David Cameron on Morrissey

[lainey]

A Conservative general election candidate has been suspended after he argued that homosexuality is “not normal” and a law banning councils from promoting gay equality was correct.

Philip Lardner, the Tory election candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran, said that most Britons consider homosexuality to be “somewhere between unfortunate and simply wrong” and it should not be supported by the state.

In a section on his website, he supported parents and teachers who do not want children to be taught about homosexuality and churches who do not want to employ gay people.

In the offending article, which was removed from his website on Tuesday afternoon, Mr Lardner said he supported homosexual rights to live the lives they want in private.

“But I will not accept that their behaviour is 'normal' or encourage children to indulge in it,” he continued

Mr Lardner then launched a lengthy defence of Section 28, which banned local authorities from portraying homosexuality in a positive light but was later repealed.

Defending the legislation, he said: “Toleration and understanding is one thing, but state-promotion of homosexuality is quite another.

Well, we can see want David Cameron is thinking about in the photograph below.

 

[Qvist]

Re: Dave Rowntree of Blur has a go at David Cameron

I think he may mean have their picture taken just to show that they MUST be a real fan. He made the picture taken inside public to cling to some credibity whereas other public figures would keep it private (If it meant so much)

He wasn't allow to have his picture taken outside, thank god. He would be touting it to the world......still

OK, that may say a lot about Cameron's penchant for vulgar self-promotion, but it's still fairly absurd to imply from that that he is merely pretending to be a Smiths fan. I mean, give me a break - since when did it represent a crucial piece of political capital for a Tory PM candidate to be known as a Morrissey fan, to the point where anyone would even think about inventing it?

cheers

 

[Worm]

Oh that's because, like most good artists, you're left wing. I'm right wing. To me it happens all the time.

Not that the history of art can possibly be broken down into categories so easily-- it's probably impossible-- but just for kicks I'd say off the top of my head that the majority of great thinkers and artists are right-wing, or "conservative", if a broader label is needed. Of course the problem is deepened by the fact that many of the artists of the past who were "left-wing" in their day might now be considered more conservative compared to our present value-systems.

It's probably true to say that most of the great rock and roll artists are left-wing, however. I'd go with that.

 

[Qvist]

I primarily had those presently alive and kicking in mind. Around here at least, you more or less expect not just artists and musicians but pretty much anyone in the culture sector (other than maybe gallery owners and classical musicians) to be left wing by default. "Around here" being Scandinavia.

In the Czech Republic where we currently reside, it's the other way around, which is really funny. Writers and underground rock musicians, who in all other respects are fundamentally similar in outlook to the same kind of people in Norway, are practically by default right wing - simply because being alternative and oppositional in this part of the world still relates to communism as the thing you are neccessarily and irredeemably in opposition to. To people who spent their youth smuggling typewriters, copying plays by hand and buying records in back alleys at the risk of imprisonment, "socialist" is a really dirty word. It's a funny old world.

As for thinkers, the opinion so far is that they are expected to be mad, so they are beyond the pale. No, seriously. Philosophy, broadly speaking, is intellectual rather emotional or aesthetic, so that works a bit differently in terms of reception. I guess on the same basis they tend to distribute politically in a different way, though the reasons are obscure to me.

cheers

 

[anon x]

Is it?

Yes. (mind you,I'm not a fan so I could be talking nonsense)

 

[anon x]

Re: Dave Rowntree of Blur has a go at David Cameron

OK, that may say a lot about Cameron's penchant for vulgar self-promotion, but it's still fairly absurd to imply from that that he is merely pretending to be a Smiths fan.

Wonder what he made of Margaret On The Guillotine ?
Do you think he sings along to,"when will you die....?" in private moments ?
(guess he will if he becomes PM, and she inevitably criticises him)

 

[Anaesthesine]

There's a pretty big chunk of humanity that doesn't fit into either the peacenik or the extreme nationalist category though. The sort of people who might or might not support any particular war for various reasons.

True enough - if you don't hold any particularly strong views on the subject of war and peace, then you probably don't hold any particularly strong views on musicians who hold particularly strong views on war and peace.

