Janan Ganesh on Bruce Springsteen: the marriage of myopia & ideology, a comment by American Writer

Mr. Ganesh leaves behind for the moment his highly practiced rhetoric of London Spleen, for the pathos of the perpetual aspirant and political climber. This essay,his praise of Mr. Springsteen as an American artists of the first order, untainted by the Left Wing delusions of such American bards as Woody Guthrie and Pete Seeger or even Mr. Paul Robeson, these artists lived in 1930’s America and in the anguished watershed of The Great Depression. If Mr. Ganesh knew more American history that ‘Left’ was home to  other citizens e.g.  Irving Kristol, Daniel Bell,Irving Howe of the Alcoves One and Two of City College. The ‘Left’ was an organic political manifestation in that dismal time, as is the rise of the Rebellion against The Elites, endlessly chronicled in the pages of The Financial Times.

The Ganesh methodology of fear mongering of ‘The Left’ makes perfect political sense, in the face of the eighth year of the protracted Depression, that began in 2008 and continues to this day. The rise of political apostate Jeremy Corbyn figures here as subtext. Mr.  Ganesh praises Mr. Springsteen as an American Bard, as above the vulgar political fray and opines that ‘Reagan was half right’, a purely rhetorical device, that indicates an ersatz objectivity from a Reagan fellow traveler trying to win over the reader.

As an artist/troubadour/critic Mr. Spingsteen’s work resonates on those many levels and more in terms of emotional range: sympathy,empathy, anger, even a bitter resignation,  that eludes the grasp of Mr. Ganesh’s monochromatic politicization. Mr. Sprinsteen’s work stands on it’s own, without the need of myopic, not to speak of a maladroitly exercised ideological intervention.

American Writer


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.