Introduction
When the Sex Pistols released their first single, “God Save the Queen,”
in 1977, they unwittingly spearheaded a musically anchored critical tradition that still thrives today.1 While the Sex Pistols cannot be credited with inventing protest music, or even hailed as the architects of punk’s musical expression, for they neither crystalized nor codified punk rock’s generic boundaries, they did explode the limits of punk’s rhetorical repertoire by adding new and novel tools to its conceptual toolbox.2 In pairing genuine working-class anger with scathingly subversive lyrics, enlisting the profane in attempts to dismantle the sacred, Johnny Rotten weaponized musical dissent by lambasting England’s beloved figurehead, Queen Elizabeth II, during the lead-up to her silver jubilee.3 Eschewing both social and legal repercussions, defiantly extending middle fingers rather than olive branches, the Sex Pistols armed themselves with power
chords and anti-establishment rhetoric in their fight against authority, complacency, and the status quo.4 Successful in shocking the ostensibly delicate sensibilities of English mainstream culture, all the while delighting in their ability to ruffle the establishment’s feathers, the Sex Pistols were summarily branded by the British press as villainous miscreants hell-bent on bringing civil society to its knees.5 Punk rock, rising from the ashes of the decidedly non-political progressive rock movement, was
“born” (and promptly given a baptism by fire).6
Punk’s innovation was not simply the combining of music and critique per se, for protest music enjoys a rich, long history.7 Even the ancient Greeks expressed unease about the potency and political influence of popular music. In The Republic, cautioning leaders of civil society to keep an ever watchful eye on popular music, and on musical innovation in particular, Plato warned that any change in the landscape of popular music holds the promise of swaying the minds of otherwise dutiful citizens, seducing them away from their civic virtues. If not vigilantly policed, Plato reasoned, popular music’s potential for social upheaval and revolt could easily extend “its course of wanton disruption to laws and political institutions, until finally it destroys everything in private and public life.”8 Even music without lyrics commands political force.
According to Brown, Beethoven composed music fundamentally imbued with “political meaning.”9 In writing music for popular audiences, to be played and enjoyed in music theaters open to the general public rather than performed in the exclusive “courts of the aristocracy and nobility,”
Beethoven made subtle political statements that “could appeal directly to the political sensibilities of the masses, or at least the masses who were sufficiently well off to be able to buy tickets to a concert.”10 Typically viewed as a paragon of high culture, it appears that Beethoven also dipped his toes in the pool of popular culture.
Ancient (and not so ancient) history aside, what punks brought to the proverbial table was a no-nonsense approach to cultural and political critique—an unapologetic, “in-your-face” attack on the established order
and its most cherished values, symbols, and ideals. As Hebdige puts it, “[n]o subculture has sought with more grim determination than the punks to detach itself from the taken-for-granted landscape of normalized forms, nor to bring down upon itself such vehement disapproval.”11 Such outright insolence, of course, is a rather recent innovation and most certainly a modern privilege. For large swaths of history protest singers were required, for fear of their personal safety, to obscure and hide the actual meanings communicated through their songs because the possibility of violence and bodily harm always loomed large. In order to fully understand protest songs, one thus had to be privy to the code—
access to which was only granted genuine group members.12 The singing of protest songs, therefore, has historically been as much an exercise in community building and group identity formation as it has been about change and social commentary. Protest songs, Knupp explains, have served as a means for groups facing difficult circumstances to not only comment on but also make collective sense of their shared experiences because they are “pre-eminently in-group messages designed to reinforce feelings of solidarity.”13 In describing the plight of African slaves in America, living under the constant threat of brutal beatings, lashings, and even death, Peretti offers that their “[e]xpressions of rebellion and the desire for freedom were translated into coded trickster work songs and spirituals about Moses,” a practice that for reasons of personal safety
“persisted long after slavery was abolished.”14 Punk, of course, suffered no such burden. While the threat of violence was very much real, Johnny Rotten detailing how certain parts of London were out of reach because they could be hazardous to his health,15 the more likely consequence was ridicule, verbal lashings, and social ostracism—consequences which to a certain extent were very much the point.
Uncompromising in their approach, actively pursuing a program of deliberate self-marginalization while simultaneously delivering biting social critiques, punks went straight for the jugular by purposefully fouling society’s most powerful and sacred symbols. For the Sex Pistols, this meant taking aim at the English royal family—specifically its
matri-arch. The cover art adorning the band’s first single, cleverly subverted and misappropriated by visual artist and Sex Pistols coconspirator Jamie Reid, featured a repurposed Cecil Beaton portrait depicting Queen Eliz-abeth II with a safety-pin through her mouth. Coupled with Lydon’s contemptuous and scornful lyrics, the overall effect was as impressive as it was immediate. According to Jon Savage, English punk’s premier historian, “God Save the Queen” was nothing short of a “grandstanding
‘fuck you’ to England that seemed to come out of nowhere.”16 Caught off-guard, and therefore quite unsure about how to react, the tabloid newspapers accused the Sex Pistols of treason while the BBC promptly banned the single from radio airplay.17 Presented with a punk expression that was still very much undefined, the national media’s kneejerk reaction was to ban and censor rather than engage with the ideational contents of punks’ protestations.
Although the Sex Pistols are not the central topic of this chapter, the band nonetheless set a profound precedent for punk activity that remains relevant today, four decades later, and the examples described above are meant to contextualize and conceptually situate the rhetorical efforts of American punks described below. Circumventing traditional means of protest by enlisting new and novel tools, very much cognizant of the fact that affective symbolic play coupled with subversive media tactics wields the power to produce widespread controversy, the Sex Pistols found unique ways of drumming up enough momentum to not only partake in but outright hijack the national conversation, thereby lending credence to Johnny Rotten’s foreboding warning that “we’re the poison in your human machine.”18 In looking at the history of punk following the dissolution of the Sex Pistols, it is clear that their influence runs deep and that others have successfully repurposed their divisive tactics for a variety of other causes. Most recently Russia’s Pussy Riot, donning multicolored balaclavas and arming themselves with little more than some makeshift musical equipment and a video camera, took on the Russian government, the Russian Orthodox Church, the KGB, and prime minister/president Vladimir Putin by staging what they termed a “punk
prayer” in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior on February 21, 2012, performing a ramshackle rendition of their song “Holy Shit” from the cathedral’s altar.19 The band was promptly arrested, tried, and eventually found guilty of hooliganism, a crime that carried a grueling two-year prison sentence.20 In the process, however, Pussy Riot generated global headlines and managed to put intense scrutiny on the repressive policies enforced by the Russian government while simultaneously drawing heartfelt moral support from mainstream artists like Madonna, Sting, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Faith No More, Franz Ferdinand, and the Beastie Boys’ Ad-Rock.21
Having previously only dabbled in matters related to party politics, largely content in merely straddling the conceptual border adjoining the social and the political, “[m]ost early American punks had little to say politically beyond simple parody”22 and “generally dealt in outrage for art’s sake.”23 The Sex Pistols, having made “political messages central to their music,”24 helped change that as their 1978 tour through the American south—ultimately culminating in their demise at San Francisco’s Winterland Ballroom on January 14, 1978—served as an inspirational catalyst for the development of American hardcore, a musically abrasive offshoot of punk with an unquestionably political edge.25 Indeed, as a new wave of neo-liberal conservatism swept the United States in the early 1980s, epitomized by the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, punk bands increasingly focused their attention on national and global politics.26 Very much attuned to the widespread social and economic anxieties of the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Dead Kennedys, Reagan Youth, Millions of Dead Cops (MDC), Dirty Rotten Imbeciles (D.R.I), and The Crucifucks, among others, mounted scathing and oftentimes amusing attacks on the Reagan administration and even took their dissent on the road with 1984’s Rock Against Reagan Tour.27 Punk’s opposition to presidential politics, and to individual presidents themselves, did not stop there. President George H. W. Bush was chastised for his involvement in the Gulf War, as well as the mounting homelessness problem, which prompted punks to organize protest shows in front of the White House.
President George W. Bush was castigated for allegedly hijacking the 2000 presidential election, for passing and implementing the USA PATRIOT Act, and also for his role in sanctioning the second Gulf War—effectively provoking punks to revive Reagan-era tactics by organizing 2004’s Rock Against Bush Tour.