How can anyone not have strong views on matters of war and peace?

He is an icon for the movement, and his vegetarianism no doubt is a very significant and emotionally loaded thing for vegetarians. But they are also largely the only people with strong feelings of any kind about that issue. To most non-vegetarians, the issue of vegetarianism simply isn't emotionally loaded at all, one way or the other.

How can anyone not have strong views on matters of meat and vegetables?

Well, there is a limit, I agree with that. Andrej Belyj's Rossija!, with its hysterical panegyric to the brute force of Russian nationalism, is a case in point for me. Which reminds me that I should get around to checking if there's any chance it might have been ironic.

Yes, I should also look into the whole "Jew is underneath the lot" thing. Perhaps it really was just a powerful historical phrase as opposed to an indictment of a persecuted people. Perhaps it was more for effect from a poet who didn't particularly fret about the subject. Perhaps it really was a casual reference.

How can anyone not have strong views on matters pertaining to the persecution of the Jews?

Okay, so there might have been a problem for you with an artist who wrote lyrics eulogising fox hunting. But it doesn't neccessarily work the same way in the opposite direction.

Yes, I realized after posting that the ball really is in the idealist's court when it comes to art. Folks who aren't passionate about a cause couldn't care less about the philosophy/morals/political views of the artist. They just like it or they don't.

When it comes to Art that really moves me, I care about intent and narrative, philosophy and context, morality and the Big Picture; when it comes to entertainment, who cares?

Oh that's because, like most good artists, you're left wing. I'm right wing. To me it happens all the time.

"Right Wing" is a relative term. Since you are so spectacularly rational, I will assume that you practice the kind of conservatism that died out in the US decades ago as opposed to the cankered, wild-eyed relic that is currently lurching its way towards oblivion here in the States, and taking the rest of us down with it.

I'm repeating myself now, but I just don't think a non-vegetarian who'd like to see the re-introduction of fox hunting on the grounds of its deep traditional roots in the english countryside would regard these as even essentially moral issues, and much less as core ones.

Yes, you are repeating yourself, but it's a good point. David Cameron probably does not see fox hunting as a moral issue, much less as a core one. Morrissey does. They are not in opposition, they are on completely different planets.

On a deeper level, you seem to make the argument that the general spirit permeating a distinctive artist's work carries over into the whole and that as such you tend to encounter opposition if you go into it more than superficially, if your own values are fundamentally different? Maybe. It seems a reasonable assumption, though again the appreciation of otherness would tend to counteract it. But David Cameron probably wasn't fully shaped Tory politician of national significance at age 14, or whenever he discovered the Smiths. When you fall in love with music at that age, it's not something that you easily discard just because you happen to grow up to be something that doesn't fit the demographic profile of that music. And after all, there is no shortage of things to continue to love in the Smiths or Morrissey that are completely beyond any politics or the values connected with it.

Reasonable enough. I am seeing things from my perspective, which is one of passionate engagement.

There is more to The Smiths than an empathetic approach to suffering, but not much more.

 

[Qvist]

True enough - if you don't hold any particularly strong views on the subject of war and peace, then you probably don't hold any particularly strong views on musicians who hold particularly strong views on war and peace.

How can anyone not have strong views on matters of war and peace?

True, but strong views on matters of war and peace doesn't have to take the form of principled opposition to all war, or a rabid appetite for it.

How can anyone not have strong views on matters of meat and vegetables?

Er, that is actually very simple. I think to most people, they are much in the same category as breathing and walking. I understand and respect your stance to it, but there it is.

Yes, I should also look into the whole "Jew is underneath the lot" thing. Perhaps it really was just a powerful historical phrase as opposed to an indictment of a persecuted people. Perhaps it was more for effect from a poet who didn't particularly fret about the subject. Perhaps it really was a casual reference.

It would be nice, wouldn't it. Considering Eliot's other qualities.

How can anyone not have strong views on matters pertaining to the persecution of the Jews?

I agree 100%.

Yes, I realized after posting that the ball really is in the idealist's court when it comes to art. Folks who aren't passionate about a cause couldn't care less about the philosophy/morals/political views of the artist. They just like it or they don't.

When it comes to Art that really moves me, I care about intent and narrative, philosophy and context, morality and the Big Picture; when it comes to entertainment, who cares?

Which puts the ball back in my court. I don't think the point is that either you care, or you don't - and still less that the things you mention aren't of interest. Rather it is a question of different people caring about different things, and while the point is much more the values of the artist than those of the spectator, it is the latter that shapes reception and defines how issues matter, so to speak. Disagreement with the artist on a point you don't have very strong views on is less an obstacle than disagreement on a point where you do.

On a personal note, for my part I have always thought that Morrissey simply isn't the sort of person who's equipped to understand much about politics, for much the same reasons that he's admirably equipped to understand a lot of other things.

"Right Wing" is a relative term. Since you are so spectacularly rational, I will assume that you practice the kind of conservatism that died out in the US decades ago as opposed to the cankered, wild-eyed relic that is currently lurching its way towards oblivion here in the States, and taking the rest of us down with it.

I refuse to believe that. I've met one or two people who fit the description, and surely there has to be quite a few people of the Thomas Reed school of conservatism out there still? At least I hope so. But it's alarming to see the kind of extreme polarisation of American society that is so marked today, it doesn't bode well - for any of us. In the big picture, we're pretty dependent on you as well, you know.

Reasonable enough. I am seeing things from my perspective, which is one of passionate engagement.

Again - it might well be more a question of passionate engagement about different things.

There is more to The Smiths than an empathetic approach to suffering, but not much more.

Love, Peace and Harmony - very nice, very nice, very nice, maybe in the next world?

cheers

 

[Anaesthesine]

True, but strong views on matters of war and peace doesn't have to take the form of principled opposition to all war, or a rabid appetite for it.

A case-by-case basis for war is not a principled position by definition. Perhaps the earlier Beatles might suit such a person, rather than the Plastic Ono Band.

Er, that is actually very simple. I think to most people, they are much in the same category as breathing and walking. I understand and respect your stance to it, but there it is.

This question was meant to be a somewhat comic iteration of the one above (and below). I suppose a would have helped convey the humor.

*crickets*

It would be nice, wouldn't it. Considering Eliot's other qualities.

It WOULD be nice, given his considerable gifts. Eliot's Jewish friends say that he was a "casual" anti-semite, which means that, while me may not have been a hateful person, he was strangely insensitive to the plight of the Jewish people. A historic blunder of epic proportions in the time between the wars, and a nearly inconceivable flaw in such a sensitive soul.

Which puts the ball back in my court. I don't think the point is that either you care, or you don't - and still less that the things you mention aren't of interest. Rather it is a question of different people caring about different things, and while the point is much more the values of the artist than those of the spectator, it is the latter that shapes reception and defines how issues matter, so to speak.

A laissez-faire attitude is a rare thing in a great artist, but not so rare a thing in an art-lover. There is the disconnect.

Disagreement with the artist on a point you don't have very strong views on is less an obstacle than disagreement on a point where you do.

That goes without saying.

Cameron's case is singular, however, since it could be in his power to make political decisions that have a profoundly moral effect; he's a game-changer.

Cameron's morals matter, and he is a fan of a band with the most intense moral opinions on what really is a matter of life and death. I guess Morrissey didn't sway him on this issue; I still find the whole situation a little suspect, and more than a little bizarre.

On a personal note, for my part I have always thought that Morrissey simply isn't the sort of person who's equipped to understand much about politics, for much the same reasons that he's admirably equipped to understand a lot of other things.

Absolutely. Morrissey seems to be almost singularly inept when it comes to discussing politics. It would be endearing, if it didn't so often cause him such high-profile trouble.

I refuse to believe that. I've met one or two people who fit the description, and surely there has to be quite a few people of the Thomas Reed school of conservatism out there still? At least I hope so. But it's alarming to see the kind of extreme polarisation of American society that is so marked today, it doesn't bode well - for any of us. In the big picture, we're pretty dependent on you as well, you know.

