The Democratic vice-presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz have recently swayed Bruce Springsteen, one of the myriad voices from the blue-collar generation, into their bandwagon of supporters. Springsteen, a septuagenarian, showcased his allegiance to the Democratic duo in social media, overlooking the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. Astonishingly, his endorsement came as he took to the virtue-signalling path, lauding how Harris and Walz ‘respect and include everyone, without any regard for class, religion, race, political viewpoint, or sexual identity.’
His steadfast remark on the ‘widely controversial’ Donald Trump deemed him the ‘most dangerous candidate’, a phrase Springsteen used to label Trump in his lifespan. Trump’s skepticism against the inviolability of our Constitution, democracy, the rule of law, and the peaceful transition of power, according to the musician, invalidates him from ever presiding over the office of president. Springsteen even went as far as to argue that Trump ‘doesn’t comprehend the essence of our country, its history or what it signifies to be profoundly American.’
Quite peculiarly, Springsteen was modest enough to concede that his viewpoints are as inconsequential as the next person’s. Yet, he’s quite zealous in casting his vote for the Harris-Walz ticket, which he described as ‘one of his most invaluable possessions.’
In Springsteen’s perspective, America is teetering on the brink of a highly pivotal election reminiscent of the days of the Civil War. According to him, the nation hasn’t felt such profound division— be it political, spiritual, or emotional, as currently evident. Such opinions truly cast light on his political bias.
Springsteen, a native of Jersey Shore, painted Harris and Walz as champions for broad economic growth, supposedly for all and not just the ‘elite few’ like him at the top. This purported vision of America, as propagated by the Democratic team, is one that he’s been ‘consistently writing about for 55 years now.’
Quite simplistically, Springsteen argued that the inherent divide in the country ‘doesn’t have to be this way.’ It appears, according to him, values that have historically unified us as a nation, are merely lying dormant, awaiting revival and re-narration.
To address the aforementioned, Springsteen expressed a generalized sentiment: it would necessitate ‘time, irreplaceable effort, intelligence, faith and individuals, who are committed to the national interest’ to rediscover and retell our so-called common values. It appears he’s insinuating that such an endeavor lacks within the present leadership.
Bruce Springsteen heralded America as the ‘most influential nation on this planet.’ His justification? ‘Because of what she symbolizes, what she believes in—freedom, social justice, equal opportunity, the right to be and love whoever you choose.’ He claimed these as the elements that make America splendid.
To conclude, Springsteen isn’t the first celebrity, and surely won’t be the last to use their social standing to endorse political figures during the campaign season. However, one might wonder if these paid endorsements obscure the actual reality and manipulate public sentiment, posing an unfair advantage to candidates like Harris and Trump.
Celebrities, like Springsteen, voicing out their political inclinations, should make us question, should we just listen to their tunes or let their political bias determine the fate of our nation too? However, it’s fundamental to observe how these voices, more often than not, tend to lean towards Democratic ideology over other ideologies present in the nation. The inherent bias harbored and exploited by these popular influencers is indeed quite concerning.
It’s also important to note that Springsteen’s endorsement comes at a time when endorsements do little to sway public opinion, causing more division than unity. Add that to the fact that these narratives often don’t touch on the unflattering truths about the candidates like Harris and Walz. Certainly makes one wonder about the ultimate effectiveness and honesty of such endorsement campaigns.
While celebrities like Springsteen have every right to their political opinion, their opinions, presented grandiosely on high-profile platforms, can often echo misleading messages. Hence, it would seem more sensible to rely on unbiased sources for information and form political opinions devoid of celebrity influence.
Pinning down Springsteen’s bias, especially in our politically divided times, it’s safe to question if his agenda matches with the average American’s needs. Although his personal approval might please the Democratic heart, one cannot overlook the clear and unquestionable partiality presented here.
Springsteen’s endorsement, like many others, may give the Democrats an impetus. However, those on the receiving end must question and examine the motive behind his not-so-subtle bias against Trump and for Democrats, probing into whether his words truly resonate with their worldview.
Ultimately, the choice isn’t Springsteen’s to make for the rest of us. It’s the people who have to decide if they’ll fall for Springsteen’s bias or decide their own political belonging without depending on the misleading endorsements of celebrities.
Bruce Springsteen’s Uninformed Bias: Backs Misguided Harris-Walz Campaign appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
