Conservatives Lose It Over Springsteen’s ‘Anti-War’ Anthem At Veterans Show

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

This year has now seen three great controversies at the intersection of patriotism and popular music. Chris Daughtry of “American Idol” fame caught hell back in June when he declined to sing “My Country, ‘Tis of Thee” during a Fox News appearance on the 70th anniversary of D-Day. Last month, Aaron Lewis, the lead singer of Staind,bungled the lyrics to “The Star-Stangled Banner” prior to game five of the World Series.

After the ensuing backlash, Daughtry and Lewis each apologized. Daughtry said he was “embarrassed and ashamed,” while Lewis asked “for the Nation’s forgiveness.”

It’s still unclear if Bruce Springsteen, one of the musicians at the center of the latest controversy, will be similarly apologetic.

Pretty much everyone has had something to say about Springsteen’s performance Tuesday at the “Concert for Valor,” an HBO musical event for veterans held on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Performing with Zac Brown and Dave Grohl, Springsteen sang “Fortunate Son,” Creedence Clearwater Revival’s classic Vietnam War-era anthem that examines issues of class and jingoism in America. John Fogerty, the CCR frontman, said that his own experience as a drafted serviceman served as an inspiration for the song.

“I was the same age as the soldiers serving in Vietnam and from the same lower-middle class as them,” Fogerty once said.

But to some conservative ears, the song hit the wrong note at Tuesday’s concert.

“The song, not to put too fine a point on it, is an anti-war screed, taking shots at ‘the red white and blue,'” wrote Ethan Epstein at The Weekly Standard.

The performance was made even worse, Epstein contended, because “Fortunate Son” is “an anti-draft song, and this concert was largely organized to honor those who volunteered to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

The Boss has been in the Fox News crosshairs all day, too. On Fox Business Network, Stuart Varney questioned why Springsteen, “an outspoken leftist,” would play politics with the troops.

“So much for HBO’s ‘Concert for Valor,'” Clayton Morris said at the outset of this morning’s “Fox & Friends.”

On Fox’s “Outnumbered,” co-host Andrea Tantaros professed to be a fan of both Springsteen and Grohl, but wondered why they didn’t just go with a different song.

“It’s amazing to me that nobody — think of all the people that are involved in a concert like this — nobody had the brains to stop and say, ‘You guys might want to pick a different song,'” Tantaros said.

The hubbub surrounding Springsteen hasn’t been entirely one-sided. And while Tantaros and company thought “Fortunate Son” was a self-evidently bad song choice, others thought it was perfectly appropriate for the setting.

“This reaction seems like… not really an accurate read of this song! Not really at all. Real patriotism entails exactly this: publicly challenging the status quo in a country you believe to be capable of better things,” wrote Jessica Goldstein at ThinkProgress, noting that Fogerty performed the song just last week on the White House lawn.

Minnesota Public Radio’s Bob Collins argued that the Weekly Standard was “making an old mistake.”

“Confusing the war with the people who were drafted to fight it. It’s the mistake that led to the Vietnam veterans not being ‘welcomed home’ and while that’s been rectified over the last decade or so, putting the two back together again because Bruce Springsteen played the song is convenient, but illogical,” Collins wrote.

Springsteen also performed his hit “Born in the U.S.A.,” a song that, as the Washington Post’s Justin Moyer pointed out, actually includes many of the same themes as “Fortunate Son.”

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. Maybe rather than being outraged at a song that tackles how rich men’s children don’t get sent off to war to die Conservatives could do something smart like actually contemplate how unfair war is to our society.

    Of course, that requires empathy, and the Conservatives have a heart smaller than the Grinch’s before Christmas.

  2. Avatar for sooner sooner says:

    Epstein contended, because “Fortunate Son” is "an anti-draft song,

    No it’s not. It is a song that speaks to young men like the Romney boys not being called upon to serve. Many young men, among them my own cousins avoided service in Vietnam by joining the National Guard if their daddies could pull favor and garner an enlistment. Others, like the Dick ™ Cheney were simply "busy doing other things at the time.

    These “Fortunate Sons” are as much a slap to men like me who enlisted and those who were drafted as anything Jan Fonda did in Hanoi, perhaps even more of a slap.

    I want to state emphatically that no one hates war more that those of us who served. Epstein and his frothing at the mouth right-wing zombies seem to believe that our flag stands for war. It does not. It stands for resolve and resilience in the face of war.

  3. “The song, not to put too fine a point on it, is an anti-war screed, taking shots at ‘the red white and blue,’” wrote Ethan Epstein at The Weekly Standard.

    No, the song takes shots at war-mongering zealots who never send their own kids as cannon fodder, like Ethan Epstein.

    And people like Ethan Epstein just can’t stand having their chicken hawk proclivities challenged, because it makes them look like the people they truly are.

  4. EMINEM aLReady SPOiLed OUr sOLDiers VALOr by DROppiNg the F bomb 100 TImes. Who taLKS LIKE that? ServiceMEN and wOmen? DOubtfuL. WHY dOES LIberaLs spOIL good TIMEs WIth SONGs abOUT how BAD war IS and aCTING liKE bLACK tHUGHS ratHER THAn vALOUrous ServiceMEN wHO DOn’t SWEAr!!!1!!!one!!1!!!

  5. My father is a Korean Navy vet, my grandfather a WWII Army vet, my great uncle a WWI vet, and in fact I have direct descendents who served during every war going back to the French and Indian.

    And I don’t think any of them would have an issue with this. Fortunate Son is about the ones who get OUT of fighting because of privilege. and supports those who have to go to fight.

    It is a song for the veterans, and even if it is against a war (not all war) it still supports the men and women who fought that war.

    Lastly, to the idiot who asked why Springsteen would play politics with this, the whole thing is politics. The “support the troops” theme is a political theme, and is meant to stifle dissent in general and about military spending and actions in particular. If we can’t discuss when and where to send the troops, then we certainly have no right to honor them.

    I say all this as someone who did not serve in the military, but as one who flies a flag every day outside his home. I did before 9/11 and have every day since. I participate in Memorial Day and Flag Day and Veterans Day every year.

    But I reserve the right to criticize the use of our military without being told that I am dishonoring the men and women who do the fighting.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

166 more replies

Participants

Avatar for peter_schwartz Avatar for jw1 Avatar for kendyzdad Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for sooner Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for dv01 Avatar for chammy Avatar for enon Avatar for red_cabbage Avatar for teenlaqueefa Avatar for boscobrown Avatar for sherlock1 Avatar for stephen_maturin Avatar for uggswell_p_gravel Avatar for midnight_rambler Avatar for theghostofeustacetilley Avatar for fitley Avatar for pb Avatar for okicu Avatar for mrf Avatar for hoagie Avatar for masterlever Avatar for darrtown

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: