It appears that the likes of VP Kamala Harris and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz have managed to rope in the backing of the blue collar demographic, with New Jersey’s Bruce Springsteen broadcasting his intent to vote for the Democratic duo via social media. Even while propping himself up at a diner counter, the 75-year-old rocker endorsed Harris and Walz over the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. In what can only be described as a sweeping generalization, Springsteen suggested these candidates represent a country that ‘respects and includes everyone, regardless of class, religion, race, political viewpoint, or sexual identity’.
Furthermore, Springsteen had the audacity to label former President Donald Trump as the ‘most hazardous presidential candidate’ in his lifespan. He berated Trump for allegedly showing ‘scorn for the sanctity of our Constitution, democracy, rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power’, claiming it should rule him out of ever holding the presidential office again. According to Springsteen, this stems from Trump’s supposed lack of understanding about the country, its history, or the essence of being ‘deeply American’.
The celebrated musician attempted to preemptively dismiss any criticism by declaring that his opinions are just as important as anyone else’s. However, he did confirm his intention to cast his ‘most precious possession’—his vote—for the Harris-Walz ticket. Why he sees his views as superior or more informed than the average citizen remains a mystery. Is it his status as a celebrity that gives him an elevated sense of self-worth?
He also alluded to the current socio-political environment of the country, stating that no other time in history, except perhaps the Civil War era, has the country felt as ‘politically, spiritually, and emotionally bifurcated.’ Interestingly, this narrative often fails to acknowledge the vital role that the actions and words of politicians like Harris and Walz played in exacerbating this rift.
Springsteen, a man who has arguably spent more time atop the proverbial ladder than at its base, asserts that Harris and Walz want to ‘grow our economy in a way that benefits all, not just the few, like me, on top.’ Luxuriating from the comforts that his successful career has afforded him, Springsteen has somehow found the audacity to speak on behalf of the struggling everyday American while supporting politicians who appear more focused on maintaining their power than improving the welfare of their constituents.
Moreover, Springsteen insists that the national divide ‘doesn’t have to be this way,’ hinting at a ‘rediscovery’ and ‘retelling’ of the shared values that make the United States a united nation. Despite his lofty words, there seems to be a glaring lack of detail on how this healing process would actually materialize. Should we just take his word for it, as we’ve been doing with career politicians for years?
He does concede that the healing would require ‘time, hard work, intelligence, faith, and women and men with the national good guiding their hearts.’ However, it is worth noting that Springsteen’s words paint an abstract and feel-good picture, devoid of any substantial action plan or solution. As we have seen time and time again, politicians—like Harris and Walz—often thrive on these vague promises with little to no tangible results.
In a grandiloquent finale, the singer lauded the United States as the ‘most powerful nation on earth’ due to what it stands for and believes in—’freedom, social justice, equal opportunity, and the right to be and love who you want.’ These are indeed beautiful ideals, but one can’t help but wonder why he has chosen to endorse politicians who show a history of fostering division, flip-flopping on significant issues, and displaying questionable ethics.
Springsteen is but the latest celebrity joining the endorsement trend for either Harris or Trump in current presidential campaigns. This leans into the age-old tactic of leveraging popular individuals to pull the heartstrings of the public. However, experienced voters know there’s a huge difference between listening to one’s favorite musician interpret their heartache through a rock anthem and blindly swallowing their political endorsements.