Whither the politics of Folk?

Subject: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: GUEST,iggy
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 06:01 PM

I guess this is as good a time as any to jump in feet first, and since politics is the flavour of the week, there's something I really want to know. Are most folk music fans still classic liberals? From the response Mudcatters have given last night's election it would seem so, but since political singer songwriters are no longer in the vanguard I'd think there would be a more even split.

Irish, Scottish, and American old tyme musicians wouldn't neccessarily be as influenced by Pete Seeger Woody Guthrie and the old leftists as the sixties and seventies people would, so is folk music - other than Mudcat - getting more mainstream? Here in Canada I'm not sure if it is.

iggy

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 06:04 PM

Well, I know THIS folk music fan is anti-political, if such a thing exists...

The only thing I find more disinteresting is sports... or you tell me what you dreamed last night...

;-)

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: GUEST,iggy
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 06:10 PM

I dreamed I started my first Mucat thread and nobody answered!

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 06:25 PM

We had a political compass thread going for awhile. Folk is not apolitical, but it isn't a voting bloc of any stripe, either.

~S~

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 06:25 PM

I'd say I tend to be thoughtful in my political responses. Generally, I'm with Clinton as far as expressing political opinions. I'd say other folkies I know are less flashy in their expression as well. I'm disappointed with the current election results, but I'm not likely to beat anyone over the head with my guitar to present that point.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 06:50 PM

When the French were having their 200th anniversary of the Revolution celebrations they came up against a tricky problem at one point. They wanted masses of traditional musicians - but they found that lots of the best traditional musicians were still against the revolution, and didn't want to get involved in celebrating it.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Cllr
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:05 PM

Judging from some of the threads there is all sorts of types on mudcat.Cllr

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:09 PM

I'm inclined to think that there's a general consensus that we're against oppression, but a bit of disagreement as to where that oppression might be coming from at various times and places.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Mark Ross
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:14 PM

According to Utah Phillips; THERE AIN'T NOS SUCH THING AS A REPUBLICAN FOLKSONG!

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Gareth
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:24 PM

Me ? Beira fan club.

Gareth

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 07:57 PM

Yeah, but Utah Phillips is full of shit on that point. There are plenty of Republican folksongs.

But! How many famous and/or infamous Republican folksingers can anyone name?

Yeah, I thought so. Not so very many. A few, but not many.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:14 PM

By and large folksongs don't have party affiliations. They do sometimes have loyalties to particular causes. Those causes may get backed by particular parties at various times, and normally sold-out soon after the elections.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Tinker
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:35 PM

Back in the 1970's I actually held in my hands a copy of "The Party of the Right Song Book". It was compiled by the Yale Party of the Right and was a collection of parodies bashing the democrats of the day. Still regret not taking it with me that night.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 08:39 PM

There ARE some good reasons to vote Republican: lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, etc. Unfortunately, the Republican candidates who preach these goals are always liars. So any reasonable person must vote Democrat. Note: The other parties may have good points and good people BUT they're nowhere close to outnumbering the Democrats, SO a vote for any 3rd party candidate is a vote for the Republicans. And the only good Republican is a jailed Republican.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 09:38 PM

You asked: "Are most folk fans still classic liberals"?

My experience is that "yes". Simply because the folk "lifestyle" tends to be attractive to those people.

Now I'm a huge fan of traditional bluegrass, and over the years I've been to perhaps fifty Bluegrass Festivals and an equal number of concerts. Bluegrass IS folk music, but the demographics of it's audience are MUCH different. The fans are by and large much more conservative. I love that music, and I keep my politics to myself when I'm in that environment. It would be silly to do otherwise...it's not like I'd change anybody's mind on a political issue.

Mudcat demonstrates all the aspects of the "lifestyle" so it's no surprise to me that it's overwhelmingly liberal. It must be a comfortable fit for the odd conservative folk fan though, 'cause as much as they rail at the prevailing political position, they stay, and seem to enjoy it.

My PERSONAL politics are neither left nor right (yer Canadian so you'd understand a bit of that) and often change as new information on an issue comes in.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Nathan in Texas
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 10:46 PM

The oxymoronic "professional" folk are largely liberal, possibly because liberals identify with the oppressed (real or imaginary) and stand up for the rights, dignity, and worth of all groups (except conservatives). Real folk are everyone. This occasionally leads to paternalistic and patronizing incidents from liberal "folkies" who promote real folk because they appreciate the music, but are appalled by the real folk's political, religious, or social beliefs or opinions. (Such as the guy who said "I like 'Amazing Grace' except for the theology.")

