johnny Rotten, preaching personal responsibility and reflexive patriotism with the in-your-face zeal of a mosh pit. When he’s not banging his head to the Misfits, the Vandals or the Bouncing Souls, for example, Mr. Rizzuto spends his time writing essays denouncing Michael Moore and “left-wing propaganda,” and urging other conservative punks to join his cause.
“Punk has been hijacked by an extreme left-wing element,” Mr. Rizzuto said. “It’s blame America first. Everything is America’s fault, and everything is Bush’s fault.” Mr. Rizzuto said his goal “is rallying conservative punks and getting people to vote.”
. . .
While Conservative Punk does not have a roster of bands exactly, it has inspired the interest and involvement of a consortium of conservatives with proper punk credentials, like Michale Graves, a former singer for the Misfits, who writes a column for Mr. Rizzuto’s site. Mr. Graves regularly performs wearing a skull mask and is known for belting out lyrics like: “A fever rots/The brain goes numb inside/I feel a blackout coming/The boiled blister pops inside.” He allows that he doesn’t fit the profile of your average red-state Republican.
. . .
Traditionally a subculture of anti-establishment and anti-authoritarian leanings, the punk world has never been monolithic in its politics. The Sex Pistols preached nihilism and anarchy, while bands like the Clash, which headlined Rock Against Racism events in London and New York in the late 1970’s, espoused leftist views.At the same time, punk came out of a frustration with what many urban youths saw as the ineffectualness of hippie-style liberalism, and embraced an inflammatory iconography ? like swastikas and military leathers ? as a statement against the peace movement, and everything else mainstream for that matter. Joe Levy, a deputy managing editor of Rolling Stone magazine, said punk politics have always been a bit confused. “The whole idea of punk rock and politics was a mess from the beginning,” he said.
. . .
Andrew Heidgerken, the founder of GOPunk and the proud owner of metal-spiked leather jacket with “G.O.P.,” “N.R.A.” and “U.S.A.” on the sleeves and a portrait of Ronald Reagan on the back, said he took special pleasure in the unpopularity of his views among other punks. “I can tell you the part of punk we like,” he said. “The willingness to speak out even if it annoys people, shouting at anyone who’ll listen.” Mr. Heidgerken is not beyond using traditional means to annoy people; he’s currently running for committeeman from his Chicago neighborhood.
Gimme another minute to laugh at the line “There’s no scene in Iran.”……Okay, I’m good now.
Now I agree with the guy from Rolling Stone that punk and politics don’t generally mix. With the exception of bands like the Clash, punk was mostly a fashion movement that was a lot more concerned with attitude and iconography than actually articulating political positions. But isn’t being anti-establishment part of that? I’m hardly one to be lecturing on the purity of punk, but it seems pretty ridiculous to think that you can “be punk” and support “the man” at the same time.
11 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Actually I don’t see this as that odd. 99% of punk rock kids just want to be weird for weirdness sake. What’s weirder than a GOPunk?
Comment by Andrew — March 23, 2004 @ 10:56 am
I don’t think I respect the views of any singer of the Misfits whose name isn’t Danzig. And even then I wouldn’t care what his politics were because he’s a flesh-eating astro zombie, not a pundit.
However, there have been a lot of right-wing punks in the past who made great music–Johnny Ramone and Stiv Bators come to mind. Democrats are just as much the establishment as Republicans (even if they’re not in office right now) and unfortunately many people get caught up in the “hippy liberals are trying to oppress me around with their political correctness” bullshit.
