Try A Little Negativity: The John Geer Interview

In the 1964 campaign for the Presidency, with the South beginning its swift shift Right, incumbent Lyndon Johnson faced a genuine threat to the Oval Office from “Mr. Conservative” himself, Barry Goldwater. Having already tried to paint Goldwater as an unstable man of questionable mental health, Johnson and the Democratic National Committee went one step further on September 7, 1964 when they aired the now-infamous campaign advertisement known as the Daisy spot, in which footage of a little girl pulling petals from a flower is followed by a nuclear countdown and subsequent blast, mushroom clouds and all. On its surface, the ad is almost indefensible. Seen today, the ad echoes the fear-mongering tactics used in the wake of 9/11, and few would argue in the ad’s defense.

But that is exactly what Vanderbilt University’s John G. Geer does in his surprisingly readable evaluation of negative television ads in Presidential campaigns with the book In Defense of Negativity (University of Chicago Press). It is odd that a man as genial and sarcastic as Geer (he is more likely to begin his political science classes with a stark assessment of his Tennessee Titans than with a mention of John Stuart Mill or Francis Fukuyama) could devote so much of his attention to the highly despised world of negative campaign advertisements. But the result is an insightful and thorough assessment of an inventory of Presidential campaigning tactics since 1960 and the dialog they have incited.

His efforts were rewarded this year with Harvard University’s prestigious Goldsmith Award, giving Geer even more positive news in a career that has already included a teaching assignment alongside Roy Neel, former Deputy Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton, and current Chief of Staff to Al Gore, as well as an ongoing tenure as Editor of The Journal of Politics. When I spoke to Geer, he sounded as happy as I remember him being when, years ago, I attended his popular lectures. There was no doubt he was feeling confident in his undefeated Titans. But he put his smiles aside when discussing his latest book, and his advice to those attempting to promote a more educated political public was simple: try a little negativity.

DAILY SNOOZE: You open In Defense of Negativity with a quote from former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, who equates negative advertising in political campaigns to crack cocaine. What drew you to this perceived despicable topic?

JOHN GEER: I enjoyed reading about negative ads and thinking about them. In the mid-‘90s, or so, some work came out, specifically a book called Going Negative [full title: Going Negative: How Political Ads Shrink and Polarize the Electorate, by Stephen Ansolabehere and Shanto Iyengar] that raised all these horrible concerns about negative advertising. It would demobilize the electorate, it was polarizing us, and disenfranchising the less informed, and all these terrible implications. And I just didn’t buy it. I thought that doesn’t make sense. We need that kind of information. We need the good and the bad. So I just started thinking about it. And then, I had, for a completely different project, been collecting and analyzing ads, not with the intent of studying negative or positive ads, but with the intent of looking at all ads and trying to get a sense of how they affect voters. But a lot of other people have studied that, and I moved away from it, and I just got fascinated with the negative side of stuff because it was completely underappreciated, and democracies require criticism. My own academic career benefited a lot from the negativity of others. You don’t necessarily think of it as such, but you need this discussion, so I just started thinking more and more and realizing that people are missing an important part of the democratic process by thinking that we all have to hold hands and pray for world peace. That’s all fine, but sometimes there are real disagreements.

And [the third Presidential] debate was a good example. Those guys disagreed on tax policy, and I think that exchange was probably more informative than just two candidates speaking directly into the camera, saying only what they individually think. You want to try to vet each person’s ideas. So I just continued to work at it, and I realized that the way attack ads work versus positive ads, there’s a different dynamic going on, so I kind of started working on a little theory, if you will. And the data were just backing it up to a consistent level, which, you know, doesn’t always happen. And then I wrote the book with the intent of trying to reach not just the academic community, but a broader set of potential, what you might call policy elites or whatever. So it’s not super-technical, and it’s not well-written by any sort of journalistic standard, but I tried to make it at least digestible to people who are at least interested in, but not necessarily practicing political science.

DS: You say democracy requires negativity, and you use the Declaration of Independence as an example. To the casual observer, how would you connect the Declaration to, say, Hillary Clinton’s 3am ad, or Lyndon Johnson’s infamous Daisy spot?

JG: My broader point is that if you really want to change something you have to raise doubts about the status quo. You have to be critical of it. And a lot of people don’t see negativity playing any positive role. They see only a destructive role. And whether you’re talking about political ads or the context of the Declaration of Independence – obviously the Declaration of Independence is a great document. I am in no way, shape, or form trying to diminish it. My point is that the founders wrote a document that was critical of King George III, and made some pretty harsh accusations of King George III - some of which were accurate, some that were probably exaggerating what was unfolding. But they needed to make the case for why we wanted to break away. So they had to go negative on King George, first.