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: InOBU
Date: 06 Nov 02 - 11:19 PM

Dear Nathan... as a "professional" folk singer, I am left of liberal, as you may see in my song under the post a song for the end of America... I am a folk singer and a progressive because at the age of thirteen my father went down in the coal mines during the depression and when he came to the surface he was a life long trade unionist. Our traditional music goes way back in the family the music of the common folks. Beside, we have something to say, the eejits who give all three branches of government to a party which constantly leads the corporate few to the feeding troth while you poor working stiffs and I watch them feed on our savings, while this proud government kills like a thug without honor, well, what could someone like that have to say? It is difference between the battle hym of the republic and I'm a good ol rebel. Sure the second is a folk song, but so what... it has little to say and is bad words to a good tune.
Cheers, ... I had a great time caving in Texas...
Larry

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: mooman
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 05:05 AM

At least as concerns this Forum....

I am well to the left of almost anything found in the US or A and deeply into the libertarian sector of the "political compass" to boot.

But I think the 'Cat would be a much poorer place without our DougRs and Cllrs and, as Rick astutely observes, folk music can and should transcend political affiliations although by its very nature it tends to catalogue the lives and experiences of "the common people".

Here's to continuing tolerance and humour in this Forum...

mooman

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: alanabit
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 05:53 AM

I'll go along with that. My politics would be appalling to even most left wing Democrats in the US, but would find a home somewhere in centre of the British Labour Party of the seventies and eighties. Having said that, on any single issue I could be well away on either side. I can ride on someone else's train, but I don't always have to get out at the same station.
Most of us here are able to disagree with each other politely and with a degree of humour, as mooman and McGrath say. I shake may head in wonder sometimes at some of the things that my friends and political opponents say. The same is true of my children though. We can still live together under one roof! Alan.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: weerover
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 05:58 AM

I remember the late Danny Kyle saying that he hoped in a then upcoming election Britain would elect a Labour government (after years of the Conservatives) so he could hear Dick Gaughan singing a traditional song again. Boy, has Tony Blair knocked that one for six.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 01:08 PM

Personally I LOVE talking politics but I tend to stay out of SPECIFIC discussions (say, ones about Ireland or the American Election)...yeah, I have opinions, but I'm still an outsider in those situations, so who wants another point of view from an outsider? The four threads on the woman who slapped her child were absolutely fascinating to me. I left it when I felt I'd just be repeating myself if I posted again, but it was riveting (to me) in the type of arguments used.

Nobody ever (really) discusses Canadian politics 'cause even most CANADIANS don't know frig-all about their Government, so it's more interesting to just eaves-drop on the heated Mudcat spasms. There's usually one or two going on, and they can start off quite interesting but when they just get into the "oh yeah, yer Mother dresses you funny" type of repartee.....you stop learning, and just watch them for humour's sake.

Some damn good writers at Mudcat.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Jerry Rasmussen
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:01 PM

I think that most people vote their pocket book. My Father was a death-do-us-part Democrat, worked on an assembly line and was a member of the AAW/CIO auto Union. Voting was easy for him. No thinking required. I think that's true of most people. We're comfortable with the image our party sells us, don't think about it critically, and just pull the party lever. I used to kid my Father that if a rich relative died and left him a million dollars, he'd be a die-hard Republican by the following Thursday... Damned Unions, trying to take my money away. As the Republicans and Democrats write their speeches after pouring over the latest polls, they all start to sound the same to me. Everyone wants to be in the center, to get re-elected, which leads to a lot of generic generalities. Against the bad stuff and for the good. I take voting seriously, and try to judge (as best I can) who really can do the best job. I usually end up voting Democrat, but I just voted for the Republican Governor of Connecticut, because I think he's done a good job in reviving this state.

If there is no accountability for performance... if you get re-elected because of your part affiliation, no matter how irresponsible you've been... someone in this election was running for office who is in prison (and his part endorsed him) then voting becomes a joke, and a sop.

But then, that's just my strong opinion. I agree with a lot of folks on this thread, though. No sense arguing politics. Or religion. They're both a matter of faith, in the long run..

Jerry

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:03 PM

Iggy: I think Rick nailed it in his first post. No way to tell, but I'd certainly hazard a guess (based on my own experience here at the "Cat") that the majority here would define themselves as liberal (all except Bobert who insists he cannot be labeled anything :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: GUEST,iggy folk
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 02:19 PM

Doug, I think that most people are like Bobert and don't like labelling themselves. I for one don't see myself as being left or right, but someone collecting data for a poll company would. It's their job.

