Moore or less predictable

Several readers have been emailing me asking a)have I seen the full page Roy-Moore-for-Alabama-Governor ad in the SN that includes an endorsement from Gold City’s’ Daniel Riley (Nov. 2009) and b)what do I think of it?

In that order then: Yes, and Meh.

Southern gospel is a deeply politicized subculture, both in terms of its own internal political dynamics and the wider world of electoral politics. And insofar as southern gospel performers amount to celebrities within certain segments of evangelicalism, an ad recruiting Daniel Riley (and Chuck Norris!) to shill for a gubernatorial candidate in the deep South is about as extraordinary as George Clooney stumping for Barack Obama.

Now can it be disappointing for fans to see someone from their favorite group aligning himself with a fringe politician still trafficking in, among other things, the tired old racist rhetoric of “states’ rights,” esp in Alabama? Sure. But expecting sound political judgment out of someone b/c they’re a celebrity (religious or not, conservative or liberal) is rather like expecting to get sound financial advice from an ATM.

So the only real surprise about the Moore ad is that it’s taken so long for someone to do.

Some people seem to think this may be the first time a campaign ad has appeared in the SN, and this may well be true (to be sure, I’d have to defer to avfl’s honorary historian of All Things SN, Dean Adkins). But it’s certainly not the first time the SN has carried explicitly political content. Just off the top of my head, I’m thinking of the “news” piece last year announcing that Scott Fowler had attended the Iowa Caucus, and oh by the way, he got there on Mike Huckabee’s private campaign jet.

The only real difference between that “story” and this ad is that SN is getting paid this time.

Email this Post

Comments

  1. GospelMusicFan wrote:

    I didn’t have to email the host of this blog.
    I knew what the answer would be.
    Just what he wrote.

  2. Alan wrote:

    “…the tired old racist rhetoric of states’ rights”? When did something so basic and fundamental in the history of American governance become tired or especially, racist? Did I miss a redrawing of the tenth Amendment? ”

    “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. ” (1791)

    So, as I’ve always understood it, anything not specifically covered in the Constitution itself gives each state the right to pass their own laws. i.e., these are “states rights”. Am I wrong?

    Of course, so many things have been ignored and changed from the intent of the Constitution’s framers. Note their collective wisdom reflected in the original term limits section! With the most important document in our nations’ history being so abused over the last years, states’ rights are even more critically important - and pronounced - today. And that is hardly tired, and much less so racist. I thought only Jimmy Carter could find racism where it ain’t!

  3. Jason wrote:

    Maybe because Alabama used the states’ rights argument to restore white supremacy after the Civil War.

  4. Alan wrote:

    Jason, is there not a difference between 1865 and 2009? Dredging up one of the darkest eras in US history to make an argument nearly 150 years later seems a real stretch to me. Nor does one states’ abuse of states’ rights - if you’re correct - negate the established fact that states do have Constitutional rights. The ATM line was priceless, though.

  5. Michael McIlwain wrote:

    I’m finding it interesting that states such as Hawaii are beginning to get in on the state’s right issue. Many states in our country are moving this way because they can’t afford all the mandates that the federal government is placing upon them.

    I say let SG groups support who they want to support. I know that there are various political opinions in SG music. Hovie Lister was a Democrat and Scott Fowler is a Republican. Each one is entitled to his own opinion.

  6. sgnsider wrote:

    You wrote: “expecting sound political judgment out of someone b/c they’re a celebrity (religious or not, conservative or liberal) is rather like expecting to get sound financial advice from an ATM”

    …….or like expecting a non-musical blogger to give an informed opinion on music

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

*

*