There are still moderates on the Right - most of them now call themselves independents (or libertarians). The Right-wing as a political force in America today is in the firm grip of the most extreme anti-governmental ideology yet seen. Combine this with fundamentalist Christianism and a healthy dose of xenophobie (to put it politely), and you have a recipe for the kind of disastrous carnage already witnessed in the first blighted years of this century. I don't think anyone outside of this country truly understands that fact that the Right have become anarchists of the first order. They will be dismantling traffic lights next, because "no government has the right to tell ME when to stop and when to go."

I hope there is a firewall in place overseas, should the worst-case scenario play out.

Love, Peace and Harmony - very nice, very nice, very nice, maybe in the next world?

This could go on forever...

 

[Stuheff]

This could go on forever...

Or it may all end tomorrow... in which case we all doomed...

...To paraphrase...

 

[goinghome]

The first part of this article by Irish economist and popular author David McWilliams gives an outsider's impression of the buzz in London over politics at the moment -
http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2010/04/28/lunacy-of-nama-bailout-will-tip-us-over-the-edge

It's interesting how often people comment on Morrissey's perceived naivety in relation to politics. In contrast, his corresponding non-partisanship in sexual orientation - fourth/transgender etc - is received as the height of sophistication.

There's another way of looking at the sporadic outbursts of our 'protest singer' against adverse effects of state policy which is to consider him an infinite player at the politics game:

Infinite players are "political without having a politics, a paradoxical position easily misinterpreted. To have a politics is to have a set of rules by which one attempts to reach a desired end; to be political - in the sense meant here - is to recast rules in the attempt to eliminate all societal ends, that is to maintain the essential fluidity of human association.

To be political in the mode of infinite play is by no means to disregard the appalling conditions under which many human beings live, the elimination of which is the professed aim of much politics. We can imagine infinite players nodding thoughtfuly at Rousseau's famus declaration: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." They can see that the dream of freedom is universal, that wars are fought to win it, heroes die to protect it, and songs are written to commemorate its attainment. But in the infinite player's vision of political affairs the element of intentionality and willfulness, so easily obscured in the exigencies of public crisis, stands out in clear relief. Therefore, even warfare and heroism are seen with their self-contradictions in full display. No nation can go to war until it has found another that can agree to the terms of the conflict. Each side must therefore be in complicity with the other: Before I can have an enemy, I must persuade another to recognise me as an enemy...

...Therefore, for infinite players, politics is a form of theatricality. It is the performance of roles before an audience, according to a script whose last scene is known in advance by the performers...

...{because of this} infinite players do not take sides in political issues - at least not seriously. Instead they enter into social conflict dramatically, attempting to offer a vision of continuity and open-endedness in place of the heroic final scene. In doing so they must at the very least draw the attention of other political participants not to what they feel they must do, but to why they feel they must do it..." from 'Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility'' by James P. Carse

 

[Qvist]

It's interesting how often people comment on Morrissey's perceived naivety in relation to politics. In contrast, his corresponding non-partisanship in sexual orientation - fourth/transgender etc - is received as the height of sophistication.

The thing is though that anyone with a sexuality is pretty much equally qualified when it comes to that issue, and it can perfectly well be approached on an instinctive and emotional basis.

That isn't the case with politics, which requires a lot of both general and specific knowledge that has to be continually updated (whether you're an infinite player or not). Somehow, I don't see Morrissey as the type who eagerly pores over the latest issue of Foreign Policy Review or really gets to grips with structural factors affecting industrial profitability. I rather suspect he is more the type who approaches politics as another instinctive/emotional venue. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but to me political diagnosis made on that basis says a lot more about the person making it than about the subject he addresses.

cheers

 

[anon x]

He is clear in what He asks and clear in what He offers. BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEP

Please do not quote spam posts again. Thanks.

Post of the year.

 

[Anaesthesine]

...Therefore, for infinite players, politics is a form of theatricality. It is the performance of roles before an audience, according to a script whose last scene is known in advance by the performers...