One of the problems is that I think I'm seen as a right winger by some because I believe in personal accountability. I'm not a bigot or cruel hearted and I'd prefer if the leaders of the Western world knew the names of their peers in other countries. I truly believe in 'hand ups' rather than 'hand outs' but that really labels you as a far-right winger in many people's minds.

I love this forum.

iggy

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:13 PM

To me Liberal with a big L means a party that is way to the right of my politics, and slightly to the left these days of Tony Blair's; liberal with a small l means that you think people should be tolerant of each other, and shouldn't go ramming their opinions down other people's throats. And I think most people on the Mudcat fit into that definition (and that definitely includes you Doug, I'm afraid.)

I'm also aware that a peculiar use of the word has sprung up across the Atlantic, where it appears to mean anyone who isn't pretty right-wing. I suspect that many, perhaps most, of our Conservatives here in the UK would count as "liberal"; and the ones who wouldn't would tend to fall into the category recently disparaged at this year's Tory Party Conference by the party Chairman (a woman, as it happened) for bringing the Tories into disrepute and making people think of it as "the nasty party".

When it comes down to actual cases - what is the right to happen in a particular situation with particular people - I think there is much less disagreement than when we're talking about big politics and principles. I might say this is an exception to a general rule, and you might say that it is an example of a general rule - but we could still agree about what is the right thing to do in this particular instance.

And the best songs tend to be about particular situations with particular people rather than about general principles. And they leave it to the listener to draw whatever general principle from it they care to draw, which might not even be the same as the person who made up the song.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:21 PM

Reading these posts makes it clear that the definition of folk singer/writer is "someone who is dissatisfied." Even many of the trad ballads were written to publicize something wrong. By the above definition, even someone on the right could find things to write and sing about. The only problem would to find someone to listen.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: GUEST,Whoops there go the Bill of Rights
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:25 PM

What you folks doing discussing politics??. Gonna have to arrest you under Homeland Security!!!.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: DougR
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:34 PM

McGrath: you made some interesting points in that 4pm+ post. I have often thought that the definition of liberal and conservative might differ from country to country.

DougR

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 04:44 PM

In articles in the media about Russia, old style "communists" are typically referred to as "conservatives".

The point being, the traditional definition of "conservatve" is someone who is opposed to change, or at least suspicious of it. And I think on that definition a lot of people on the Mudcat are at the same time liberal and conservative. (And some people who say they are conservatives and who are rabid to change pretty well everything in sight aren't really justified in sporting the label.)

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 06:01 PM

(quote)
"There are plenty of Republican folksongs.
But! How many famous and/or infamous Republican folksingers can anyone name?"

Wondering out loud why couldn't you name any?

Seen alot of that Republican worn-on-their-sleeve in Grand Ol' Opry / Bow down and worship Graceland *Country* stars.
Ted Nugent tries to express his conservativeopinions in his poor excuse for faded Rock music, but no one cares what he has to sing.

I can appreciate poignant social commentary expressed in Folk music no matter whose political ox is being gored , but the Rush Bimbaugh's of the world apparently prefer to just talk you into submission.Call it Conservative Rap. Then again ,in Rush's case , I find it poetic justice that the good Lord saw fit for him to go deaf because he never bothered to listen to any opinions that opposed his anyway.

I am reminded of the political satire pieces sung by Tim Robbins in the film "Bob Roberts" who plays a vocal conservative candidate that's also a folk-singer.

As for me , when I wanna take refuge from all the politics I just zone in on artists that just let their musicianship do the talkin'.
Beauty is truth and is thus beyond politics. ;-)

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: JedMarum
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 06:20 PM

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Cllr
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:00 PM

I was just about to post my disagreement with Mcgraths last post when I went back to it and reread it to find I mainly agree with him!
Does that mean that all traditional folk musicians/singers are conservative?Cllr

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: JedMarum
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 08:05 PM

There certainly are folk singers who support conservative and/or Republican politics. I believe we are in the minority, inthe folk music world. I have not seen any 'evangelizing' of political opinions from the stage by conservatives ... conservatives are frequently hated by folk music lovers - but not always. Conservatives are common targets of hate speech by some folk music lovers - but not by all. I treat people with respect and dignity and find that is usually how I am treated in return.