Comment by dAnimal — March 23, 2004 @ 12:39 pm
“With the exception of bands like the Clash, punk was mostly a fashion movement that was a lot more concerned with attitude and iconography than actually articulating political positions. ”
i disagree, somewhat… whether or not a band is overtly political (like the clash with their lyrics, etc) i think punk as a culture is definitely politically motivated.
i think the origins of brit-punk in the 70s had as much to do with Thatcherism and social class problems as it did with being a pissed off teenager. whether you’re revolting against the government, the jocks at your school, your parents, or the music industry- punk rock is political but nature even when you don’t sing about politics.
today’s punk scene is completely different- at least the “punk” scene that we hear on the radio and on TRL. that’s not political at all- and if it is, it’s usually completely superficial. because that “punk” scene is created by the industry trying to capitalize on past culture. there are plenty of politically motivated punk bands inthe underground these days, but with all the radio-friendly punk bands running around today, i’m not surprised that their fan-base could be filled with republicans.
Comment by tom — March 23, 2004 @ 2:03 pm
“political BY nature” not “but”
Comment by tom — March 23, 2004 @ 2:04 pm
Sid Vicious died three months before Margaret Thatcher was elected.
I think that’s a very loose definition of the word “political”. When I say “political” I mean in the sense that it’s trying to enact a political or social change. I don’t see any of that in early punk.
If anything I see punk pioneers like Malcolm McLaren or Dee Dee Ramone as musical equivalents of John Waters. In the movie Multiple Maniacs, John Waters included the “rosary job” (it’s exactly what you think it is) not because he had some grievance with the Catholic Church, but because he knew it would piss off old people and get people to watch his movies. The same can be said of the Ramones’ flirtations with Nazi imagery or the Sex Pistols’ attacks on the Queen. They were just going for shock value.
Comment by greg — March 23, 2004 @ 2:41 pm
“i think the origins of brit-punk in the 70s had as much to do with Thatcherism and social class problems as it did with being a pissed off teenager.
Sid Vicious died three months before Margaret Thatcher was elected.”
oops i’m a moron… can’t remember who it was then… in that clash documentary there was a really good segment all about the lower class revolting against the powers that be in the 70s and that in a lot of ways, punk rse out of that. sorry for being stupid…
“I say “political” I mean in the sense that it’s trying to enact a political or social change. I don’t see any of that in early punk.”
and i see that in a very broad sense- whether you’re changing the social dynamic of your high school, or your country, or the music industry, i still think that’s a political stance that is trying to enact change. i do see that in early punk.
“I see punk pioneers like Malcolm McLaren or Dee Dee Ramone as musical equivalents of John Waters”
i agree… you can’t pin one definition of punk on any of these bands. punk took many forms for many different reasons. i see malcolm mclaren is to the sex pistols somewhat like andy warhol was to the velvet underground. and yes they were primarily concerned with the shock value of their “politics” with the queen, but still that can enact social change just as much (and in some cases moreso) as having a real politcal agenda.
i agree with you on all your points, i just don’t think you can be so dismissive of the political agendas of many early punk bands with a statement like “…punk was mostly a fashion movement that was a lot more concerned with attitude and iconography than actually articulating political positions.” punk became more political towards the end of the 70s and the early 80s with the rise of hardcore bands. but i still see punk culture as somewhat political in nature, just because it was a revolt against the social norm. to me, that is political.
Comment by tom — March 23, 2004 @ 2:56 pm
Wasn’t his role more central than that? McLaren not only managed them, but he’s been credited with naming the band and hiring both Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious. Warhol, on the other hand, pretty much just hired the Velvets to be his house hand and back up Nico.
Little Richard, Eddie Cochran, and Buddy Holly were all rebellious for their time. Like the punk bands of twenty years later, they were interested in bucking the status quo and providing a musical voice for teenage rebellion. But I’d be hard pressed to consider them political either.
Rebelling against authority is one of the oldest themes in popular music, but just because somebody is complaining doesn’t mean they’re trying to enact a political, cultural, or social change. If we broaden the definition of the term “political” to the point that it holds someone who’s complaining about high school in the same company as bands like the Clash or Rage Against the Machine, then the term becomes so diluted that it’s meaningless.
