The Patriot Post® · Jagger and Springsteen Have Opposite Political Strategies

Over the years, it wouldn’t be the least bit unusual to hear “Born to Run” slide into “Gimme Shelter.” The genre known as “classic rock” has evolved, but two old-school performers who have featured prominently — Bruce Springsteen and Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones — have different views of the modern world.

Surprisingly, both artists are still creating music and are willing to tour. While Springsteen’s last full album of new material came out in 2022, he’s still recording and released “Streets of Minneapolis” as a protest single earlier this year. People are still lining up to see “The Boss” and his E Street Band, paying hundreds of dollars for a ticket to see an artist who built a reputation as a working-class hero half a century ago.

But what are they getting at these concerts? Sure, they’re getting the hits they love from a bygone era, but many complain they’re also getting a heavy dose of political commentary. It’s no secret that Springsteen firmly inhabits the left side of the political spectrum — as most musicians do — but Bruce wears his political heart on his sleeve more than most. He told PBS News in a recent interview, “I believe in critical patriotism. I believe that’s the definition of a patriot, that you love your country so much that you are willing to look at it clearly, recognize its faults, encourage it to be a better place, and believe that you carry in your heart the country that is waiting.”

Sometimes that rubs fans the wrong way, though. PJ Media’s David Manney noted, “Fans who arrived expecting ‘Born to Run’ also received several minutes of Bruce Springsteen’s keen political analysis. After all, for the previous many decades, Springsteen has lived among the unwashed, uneducated, and unwitting yocals, listening to us everyday Americans struggle through life.”

For what it’s worth, Springsteen’s political approach doesn’t have a fan in Mick Jagger. Speaking in support of a new album from The Stones called “Foreign Tongues,” Jagger talked about his approach to live performances. In a lengthy interview with David Marchese of The New York Times, he explained, “My job in the live music world is for those people that come to have the best time. … And you don’t want to lecture them.” Jagger noted that people are there to escape their troubles and enjoy the music.

Interestingly enough, though, the veiled criticism of Springsteen could be found on the podcast but not so much in the printed transcript the Times put out. Even as Marchese tried to pin Jagger down on the subject, he never got into the political. Put another way by entertainment observer Christian Toto, “The interviewer pressed Jagger on his relationship with his audience. It’s a good, potentially fruitful question, but it was intended to get Jagger’s political views. Or, hopefully from the interviewer’s perspective, call out that Orange Mad Bad. Except Jagger didn’t take the bait.”

There is a song on the new album, “Ringing Hollow,” that Jagger describes as a “lament” about America. “I’ve spent a lot of time in America in places that Americans have never ever been,” he explained. “I spend a lot of time in these weird places. On tour, you see everything. … So you explore these places, and you have a love of the country. I had another song, but the other song was too down, and I rejected it and worked on ‘Ringing Hollow’ instead. It’s really a love song to Americans: I fell madly in love with you before we ever met, like a lot of European teenagers. So it was all about that, and then it goes into the America of now and how can we ascertain what’s going on.”

There’s no U.S. tour yet scheduled to support the “Foreign Tongues” album. But Jagger would be willing to do so, even if bandmate Keith Richards has his own thoughts about America. But my prediction is that Mick would play the song, particularly if it catches on as a single, without a lot of comment before launching into an older classic that the people are ready to hear instead of a diatribe about how bad America’s political leadership is. The song would do enough talking without the showman Jagger piling on, and then they’ll move on like the audience-pleasing pros they are.

While Bruce Springsteen seems to think his position provides him a platform for political pontification, Mick Jagger knows his job is to entertain, and that means everyone. It’s not that musicians, artists, athletes, or whoever can’t have an opinion; it’s that their opinions are not why people love them. In fact, it’s very often why a huge segment of people begin to hate them: it’s a lose-lose. Why do it? Because they’re marinating in a left-wing cesspool of self-importance, that’s why.

Somewhere along the line, Jagger got a reputation for being aloof and full of himself — after all, the Rolling Stones adopted a “bad boy” image early on as a counter to the “squeaky-clean” Beatles. (Doing dark songs like “Sympathy for the Devil” and “Paint It Black” wasn’t going to hurt that image, either.) Obviously, Mick has learned to give people what they want: the classic hits they grew up with.

In other words, shut up and sing, Bruce.