It is true that blue grass lovers in particular are a glaring exception. They are often very straight laced, religious and politically conservative people.

I rarely make political comments from the stage, except perhaps through the underlying message of who I am, what I sing and how I present it. If I pass on political messages they are caught, not taught.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 02 - 09:22 PM

In America it appears that while you frequently tend to play the same tunes, and even sing the same songs often enough, if you are "liberal" you tend to get classified as Folk, and if you are not you tend to get classified as soe kind of Country.

Yes indeed cllr - any traditional musician has to be musically conservative, ie prefer old ways to new ways. (As we keep the old music alive.) And for folkies that tends to apply to clothes and so forth - blokes with brown boots and waistcoats and beards, drinking beer brewed and served in the old way. Women looking like they'd stepped out of Thomas Hardy or the Old West.

And it even applies to politics, but in a paradoxical way. The Tories are detested for the ruthless changes they have imposed on us. New Labour is despised for abandoning the struggle against the modern capitalist system. We're a lot more likely to sing that resolutely old-fashioned anthem The Red Flag than any modern jingle cooked up by the spin doctors.

Meanwhile in America the antics and words of Bush (yes, and Clinton too) are judged against the standards of Jefferson and Lincoln and the two Roosevelts, and found singularly uninspiring.

Back to the Future.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 12:01 AM

Actually there probably have been lots of conservative folksingers. As far as singer songwriters performing in a (sort of) folk millieu, Neil Young comes to mind. He was very pro-Reagan. Yes....the guy who wrote "Ohio".

Rick

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 11:08 AM

Also occurs to me that to be a "right wing" folksinger wouldn't be an oxymoron at all. Assuming that the person was singing about events and people. If they were taking a very specific "political line" like advocating segregation, or crushing a union, or joining the KKK or something, they simply wouldn't want to BE around folkies to begin with.

These kinds of messages (and similar ones) HAVE been around almost since the dawn of recording though (I've been noodling through the Net) and must have had audiences big enough to make the records profitable. Generally they've fallen loosely into the "Country" music category.

I DID once get an album by a guy called Lou Hollander, who described himself as a "Right Wing Folksinger". His material was generally about Vietnam (VERRY Pro, obviously) and how long-hairs were ruining the country. I think he stopped recording in about 1980. I'd have loved to see his take on Bill and Hilary Clinton, ha ha!!

cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 11:51 AM

THe John Birch Society Chorus presents:

"Sing and Ride!! Folksongs of the Klan".

Gee, it seems almost oxymoronic to me.

"I am a late-night rider,
A knight in white-sheet rider,
I've ridden over hill and dale
To spread the word of hate....".


I don't think so, Rick!! LOL!!


A

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 12:31 PM

One reason for the seeming preponderance of lefty folkies is that many songs are often about causes and about change. They're about taking the piss out of governments and the ruling class. They're about the human condition and tell stories about horrible things that have happened to 'have nots' at the hands of the 'haves'.

Conservatives, by definition, don't want change and they usually support whoever's in charge unless that person wants to change things or take something away from the 'haves' and give it to the 'have nots'. There aren't a whole lot of songs about "we're alright, Jack and we don't give a hamster's heinie about YOU." The 'haves' don't write songs. They pretty much do what they've always done: play "hear no evil, see no evil, sing no evil" and ignore those who are dissatisfied or actively tell them to shut up.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 12:53 PM

Wow, Jeri. That's a pretty strong indictment of folks who don't veiw things the way you do. There are extremes in both the liberal and conservative camps, though liberals may not wish to recognize it. I know of not one single conservative thinking person who supports the kkk, or returning to days of segregation, or any of the other extreme examples given in this thread.

I think some of you folks are taking the definition of a conservative a bit too literally in regard to the dictonary definition. Who is proposing the most radical change in Social Security that has been proposed in years? The current president!. It matters not whether you favor it or oppose it, it damn well is not seeking to preserve the status quo. The liberals have chosen to take the latter path. And yet liberals pride themselves on being "progressive."

When it comes to taking from the "haves" and giving it to the "have nots," I think Jeri has a point. I know of no conservatives that would favor that. Those who do favor it appear to believe that those that have it got it through some nefarious means, and because they got it, they don't deserve it. The majority of the "haves" worked hard to get it, and I for one, do not believe they should be penalized for having "it." The "haves" shoulder 90% or so of the tax burden in the U. S. That's enough in my opinion.

