An Apology on Liberal Leanings Among Artists and Intellectuals

Last night on Comedy Central’s Colbert Report, host Stephen Colbert asked his guest, legendary songwriter Carole King, “Why are musicians so liberal?” She paused for a second, and shook her head, responding earnestly, “I don’t know.” Colbert made a joke, and the question was brushed off as the conversation moved on to a discussion of King’s efforts to help an environmental advocacy group in Colorado.

Colbert is of course playing a conservative-pundit character, and I get the sneaking suspicion that both he (the real-life Stephen Colbert) and King know damn well why musicians are liberal, but still in all, I was perplexed that she did not take advantage of the golden opportunity to explain in it intellectual terms. I have never before seen such a fundamental question leveled at someone capable of answering it in such a wide-reaching (and ultimately, forgiving) forum as The Colbert Report.

With far longer wind than I would no doubt be allotted on Colbert's program, I will attempt to posit my theoretical response to said question. Of course I admit that I am biased as a liberal myself, but I don’t necessarily see this as an attack on conservatism or the Republican Party, it’s just the way I see it as unfolding.

The Republican Party, or the new conservative movement, or what-have-you, seems like the party of absolute truths (i.e. there is one American family, there is one true religion, there is one American dream, and everyone has, for the most part, the same opportunities). There are certainly times when this sort of absolutism is valid and appropriate, but I think more often than not, the story of America cannot be broken down into such black and white terms.

Liberals, on the other hand, deal with the subjective – for instance, “Yes, I have been privileged, and I am lucky to have been. But what if things had been slightly different?” Or alternately, “People in the inner city have not been dealt the same number of cards. Maybe we can break the chain of poverty and violence if we give them a preferential option for jobs and welfare, to make the future brighter for them, and especially their children and grandchildren.” Some might call this sort of shades-of-gray policy wishy-washy or weak spirited, and there are doubtless instances of broken systems or liberal ideology shifting too far into areas of unrealistic humanism and hopeless idealism, but the project is noble: to level the playing field by attempting to put oneself in another’s shoes. (To go further, focus on the environment is arguably a call to put ourselves in the shoes of our descendants, preserving resources and natural beauty for them; abortion-rights advocacy is not support of killing fetuses – to liberals, it is an acknowledgment of compassion to young women put in difficult circumstances with few options.)

Back to the original issue. Musicians, and artists of all kinds, really, and a lot of intellectuals and humanities-type people, make a living dealing in the subjective. And thank goodness; their output would be incredibly boring otherwise. Being able to see from other points of view, whether or not that is the right thing to do or even valid or practical in a certain instance, is what liberals do, and it also happens to be what humanities people and artists do – they go hand-in-hand. Also, artistic types are constantly searching for new ideas, or ways to appropriate old ideas in interesting ways, and this insatiable appetite fuels progressivism, not only in the arts but also in the socio-political realm.

I see the appeal of hard-line stances – “If you commit a crime, you are a criminal; there is no reason that residents of the inner city cannot take responsibility for themselves; Muslim fundamentalists attack U.S. civilians in the name of Allah, so Islam is evil.” So simple, there’s a neat order to them, almost poetic. The realities, however, are infinitely more nuanced.

What led the criminal to commit that crime? Is it fair to punish someone for committing a crime for, say, preserving himself or his family? Is it fair to punish him the same amount as someone who committed the same crime just to be a dick?

How on earth are inner city residents supposed to take responsibility when there are fewer positive role models in their communities, or responsibility has not been consistently stressed as a virtue?

Is it fair to define one fifth of the world in terms of a minority of radical jerks? Is it fair to assume that Middle-Eastern culture operates on Western, post-Enlightenment ideals of personal freedom and separation of religion & secular life/culture, or that it should?

There are no easy answers to these questions, but the very act of giving them a second look is more than many people do. I'm getting worked up now, and I could go on with dozens more examples of how our domestic and global realities are complex and subjective, but such digressions would effectively lose touch with the purpose of this column. That is, artists, musicians, writers, etc., are simply more likely than their non-artistic counterparts to be hard-wired into seeing from another’s point of view, then making them more likely to jive with the social and political sector that is consistent with such mindsets. Not necessarily out of enlightenment, mind you, but because that's what artists do.

(An aside: The irony is that, in today’s fiercely bipartisan political climate, the same movement supposedly based more on intellectualism, empathy, and multiple points-of-view is forced by its very leaders and proponents to shut itself off from the biggest set of other points of view, that of their Republican opponents, therefore squelching any room for compromise or discourse on either side. It is for this reason that I cannot necessarily call Democrats open-minded, however much I would like that to be the case.)

I do not know why Carole King was stumped by this question – it seems so obvious. Maybe she knew that Colbert's character would interrupt her and not let her speak. Maybe she assumed everyone knows the answer, or maybe she got flustered on TV. Regardless, I am sad that she missed the opportunity to once and for all defend the arts and entertainment industries’ liberal leanings against accusations of anti-American hippy non-politics. Although that may be the case for, say, someone like Richard Gere, the reality in total is far more nuanced. There are no absolutes.

March 19, 2008