Although generally more vocal under Republican presidents than Democratic presidents, punks have not let presidents Clinton and Obama off the hook either. Ridiculed for his evasive grand jury testimony following the Lewinsky scandal, and described as “slick,” “slippery,”
and “oily” after news broke that he had asked prosecutors to define the word “is,”28 Bill Clinton ultimately faced accusations that he is just another career politician willfully changing direct questions into
“trapezoidal, abstract queries.”29 Barack Obama, on the other hand, prompted consternation for simply offering more of the same and being little more than a figurehead for a government continuing to push Reagan-era policies. On the face of it, however, punks’ critiques of Democratic presidents seem less vitriolic and rather uninspired when compared to their critiques of Republican presidents. In the following I more fully examine the rhetorical efforts put forward by punks seeking to protest a handful of American presidents, culminating with their treatment of Donald Trump, both as a candidate and as president. Before doing so, however, it is first necessary to briefly examine the relationship between punk and politics.
Punk, Politics, and Music
The December 1976 issue of Sideburns, a Stranglers fanzine, featured a now classic piece of punk art. Under the heading “PLAY’IN IN THE BAND…FIRST AND LAST IN A SERIES,” readers were presented with three hand-drawn diagrams illustrating how to properly form an A chord (“This is a chord”), an E chord (“This is another”), and a G chord (“This is a third”) on a guitar fretboard and then immediately told:
“Now form a band.”30 Pithily capturing punk’s do-it-yourself (DIY) ethos
by combining presentational simplicity with ideational complexity, readers were encouraged to make something themselves, to partake in the emerging punk culture even if lacking technical skill or musical competence. Or more precisely, and very much to the artist’s point, especially if lacking skill or competence. Breaking down the discourses of mastery so central to the progressive rock movement that preceded it, and in the process branding itself as access music, punk celebrated amateurishness by rejecting the bloated pomposity and self-aggrandizing bravado of more traditional forms of rock and roll.31 In the words of NOFX’s Fat Mike, widely regarded as one of the more enduring figures in the history of punk rock music, “you don’t need talent, just sing out of tune… if I could do it so could anyone.”32 For punks, having something to say was deemed more important than being skilled musicians, even if some bands eventually figured out how to properly play their instruments.
This general lack of focus on technical aptitude functioned as a powerful equalizer. In a cultural environment where the absence of skill was not only tolerated but outright celebrated, illusions of grandeur were quickly rendered meaningless. In deliberately seeking to negate the prevailing tropes of rock and roll while at the same time stealing and appropriating the tools of the trade (punk, after all, is still a form of rock music), Grossberg argues that punks “rejected the star system which had become so pervasive and had fractured the relation between musician and fan.”33 Succinctly illustrating how punks practice what they preach, Phillipov explains that “acts like the Sex Pistols may have been headline material, but there was no distance between them and the people who regularly supported them—you could even stand next to Johnny Rotten in the urinal!”34
This focus on equality and egalitarianism is also mirrored in punk’s politics. While disagreement still prevails concerning punk’s overarching political program, and whether such a program even exists, it nonetheless seems safe to suggest that punk’s politics typically fall somewhere to the left on the political continuum. In outlining punk’s overarching
approach to music, critique, and cultural production, Sabin offers the following definition:
at a very basic level, we can say that punk was/is a subculture best characterized as part youth rebellion, part artistic statement.