DougR

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: ard mhacha
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 01:55 PM

Is it possible that there is such a being as an honest businessman, around this neck of the woods, the north of Ireland,this is an oft repeated sentiment.
So the chances of these latter day Dick Turpins singing about some poor guy down on his luck wouldn`t come across well. Ard Mhacha.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: GUEST,the class analyst
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 02:51 PM

Jeri explains that folkies are on the left because they want change and goes on to say that "conservatives, by definition, don't want change."

Her comments made me think about folkies and our music. Musically, there is nothing more conservative than a folkie. Just look at the discussions here at Mudcat and you'll see.

Jeri also talks about the 'haves' and havenots' and says "the 'haves' don't write songs."

Hmm, made me think for a moment and it seems to me there are lots of multimillionaires who write songs, many from a leftist perspective. Dylan, Springsteen, Lennon etc.

Phil Ochs, the son of a doctor, was hardly a havenot. Nor is Tom Paxton who has made a comfortable living from writing leftist folksongs for forty years. Pete and the other Seegers all came from a priviliged background; none of them are havenots. Utah Phillips' stepfather owned a chain of movie theaters, he's no havenot. Even Woody Guthrie came from a middleclass background. Arlo Guthrie makes thousands of dollars a night singing for middle class people at $30 or more per ticket. Don't tell me he's a havenot. Joan Baez, the daughter of a scientist/professor who has never wanted for anthing material, has made millions singing from a far leftist perspective. She's no havenot.

Just about anyone on Mudcat who owns a computer has no claim at being a havenot.

Sorry Jeri, your theory holds no water.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 02:56 PM

(quote)
" The "haves" shoulder 90% or so of the tax burden in the U. S. That's enough in my opinion."

Well this mouthful is often heard bandied about by conservative rable-rousers without the actual IRS statistics to back it up , but that's par for course because conservative jingoisms are just as outlandishly propagandist as far left propaganda is.

Your 90% number is pure Bush-wah and not even close. Add to that the fact that this top 1% had its tax rate dramatically cut back in the early Reagan years and now again in the Bush years for the benefit of the fiction of the supply-siders reincvesting in the private sector. But that's *not* what Wall St. is recording now is it? Even this week's Fed Reserve rate cut is being described as a goad for more consumer-spending while the so-called business and institutional investment is taking money off the table ,shipping it off-shore ,or tangling it up in Enron-class laberynths of schemata to hide it from paying *any* taxes at all
whileusing evermore of the best lobbyist influence-pedling their money can by to get sweetheart gov't contracts , subsidies , bailouts , and further tax holidays.

But the most watertight refuting of this lie has always been : "If the top 5% is taxed too much, how come they were able to vastly quintuple their wealth ,until ofcourse their latest specualtive mania bubble collpased while wiping out the hard-earned savings and retirement investments of those that worked for them.

I'm sorry , but the old saw about feeling compunction for the top 5% ,which controls more than 40% of all of the wealth while the rest of the 95% make do with the other 60% which is now worth far less thanks to the investment manias of certain ruling class
rings so pathetically hollow .

Besides the Top 5% had the most to gain from winning the Cold War. You'd think with all of their espoused Conservative patriotism they'd pony-up their fare share to pay for the reagan/Bush Cold War debt. Unfortnately when it came time to own up all they have proven to do is fob off that payment on future working generations. Defense of this largesse just plain disgusts me.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 03:52 PM

There are lots of people who work very hard, and have received a fair reward for it, and that's how it should be. But there are also lots of people who have worked damn hard all their life, backbreaking and mindgrinding labour, and they live in poverty, and that's not how it should be.

And it's true there are some people who have avoided doing much work all their lives, and have exploited other people, and some of them are poor - but don't forget the ones like that who are rich, including a high proportion of the people who are richest of all. And that's not how it should be either.

I can't see how any fair-minded person, whatever their politics, would disagree with those two paragraphs. Where the political differences come into it is in determining whether anything can be done about it, and if so what can be done, and what has to be accepted as inevitable. That's fair enough, and there's room for a lot of different views on that.

But we should never fall into the trap of thinking that, just because someone is rich, that means they deserve to be rich, or just because someone is pooor, that means they deserve their poverty, because the world isn't built that way. It never has been.

"It is as hard for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven as for a camel to get through the eye of a needle."

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: DougR
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 05:06 PM

McGrath: I understand where you are coming from, my friend, but communism was tried, and it just don't seem to work.

Taliesn: you must be a very unhappy person.

