We all want to change the world

Dissent, repression and art in risky times

Hi, Ari here, sharing a new edition of my newsletter below.

And welcome to the new readers joining us — this is my email list for sharing occasional entries on life, music, culture and other things… often a break from the daily grind.

---

Free your mind instead

There’s a lot going on right now. And plenty of debate in the U.S. across the political spectrum.

So of all the pushback, protests and critiques, why has Donald Trump been attacking musicians?

He personally went after Beyoncé in sharp terms, (falsely suggesting she broke laws to support Kamala Harris). Trump’s State Dept. just revoked the visas of British artists for political remarks they made at a concert. Bruce Springsteen criticized Trump as “corrupt” and “unfit,” and Trump baselessly alleged the singer is “treasonous,” then posted a fake video showing a golf ball Trump hit whacking Springsteen. (A “joke” for some, incendiary for others in this climate.)

Trump lashes out at plenty of critics, prominent or not, and some could view this as a sideshow about “celebrities.” The attacks, however, go to something deeper in our history. They speak to the power of art and dissent — and to America’s atavistic struggle between free speech and government crackdowns.

Nowhere to run, ain’t got nowhere to go

Why do musicians and artists have an impact that scares politicians?

Here’s one way I’ve thought about it, big picture:

For every general election voter, there’s a citizen who stays home. For every primary voter, there are usually two or more citizens sitting it out. For every news and politics junkie, however, there are over five people tuning out most news about government and politics. (I could pull the stats, but you get the idea…)

Music and culture reaches more people than most daily political messaging. It can shape trends, ideas, language — or our shared sense of what’s modern or “cool” — in quite durable ways. And then, when musicians tap into wider movements, sometimes they even shape the baseline of certain political eras.

So sure, some might dismiss the President’s attacks as more “Trumpian” theater — a leader emitting his constant personal grievances with tweet-level discourse.

Yet these attacks draw on a longer history, right down to the threat — or enactment — of government punishment for artistic dissent.

Some threats are worth taking seriously. Before “Truth Social,” there was McCarthyism, targeting many artists and creatives, and Nixon’s crackdowns and “enemies list.”

Like many other cultures, America’s protest movements often come with their own distinct soundtrack. American folk music of the 1950s and 1960s was explicitly political, (often to the left of mainstream “liberal” positions at the time). Then folk got so popular it went fully pop, with new acts tapping the sound, while shedding its more radical messages. That whole arc is documented in Elijah Wald’s “Dylan Goes Electric!” — a great book I just read this year — tracing Dylan’s songs about civil rights, the war and wider calls for change, while eschewing any formal effort to draft him into formal or partisan politics.

Dylan’s work partly followed the path of folk singer and dissident Pete Seeger, while finding a far wider global audience. There are many reasons for that, (and I’m not picking a fight over comparing guitarists today!), but Seeger’s career and voice was also suppressed because of his political stances. His reach and following was distorted and limited by the (effective) payback for how he used his voice to challenge power.

Pete and Bob.

Where have all the young men gone? They're all in uniform

Seeger’s top songs might seem quaint today, but they had enough force to draw a crackdown from the highest levels of government. They became anthems for a growing movement for peace, civil rights, and even a fundamentally different way to live. “Where Have All the Flowers Gone” and “If I Had a Hammer” became synonymous with protest itself, and were shared and covered by a diverse array of artists.

For that, Seeger faced the full machinery of repression. He was exercising his First Amendment rights, and might seem a tougher target as a WWII veteran (U.S. Army, Corporal), but was monitored by the government, blacklisted, and called before the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (part of the Red Scare). He faced it all. Today, we see some powerful people and institutions quickly folding to government pressure at the threat of retribution, or losing access, money or jobs. Seeger faced far worse, and didn’t bend.

Names

In hearings widely derided as a Kafkaesque sideshow, Seeger refused to answer questions about his beliefs or to ‘name names,’ instead testifying:

“I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election or any of these private affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such compulsion as this.”

That Congress was often more interested in declaring enemies than getting answers. It voted to hold Seeger in contempt, leading to indictment, a criminal trial, conviction and jail sentence. Those legal sanctions reinforced his blacklisting, hobbling his career and ability to perform, book venues or appear on mainstream TV and radio. Given the climate, Seeger had every reason to expect he would be incarcerated — and he stood against it all; an artist, activist and veteran facing down his own government.

Ultimately, a judge later overturned Seeger’s conviction. That speaks to how legally extreme it was, and how the courts can still guard freedoms even in times of hysteria or repression. But he paid a huge price, with a courage that could put some people’s dilemmas today in perspective.

Imagine

John Lennon had a large, passionate American (and global) following when he moved to New York in the early 1970s. The “most interesting” Beatle was increasingly politically active — backing antiwar causes, performing at rallies, and directly criticizing President Nixon’s policies.

A vindictive, petty President could not stand the kind of criticism from an influential ‘star,’ and so his administration explored many tools to respond. (A familiar situation). The administration determined that immigration powers, which are legally broad, provided a clear opening. So the Nixon Administration set out to deport Lennon. The effort was audacious, since he was in the country legally, the U.S. hosts many foreign artists for performances and visits, and a huge number of Americans were happy to have any Beatles in the country.

The administration did not admit any motive of revenge - a contrast to today’s crackdowns. The official reason offered was Lennon’s 1968 drug conviction (in the U.K.) Lennon’s lawyer had evidence that was a pretext, as it seemed.

Lennon had resources, he wanted to stay in the U.S., and he did not shirk from the risks or “controversy” of battling a President, as some do. He fought the case for four years and eventually won. A federal judge reversed the deportation order in 1975, allowing Lennon to remain legally. (Lennon also filed multiple suits against the U.S. government over the course of the ideal, attempting to fight back against what he saw as targeted, and politically motivated, actions against him.)

The clash shows how valid powers — the government has broad discretion in how to admit or deport foreigners who have not become citizens — can be twisted even against prominent people, let alone other visitors.

Nixon may have been especially concerned about the political impact of a beloved Beatle, and also intent on showing even Lennon could face real-world consequences.

Today, there are several lawsuits testing whether the administration is targeting foreigners for their free speech on American campuses, (be it against Trump policies or about the Middle East). Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil was detained by the Trump administration, and just sued the administration over it. Governments often test the tools they have, and guardrails, for their goals.

Some of the lessons here are pretty clear. Fighting is more effective than surrendering in advance. History shows these things can “happen here,” and happen again. And even when a government wields great powers and tries to abuse them, dissent, free speech and art can be effective countermeasures — even in dark times where that may seem to be in doubt. Some of the most courageous, impactful political voices never hold office, but they certainly hold influence.

P.S. Do you remember any of the crackdowns mentioned, or how they felt at the time? Tell me in the comments and I’ll respond to some like usual.