...{because of this} infinite players do not take sides in political issues - at least not seriously. Instead they enter into social conflict dramatically, attempting to offer a vision of continuity and open-endedness in place of the heroic final scene. In doing so they must at the very least draw the attention of other political participants not to what they feel they must do, but to why they feel they must do it..." from 'Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility'' by James P. Carse

In order to be an effective "infinite player," one would still have to have the discipline to do at least a little research and become acquainted with the complexities of the issues involved before making grand pronouncements intended to shift the debate. Pure playacting and attention-getting will take you only so far.

That is the difference, I suppose, between an "idealist," an "infinite player," a "drama queen" and a "pain-in-the-arse."

 

[Worm]

It's interesting how often people comment on Morrissey's perceived naivety in relation to politics. In contrast, his corresponding non-partisanship in sexual orientation - fourth/transgender etc - is received as the height of sophistication.

His "theories" about sexual orientation are not the height of sophistication. Like everything else he believes it comes from childlike naivete. The notion that Morrissey is a sophisticated, high-minded intellectual is sheer calumny.

 

[PregnantForTheLastTime]

Thank you, Worm, for the get-rich-quick opportunity you've just tossed my way. Now, hold still. I'm setting up a booth selling rope, tar, and feathers. Don't worry, I'll give you a cut.

 

[Anaesthesine]

His "theories" about sexual orientation are not the height of sophistication. Like everything else he believes it comes from childlike naivete. The notion that Morrissey is a sophisticated, high-minded intellectual is sheer calumny.

Stop tap dancing and tell us how you really feel.

 

[Worm]

Stop tap dancing and tell us how you really feel.

You and Preggers know it's true. Anyone who's paying attention knows it's true. Morrissey knows it's true and probably feels proud of it. His entire body of work would be meaningless if it didn't come from a place inside him beyond intellect.

 

[Anaesthesine]

I ran across this quote from Saul Below the other day:

"intellectuals... are trained to expect and demand from art what intellect is unable to do."

I agree, Morrissey is not now and has never been a high-minded intellectual (although he is one of those rare individuals who manages to be sophisticated and ingenuous at the same time). He is, however, possessed of an even greater gift.

I don't know if he'd appreciate being thought of as having a "childlike naivete" when it comes to social or political matters, but I'd certainly respect him if he did.

 

[goinghome]

The thing is though that anyone with a sexuality is pretty much equally qualified when it comes to that issue, and it can perfectly well be approached on an instinctive and emotional basis.

Famous people with a sexuality usually subscribe to one or other leaning. Morrissey's pronouncements and behaviours on this issue and on others, such as treatment of animals, have exerted some influence. The personal, after all, is political.

That isn't the case with politics, which requires a lot of both general and specific knowledge that has to be continually updated (whether you're an infinite player or not). Somehow, I don't see Morrissey as the type who eagerly pores over the latest issue of Foreign Policy Review or really gets to grips with structural factors affecting industrial profitability. I rather suspect he is more the type who approaches politics as another instinctive/emotional venue. Which is fine, as far as it goes, but to me political diagnosis made on that basis says a lot more about the person making it than about the subject he addresses.

cheers

I don't blame Morrissey if he doesn't pore over the Foreign Policy Review, though of course, like much in debates such as these, we don't know he doesn't. Jon Stewart might distill that for us! Many a lucrative and fulfilling career has been made out of analysing data under the banner of political projects, keeping mandarins and academics alike employed, gainfully or otherwise. A week is a long time in politics and when the campaigns begin, out sprints the unlikely newcomer (Obama, Clegg maybe) at the last lap to cross the line. For the frontrunners, Monday's humiliation descends to the admission on Friday that 'life has killed me'!!. For better examples look further afield where poets, ex-bishops, and a hodge-podge of revolutionaries swoop in and steal the favourite's thunder. What kind of knowledge matters then? If it's so useful, why is the state of nations unpredictable?

“A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.” Oscar Wilde

What was it Morrissey replied when Jools Holland asked him on the show a few years ago if he'd like to run for office? "Please, don't insult me", or something like that!

Cheers, Qvist, and thanks to the others who replied to my comment in kind.