DougR

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 07:07 PM

Well, I'd question whether "communism" was what happened in the Soviet Union and the satellites. But that's a side issue.

The point is, I think there is much wider agreement about what is right and what is wrong than is often recognised. I think most people do believe that the way the good things are distributed is unfair, with some people getting a lot more than they deserve, and some people getting a lot less.

Where the real disagreement enter is when it comes to working out what can and should be done about it. For example, there's no contradiction between saying something is bad in itself, and bad for society, but that certain ways of trying to make things better will introduce fresh injustices, and change the way people behave in various unintended ways, and end up making things worse.

And in the same way it's possible to believe that something is good, both in itself and for society, but that there's no way of preserving it which won't end up making things worse than they otherwise would be.

And that's what politics and political arguments are about - working out both what is desirable and what is possible. And there is room for enormous differences.

But whichever side we end up on, we should always watch out for those people who come across as allies, but who are really enemies. Thieves and robbers and predators, for example, even when they employ good bent accountants. And politicians who exploit the situation to feather their nest and make a comfortable living, and care for nothing beyond themselves.

Insofar as songs focus on instances of injustice, they are focusing attention, and raising questions. Finding workable answers to those questions are what politics is supposed to be about. "Which side are you on?" is always a fair question, even if in some cases the answer for a person might be "On some other side that you haven't mentioned."

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Nov 02 - 10:37 PM

Silly me for not being more specific. The haves don't write songs about being haves. Generally.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: DougR
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 02:52 AM

McGrath: Quoting from your post of 8 November: "I think there is much wider agreement about what is right and what is wrong than is often recognized. I think most people believe that the way the good things are distributed is unfair, with some people getting a lot more than they deserve, and some people getting less.'

Distributed? I don't know what that means. In the U. S. one gets what one earns from one's labor. There is not distribution of wealth based strictly on the fact the we live in the USofA. There is welfare, of course, but I've never heard that described as being a "distribution of wealth," and even that has to be earned. It is not freely distributed.

Who determines what is fair, when it comes to a "fair" distribution of "good things?"

"Much wider agreement?" Wider agreement from who?

What you are espousing sounds like communism to me. If not, what is it?

DougR

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 09:06 AM

And I wonder if the liberal nature of much folk music hasn't got more to do with the fact that lefties got their feet in the door during the revival. Others may avoid the events, the music or the people because some of the perpetrators of folk music can get into preachy mode or can turn every mention of politics into a "mine are better than yours" contest. It's like they've worn a nice comfortable rut and when they get anywhere near it, they just fall back in.

I still believe that people are more likely to write political songs about things they're unhappy with. Anybody can become sensitized to being preached at or constantly told to conform. I stopped getting SingOut! back in the 80's because I was tired of the focus on politics as opposed to music. Some politics wouldn't have bothered me that much, but I felt like I was being beaten over the head with political editorials and unsubtle songs. It grates on my nerves to be constantly told what to believe.

If even people who share the basic philosophy of those doing the preaching can get tired of it, it's probably an even stronger aversion in those with opposing views. They wind up avoiding the music because they just know that rut's there and people will fall back into it with the slightest nudge - and they don't want to be around when it happens.

And if anyone thinks they see a well worn rut running through this thread...yep.

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 09:40 AM

Threads like this make a mockery of the purists who complain about the preponderence of non musical threads. It is interesting to me as it obviously is to Kevin, inasmuch as it helps me to understand what the party labels mean in the USA.
To some extent I don't know if folk music is or should be political in the party sense of the word. Personally I feel pained when someone I like and respect in the entertainment field comes out for a political party. I don't want to know the party leanings of Joan Baez, Tom Paxton, or Ralph McTell, and I object to them and/or political parties, using their fame as a handle for whole different kettle of fish.
To my mind the folk music community in the UK has a leftward political slant, and all you have to do in any UK folk club to start a fight is praise Maggie Thatcher. Come to think of it she usually starts an argument when mentioned in MC.
Anyway,looking at the threads on MC it is obvious that you are mostly to the left politically, and love cats. So why do I love it here, as a cat hating Scottish Nationalist voter? Dunno' I just do.
Cheers ....Giok

Subject: RE: Whither the politics of Folk?
From: GUEST,Party Animal
Date: 09 Nov 02 - 09:47 AM

Hiya Giok,

Joan Baez supports the Green Party, Tom Paxton supports the Democrats and Ralph McTell is for the British Labour Party.

Anyone else you'd like to know about?