It had its high point from 1976 to 1979, and was most visible in Britain and America… Philosophically, it had no “set agenda” like the hippy movement that preceded it, but nevertheless stood for identifiable attitudes, among them: an emphasis on negationism (rather than nihilism); a consciousness of class-based politics (with a stress on “working-class credibility”); and a belief in spontaneity and “doing it yourself.”35
Extending Sabin’s definition, and in so doing crystallizing some of its characteristics, James suggests that punks typically favor: (1) a DIY approach to music production and aesthetics; (2) a pronounced distrust for the political institutions supporting the nation-state; (3) a distrust of capitalism and the subsequent alienation brought on by capitalist production processes; (4) a favoring of “street-level” viewpoints and a celebration of the “emotive proletariat spirit;” (5) a deep compassion for the marginalized; (6) an emphasis on inner strength and the perseverance to overcome adversity; and (7) a commitment to complete sincerity, honesty, and integrity.36 Overall, James claims that punk has historically assumed a “left-of-center political position,”37 an argument that also is echoed in Lynskey’s assertion that “the vast majority of today’s punk bands lean towards the left,”38 as well as Mattson’s somewhat reserved conclusion that punks champion a form of “left-leaning anarchism” that is geared towards cooperation rather than chaos.39
At the end of the day, punk’s political allegiances are contested territory and others have voiced legitimate concerns that the common practice of uncritically casting punk as a uniquely leftist endeavor is problematic. Phillipov, while prefacing her argument with the stipulation that “[p]unk found particular compatibility with the broadly Marxist principles fundamental to the development of cultural studies, values which, to a certain extent, continue to remain central,” also maintains
that scholars have “rarely interrogated the continued validity of viewing punk as necessarily politically radical.” 40 Historically speaking, Phillipov argues, researchers have “display[ed] a distinct unwillingness to engage with the ‘darker side’ of punk’s politics, instead presenting right-wing and fascist ideologies as merely an insignificant aberration within an otherwise left-wing movement.”41 This point is well taken. It also finds support in Sabin’s claim that the intellectual history of punk—routinely presented in academic research and in the popular press as being “solid with the anti-racist cause” 42—is rooted in myth rather than reality. In analyzing punk artifacts spanning more than two decades, examining fanzines, fliers, interviews, artwork, and lyrics by reading them against the officially sanctioned histories of British punk, Sabin provides a compelling account that reveals punk’s stance on racism to be ambiguous, contradictory, and ultimately quite complicated. Punk culture, Sabin suggests, is no more or no less racist than the parent culture it complements.43 While punk bands playing Rock Against Racism (RAR) events is frequently touted as evidence that early punk was anti-racist, it is also the case that some of those bands were not all that enamored with the anti-racist message—some simply sought an audience or a paycheck. Others were also quite selective in their views about what constitutes racism and what types of racism were worthy of attention. Although support for and solidarity with Afro-Caribbeans was commonplace, punk bands even drawing on ska and reggae as musical influences, the plight of Jews, Arabs, Asians, and Hispanics was generally forgotten or deemed to be of limited import. According to Sabin, members of those groups were even mocked and vilified by bands and people claiming to support the Anti-Nazi League (ANL) and RAR.44
The existence of fascist punk bands, commandeering a noticeable presence already from the outset, further complicates the claim that punk was and is inherently comprised of open minded leftists and anti-racists.
Bands like Skrewdriver, the brainchild of right-wing ideologue Ian Stuart Donaldson, draped its neo-Nazi rhetoric in much the same musical dress as punk bands operating at the other end of the political continuum.45
While support for RAR/ANL among punk bands is well documented in the literature, punk bands also rallied behind right-wing political organizations like The National Front and were responsible for founding the white-power music organization Rock Against Communism (RAC) and the record label White Noise Records. As such, some observers have been “less sanguine about the ‘musical idealism’ of RAR” and instead approached it “as one of several competing ideologies.”46 Against this backdrop, Phillopov is correct in her claim that racist and fascist punks are not merely an “aberration”—for there are numerous examples of punk bands pursuing hateful ends47 or using punk music as a tool for mobilizing far-right hate groups.48 Yet, and as far as numbers are concerned, racist and fascist punks constitute a much smaller group than punks who are either anti-racists or—at the very least—non-racist.49
Attempting to sidestep the issue of punk’s political proclivities, Dunn and O’Connor approach punk from a sociological vantage by offering that punk is best construed as a trans-local “cultural field”50 that subsumes a wide range of cultural activities, including fashion, music, film, art, food, and even pedagogy.51 This argument finds support in Thompson’s claim that there are “several major genres of punk textuality: music (recorded and performed), style (especially clothing), the printed word (including ’zines), film, and events (punk happenings); together, these texts make up what I will term the ‘punk project.’”52 In the end, given punk’s multipronged approach, Ensminger’s rather poetic definition
Attempting to sidestep the issue of punk’s political proclivities, Dunn and O’Connor approach punk from a sociological vantage by offering that punk is best construed as a trans-local “cultural field”50 that subsumes a wide range of cultural activities, including fashion, music, film, art, food, and even pedagogy.51 This argument finds support in Thompson’s claim that there are “several major genres of punk textuality: music (recorded and performed), style (especially clothing), the printed word (including ’zines), film, and events (punk happenings); together, these texts make up what I will term the ‘punk project.’”52 In the end, given punk’s multipronged approach, Ensminger’s rather poetic definition