“Punk” Conservativism Posted by Marek Vermin on May 5th, 2006
Despite what ideological affiliations someone might think are associated with punk, there is one thing that is common to all – a spirit of rebellion. But the one thing that separated punk rebellion from the rebellion of the first wave of rock n roll was that punk took a cue from the rebels of the 60s and punk rockers set their sights on the ruling elements of their own societies. Sure, punks questioned and thought (sometimes), but what it really all came down to was that they, like the rock n rollers of the ‘50s, were railing against a society that they felt was stale, boring, rigid and false.
This is true regardless of what ideology the punks purport to fall within, whether anarchism, socialism, liberalism or fascism. That’s right, Nazi punks fuck off! But even while they may be shithead fascists, at least they’re still social outcasts and rebels.
Conservative ‘punks’, on the other hand, are system backers. Like the namesake suggests, conservatives are people who don’t like social agitation in a direction that departs from the previous (or current) system. Conservativism always changes though. One generation of Conservatives wants to preserve the monarchies while the next wants to preserve the liberal free market. The general defining element is a massive fear of any form of social, political or economic progress or experimentation. Conservatives who call themselves punks are no different: they are afraid of real systemic change and any form of radicalism. As a result, they represent the opposite of a spirit of rebellion. They represent the status quo. Punk conservatives might think they are rebelling against what they see as ‘mindless’ rebellion, but rebelling against rebellion just makes you a counter-rebel, not a rebel of your own right. It is always much easier to believe in the system that already exists and that there is not an alternative. The act of rebelling against those who would endeavour to challenge the system is merely an act of social entrenchment. Someone can go to any subculture and meaninglessly rebel against its cultural norms. I can get into hip-hop because I like Grandmaster Flash and then start rebelling against it’s rebellious components, but by doing so, all I’m doing it countering it’s most meaningful components and making it another meaningless aesthetic – a fashion.
So, if the substance of punk is really rebellion, then conservativism and punk are antithetical to each other. The whole suggestion that someone can back the status-quo and still be punk, is essentially this: punk has no substance whatsoever. If you can be conservative and punk, then punk isn’t about rebellion. It’s just a fashion statement; a neat tattoo and three chords.
Dave Smalley, while no doubt meaning well, suggests that punk rock is about “seeing the problems in the world and fighting… to make it better.” This is not the case. Everyone does that. Fighting for what you believe isn’t something that is unique to punk and punk could never provide an outlet for political transformation because it is just a subculture. A totally punk revolution (of any stripe) would be the worst kind ever, because it would be so narrow in scope that it couldn’t account for the rest of humanity that was culturally isolated from it.
Dave Smalley then continues on some inane rant about how we need to avoid one world government and suggests that the US is being bullied by the UN (yeah, like how the UN stopped the US from invading Iraq and how the UN forced the US to abolish the death penalty and how the UN forced the US to stop providing arms to Israel and how the UN stopped the US invasion of Panama and how the UN stopped the US from arming terror squads in Nicaragua, etc. Wow. That one world government sure is so powerful to be pushing around the poor little United States like that). First off, what Mr. Smalley doesn’t realize is that he’s spent so much time around republicans that he forgot that punk rock is most closely associated with the ideology of anarchism and that anarchists aren’t in support of one-world government either. However, anarchists also don’t tend to think that the US government is being bullied NOR is it benevolent in its actions. Even punks that aren’t anarchists, if they still hold true to the spirit of rebellion that spawned their subculture, still question the system they grew up in (or came to live in). It wasn’t just the anarcho-punks who thought Reagan and Thatcher were dipshits.
Cultural rebellion requires that it is always suspicious of authority. Otherwise it is meaningless. If conservativism can be punk, then punk is truly dead. But I don’t believe that. I think, instead, that the punks calling themselves conservatives are just another group of rockers with more in common with the Partridge Family and the Charlie Daniels Band than the Sex Pistols or the MC5. They’ve either lost the spirit of punk rock (or rock, even) or never had it in the first place. Sure, they might have grown up on, or at least been inspired by the music and culture of punk, but that doesn’t mean anything. Mozart was incredibly reviled by conservatives in his time and now he’s beloved by all sorts of conservatives. Times have changed and the things that made punk a threat at one point no longer make it a threat anymore. Tattoos just aren’t socially dangerous anymore. Neither is a mohawk. And it certainly isn’t the music. The music is completely palatable and even the Dead Kennedys were approached by Levis Jeans to use “Holiday in Cambodia” for a pants commercial (for pants that might actually have been made in a third-world sweatshop). No, the aesthetic of punk rock is very non-threatening in today’s day and age. The same thing happened to punk that happened to all of the genres of rebellious music before it – it become culturally appropriate and non-threatening. And so in come the conservatives, yesterday’s sell-outs, to claim it back.
But punk was only defined as a type of fashion in mainstream revues. It was more than just the bands and bondage pants, it was about scrutinizing your own society and throwing its garbage back at it. It has always been about saying ‘fuck you’ to the man, regardless of how you defined ‘the man.’
What is important isn’t how one can fit their aesthetic into their beliefs, but whether or not one can carry the spirit of the culture with them as it changes. I see the spirit of rebellion everywhere I look. Kids are still suspicious of authority. They are still treated like criminals by adults and reacting against it by embracing their frustration and turning it into creative and destructive acts of rebellion. Punk rock still has meaning. Geezers like Dave Smalley or me might attempt to cling to our punk roots with all our might, just so we don’t lose our identity, but unless we can carry that spirit of rebellion in our actions and words, we aren’t really punk anymore – we’re just a bunch of washed-up has-beens.
So to all of the punks out there: keep rocking hard and questioning everything. Some day you may find you don’t want to be a part of the spirit of punk anymore and you might want to join the Republican or Democratic Party (or Liberal and Conservative Party here in Canada). At that point, do the rest of us a favour and stop pretending you’re punk. Meanwhile, to everyone else who has the time and energy to kick at the door, even if you don’t know why, keep making punk a threat! Fuck the aesthetic! Keep punk rock alive by fueling it with your frustration and keep it running on rebellion!