And that’s why I used the word “mostly”. The political themes of punk rock have always been secondary to being cool and selling records (which is how it should be). I’m not saying that 70’s punks weren’t sincere in their beliefs, but that their efforts were rarely focused on actually changing the things they complained about (which is true of just about all popular music to one degree or another).
Comment by greg — March 23, 2004 @ 4:22 pm
This has gone from a discussion about specific conservative punks to a broad discussion about whether punk in general or specifically has been “political.”
I just want to point out here that overtly political music almost always sucks. And furthermore, generic rage and style in art and music affects the actual political arena in much more broad and moving strokes than specifically political songs.
For example, Elvis wearing a red suit to the Grand Ole Opry, and singing “black” music, I think contributed to a lot of people around the country opening up their minds regarding race and helped quash the bland traditionalism/utopianism of the 50’s in a major way. Donovan singing “Universal Soldier” and his ilk singing songs about the broad topic of “peace” helped people specifically grow to hate the Vietnam War. Yet I don’t know if the specifically political Clash or Dead Kennedys songs changed a goddam thing despite the fact that they named names and actually called for social change in a lot of cases.
Comment by dAnimal — March 23, 2004 @ 6:30 pm
“Wasn’t his role more central than that? McLaren not only managed them, but he’s been credited with naming the band and hiring both Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious. Warhol, on the other hand, pretty much just hired the Velvets to be his house hand and back up Nico. ”
i think it’s arguable that neither band would’ve gotten as far as they had if it weren’t for Maclaren and Warhol. both maclaren and warhol acted as managers, image consultants, added people to the band, got them gigs, produced albums, etc.
“Rebelling against authority is one of the oldest themes in popular music, but just because somebody is complaining doesn’t mean they’re trying to enact a political, cultural, or social change. ”
it also has a lot to do with how punk formed as a musical moevement that existed outside of the music industry. of course then they all “sold out” and went to signed big contracts, but that was after punk was supposedly dead anyway. it’s not the only music movement to happen outside the industry, but unlike most it formed as an anti-music-industry DIY stance.
“If we broaden the definition of the term “political” to the point that it holds someone who’s complaining about high school in the same company as bands like the Clash or Rage Against the Machine, then the term becomes so diluted that it’s meaningless. ”
politics isn’t just about voting or the government. i think politics are relative to the individual… and there’s different degrees of politics (high school vs government- complaining kid vs. the clash)… personal politics…social politics… governmental politics… maybe that’s too broad a definition of “politics” for you, but that’s how i think of it.
anyway… we disagree on this… i don’t think either of us is more right. i think that punk rock has always been political… i also agree that a lot of it isn’t.
Comment by tom — March 23, 2004 @ 6:32 pm
i have to agree with danimal there… it’s always easier to persuede people with subtlety, or leading by example, than beating them over the heads with your beliefs.
Comment by tom — March 23, 2004 @ 7:48 pm
i don’t know about that. i think that if the music is real good it doesnt matter how blunt the message you are striking someone with is.
when danimal speaks of donavan and his “ilk” im assuming hes also reffering to dylan and songs for change he sang like only a pawn in thier game and oxford town. these are hardly subtle, but they invigorated an activist culture that left their college campuses for mississippi summer.
as far as punk, i think bands like bad religion are (or at least were. i dunno for sure cuz i havent listened to them in about a decade) the antithisis of subtle, and they make punks very aware of inequalities in society they may not see beyond their suburban streets (not to mention persuade some to pick up a dictionary).
spearhead’s music is infectiously groovy, but is not subtle. almost every song is either a prayer for peace or a rant for change, yet because it makes you move it reaches many people who might not have listened to such ideas. its interesting to note that michael franti’s first band was on jello biafra’s label.
conservative punks? ummm, okay. i think because of the constant attacks on punk culture by the establishment, apolitical punk is political by default, and therefore embracing the status quo. sorry to make such a sweeping generalization, but if you aint with dk, you’re against them.
Comment by josh — March 24, 2004 @ 8:15 am