In the latest edition of Rolling Stone (RS 1155, April, 26, 2012), a letter from a reader in regard to the Jon Stewart interview with Bruce Springsteen (RS 1154), states that Bruce Springsteen “…would make a great president.”  This is an interesting statement in more ways than one.

Over the decades, Bruce’s anger has slithered from a very personal one towards a more widespread, public one, all expressed within the framework of his albums.  The personal anger stemmed from the youthful anguish of direction, and from family issues to marital issues.  When those were worked out (if they ever were), Bruce began to see humanity from a different angle, like we understand in his underrated “Human Touch”.  His outrage over horrifically abused authority was spoken about in “American Skin”, and his empathy was heard in “Streets of Philadelphia”.

When 9/11 happened, Bruce spoke his piece with The Rising.  Over time, his views on humanity scraped the broken side.  On his most recent album, (Wrecking Ball), we hear Bruce with his thoughts directed toward the American trial as its inhabitants face ritual and crippling losses of their once proud faces.

In short, it’s safe to say that Bruce has had more than a casual interest in the well-being of his birth country.  And while it appears that America’s well-monied institutions, along with America’s toothless government (on all sides) are headed toward uncompromising disregard to the people who live within its borders, there is also a hope that the country can recover from its current funk.

Which brings us to this intended point of the conversation.  Might Bruce Springsteen make a good – even great – president of the US?

We know that transitions such as this have occurred.  Ronald Reagan was an entertainer who held the office for two terms.  But do you think that Springsteen has sufficient empathy and anger to govern the US back to a vision that he dreams of?  Or are his visions a bleak opinion of what Americans, perhaps even, the entire world can come to expect for the rest of our lives?

To be fair, there are artists who have no faith in governments at all.  Roger Waters is one of those.  The roster of the ’70s were largely distrustful of governments.  Should they be any different these days?  (My opinion?  I have no faith at all.  None!)

What do you think?

By MARowe

8 thoughts on “Would Springsteen Make A Worthy President of The US?”
  1. I think we really need to tone down our collective admiration or should I say fascination with celebrities, all of this devotion had led us to a paradigm that if someone is really good at what they do then that makes them an expert on everything, including foreign policies and domestic issues of the world and the United States. We are faced with Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, North Korea trying to deliver a nuclear weapon, wars in the Middle East, China owning most of our debt, a 17 trillion dollar deficit, guns in the hands of 10 year olds, etc. and we are here, seriously discussing, turning this mess over to a guitar playing rock and roll star with 6 credits from Freehold Community college? Singing about these and other issues are one thing, being responsible for them is clearly a different story, let Bruce continue on as the narrator of the American story, it’s in his heart and he’s good at that, what makes us think he’s good at everything?

  2. Seriously? I think this is a horrible idea. Most of these entertainers who make big money have no concept of what it is like to be a “regular” person. Bruce leans too far to the left and what experience would he have to take that type of job. Terrible, terrible idea.

  3. That is a laughable question. You or I could do as good a job of Springsteen (or Lennon, or Waters, etc). The truth is that politics is a game that you need to learn how to play to get anything done. Everything is a compromise. Everything is watered down when it finally gets signed. Then there are lawyers or accountants that find ways to circumvent the intent.

    While I also have found myself devoid of hope I don’t think the answer is putting a musician in office. I think it’s about getting real and making hard choices. We can’t do everything but we continue to try. The end result is a lot of money spent with half-assed results. We refuse to live within our means – spending money on things we can’t afford. While most individual households have paid down their debt, our government hasn’t gotten the message yet and deficit continues to skyrocket. And it’s not about Donkeys or Elephants, they both seem to be the same and their main mission is to convince us that there is actually a difference. It’s branding more than substance.

    Cutting myself off here because this is a slippery slope. You have crossed the line from music to politics.

  4. Whoa, whoa, whoa, guys! First, I haven’t really crossed a line from music to politics. This was actually from a letter that I thought might be interesting to throw in here. Peronally, (and as I hinted at), I think it’s a bad idea as well (not that Springsteen would even attempt such a job). Politics is something I have no faith in at all and so that is why I never elaborated politcally (if I did at all) to any level.

    I do, however, apologize for having posted it (now!). I promise to not do it again in the future, no matter what. I might even remove the post. And no, I’m not mad.

  5. Hi Matt,
    It’s a moot point to begin with. In the past, Bruce has been quoted as saying “If asked, I will not serve.” He feels that his place as an artist is where he is properly placed as far as his political commentary goes.

  6. Laughable proposition…however not a totally insane question. Since Springsteen routinely inserts himself into political debate it bears consideration if he would be leadership material. If he were not politically outspoken we would have no business discussing the question..

Comments are closed.