Cruz Country, or politics getting in the way of music

, ,

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz announced this week (from Politico):

In an interview Tuesday on “CBS This Morning,” the Texas senator told his TV hosts that he “grew up listening to classic rock” but that that soon changed.

“My music taste changed on 9/11,” Cruz said.

“I actually intellectually find this very curious, but on 9/11, I didn’t like how rock music responded,” he said. “And country music, collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me.” …

Cruz did not mention any specific country music that resonated with him or which rock artists did not respond well to the terror attacks.

“I had an emotional reaction that said, ‘These are my people,’” Cruz said. “So ever since 2001, I listen to country music.”

Salon has a predictable take:

But it’s interesting nonetheless that Cruz now considers himself a country fan because country music is different than it used to be. And you can trace the change to right about that time. It has traditionally valued “authenticity” giving high praise to those who know how to keep their country real. It’s debatable as to how sincere that commitment has been but the musicians and the fans used to truly believe in the small town ethos, religion and patriotism which have always been fundamental to the genre.

There is a rebellious streak as well, some of it coming from an unlikely source for such a traditional form: women. Back in the 1960s when southern culture was resisting the changes wrought by the counter culture, singers like Loretta Lynn sang about being freed from non-stop pregnancies by the invention of the pill and Jeannie C. Reilly “socked it to” the uptight conservative hypocrites of the Harper Valley PTA. Ted Cruz is probably too young to even know about those songs, but I think we can be sure he wouldn’t approve of them even today. They displayed a shocking irreverence toward family values.

But if the transformed Cruz is a fan of the modern stuff it’s a good bet that a conservative fellow like him (albeit one who once refused to associate with anyone who didn’t go to an Ivy League college) is into what they call “bro-country.” (The dudes who sing those songs like to think of themselves as “outlaws” but their juvenile commercial tropes bear as much resemblance to the original country outlaws like Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson and Johnny Cash as they do to Mozart and Beethoven.) …

When country loving social conservatives like Cruz and Huckabee complain about violent rap lyrics or get upset about the sexual impropriety of pop music they either aren’t listening to modern country or they’re unaware that the traditional values many of “their people” are celebrating in song these days aren’t about family, God and and the red, white and blue. They’re about crude, drunken jerks treating women like whores. I suspect that’s not the image to which Senator Cruz was trying to relate when he confessed to converting to country at the age of 31.

This whole thing is silly, obviously. Ted Cruz’s musical tastes are only interesting to the extent they make him seem like a regular guy. But come on — nobody changes what music they like for political reasons. That pandering comment is so awkward and calculated it makes him sound like an automaton.  In fact, it’s very hard to believe that Ted Cruz has any interest in music at all. The image that comes to mind when you see him isn’t some guy rocking out to the Stones or singing along to “The Angry American.” It’s Richard Nixon walking on the beach in his black socks and wing tips.

In addition to the obligatory slam of “bro-country,” the Salon writer threw in an obligatory mention of the Dixie Chicks, who announced in France that as Texans they were ashamed of George W. Bush. Which ended their careers in the country genre (and really as relevant music acts) not because they dissed Bush, but because they dissed all their soon-to-be-former country fans who voted for Bush.

In addition to ignoring rock music’s 9/11 responses such as Bruce Springsteen’s “The Rising,” Neil Young’s “Let’s Roll” and the U2 Super Bowl show, Cruz’s statement comes off as inauthentic pandering. (I don’t support Cruz for president because I support no one either now or formerly in Congress. Governors should be the only people allowed to run for president for the foreseeable future.) There are certainly artists who write and perform music to express their political beliefs, whether or not they should. I doubt that many music fans listen to music based on adherence to their own political worldview. I haven’t been listening to more country based on anything other than how it sounds.

2 responses to “Cruz Country, or politics getting in the way of music”

  1. John Shier Avatar
    John Shier

    it seems that almost all political decisions have their roots in money, specifically “taxpayers money.” Point number one; isn’t all government money taxpayers money? I get tired of the redundancy. Cannot help but feel that the emphasis on “taxpayers” money is a not very thinly disguised way of alerting people to a commonly held belief that government is both wasteful/inefficient and incompetent. The result is that a prevailing attitude holds that the paying of taxes is simply contributing to waste, inefficiency and incompetence.

    A consequence of this is that taxes cannot and will not be raised by the politicians who both created public animosity toward taxes and who then bow to that animosity by cutting government funded programs. They do this rather than attempting to increase government revenue and thus they put a wide variety of programs under the budgetary axe when they should be maintained or even expanded.
    The curious irony in all of this is that although each and every program which is reduced or cut by legislative fiat generates public outrage from those “taxpayers” who believe in the importance of those programs, the great majority of voters are not affected by those programs and so, in their mutual hatred for an fear of taxes allow the cuts to go through.

    There is a supposedly Oriental view that refers to “death by 1000 cuts.” Thus the reduction of or elimination of a host of specific programs can eventually impair or destroy a certain quality of life in the United States because no individual program is ofgreat enough interest or concern to generate a politically significant response.
    It is my intention to submit relatively short pieces like this on a fairly regular basis. I also hope that anybody who reads these pieces on respond in such a way as to establish a growing dialogue on matters which I believe to be of serious importance.

  2. Paul Kind Avatar
    Paul Kind

    Presty,

    Ted Cruz was smart to make the comments about country music. His statements are more metaphor than pandering, but that subtlety was wasted on pundits.

    Please don’t volunteer for the Joy Cardin Show anymore. I came away realizing that Walker won’t be a viable candidate for President. Why? Here are some of the reasons. 1) Walker, in his book Unintimidated, wants to compare himself to Reagan. 2) Walker has never been a coalition builder. 3) If Walker enters Washington, he will be the same old polarized problem with Washington.

    4) You really should have made the point that John Menard should have given the money directly to the Walker campaign. I’m dismayed with your lack of concern for covert donations. So, yes, career politicians like Walker are the problem with Washington and quite a few Republican politicians.

    Regards,
    Paul

Leave a reply to Paul Kind Cancel reply