Every year has its own mechanisms of communication. I mean, if you go back to the era in the early 1800s of pamphlets and look at all the party pamphlets that were being put forth, there were amazingly harsh accusations being leveled. Thomas Jefferson was accused of being the Anti-Christ. That’s pretty tough stuff. And so, when you realize that, you begin to think, wait a second, the country survived it, and, secondly, these kind of attacks do play a role.

And I use that, and also the founding period. When the Constitution was put forward, the Anti-Federalists attacked it very harshly and the Federalists responded with the Bill of Rights. So that’s an example of criticism working. Anybody’s own collegiate career, or even their own career at a particular job, they’ve benefited from criticism. Of course people say negative ads are different, they’re a harsh kind of attack and it stretches the truth. Well, sure, yeah! Absolutely. But people also forget that on the flip side, positive ads are exaggerations as well. So you have this clash of information and you have to have faith the public will adjudicate it.

DS: Can you give a current example?

JG: Take, for instance, the current campaign where a lot of people think McCain has gone too negative. Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t think by historical standards he’s gone too negative. But the public certainly thinks he has, and so the public – you’ve got to give people credit for being smart. They’re not fools. And if you really believe they’re fools, then why are we having a democracy to begin with? So you’ve got to have some faith that the public can sort this stuff out, and I always do. If, in fact, candidates cross the line and go too far, it doesn’t mean that all of the sudden the public follows that. It usually means they repulse against it, and it works against the person who put it forward.

Now imagine if Obama used the last three weeks to hammer one theme, with that theme being that John McCain is a coward and not a patriot. Well that would work not at all! Because John McCain is many things, but he is certainly a hero and he is a patriot. So you can’t just make it up. And that’s the real constraining thing about negative ads that people don’t get. It really is an important part of the process. It might not be fun, and it might not make people feel good, but you need this kind of vetting.

And one of the things that I like about the American political system is that we’ve seen Obama in action for almost a year. And people may like him or dislike him, but they’ve learned a lot about him. And I think the public is much more comfortable now than they would have been six months ago supporting Obama. Why? Because they’ve learned more about him. Now, some people don’t like him, and that’s what democracy is all about. But he’s been vetted. He’s faced withering attacks, and if he becomes President, I guarantee you the attacks will not end. They will only accelerate. So if you want to sit behind the big desk, you gotta be prepared to deal with some real criticism.

DS: Could you ever see the public rejecting the outright use of negative ads?

JG: Negative ads are here to stay. Negative ads are going to be a product of a series of contextual variables, if you will. How close the race is tends to generate more negativity. So do the stakes of the race, and this race is pretty important. How far apart the candidates are makes a difference, too. Obama and McCain differ about as much as you can, not only on issues, but also in life stories. McCain is a military guy, a veteran in the sense of being around for a long time, a veteran of Congress, from a generation very different from Obama’s. And obviously he’s white, where Obama is African-American. Obama grew up and spent time in Indonesia. He grew up in Hawaii. He was Harvard-educated. He was a community organizer. He’s 47 years old. He’s 25 years younger than McCain. You know, huge differences between these people on almost all fronts, and that’s going to breed disagreement. That disagreement is important for the public to hear because if you listen to the candidates they’ll tell you they are going to solve the tax problem, they are going to solve the defecit, they are going to solve Wall St., they are going to solve healthcare. Well, they are not going to solve all of those problems. But which one has better ideas? Well, you need a clash of those ideas.

DS: You talk about that from the outset, that news media are always covering the horse race, but rarely the strengths and weaknesses of the horses.

JG: And I think that’s a huge problem, I mean in the sense that I don’t think the news media are fairly or accurately reporting what’s going on in the campaign. And further, they’re giving incentive for ad men and women to create more negative ads because they know that’s what gets covered.

DS: I know you’re confident in the voting public, but does it bother you in some sense that the kind of underlying themes in ads are so misleading that they can fool people?

JG: Well, they could fool people. But don’t forget that these ads are not isolated things. They generate discussion and response ads. So you’ve got the sex education ad [in which McCain attacks Obama], for example. That ad in and of itself, if it was the only piece of information that voters had, yeah, that could be very misleading. But that ad then generates a series of responses from the journalists, the candidate on the other side, and basically suggests that it is pretty beyond the pale and not a very fair claim. So, yeah, any one ad, if it was the only piece of information people had, could be a problem. But it’s part of a larger conversation, I think. One of the things that a negative ad does is it stirs people up to think more about these things. Where as a positive ad – let’s say that a candidate says, “Well, I’m for educated children and clean water.” I mean, that’s kind of a conversation stopper. Who’s opposed to clean water and educating children? So I take that at face value. I truly believe that John McCain wants to educate children. I truly believe John McCain wants to have clean water. What I’m interested in is how he’s going to accomplish those things. And then, what is Obama’s response? And that’s going to require a little back and forth. It’s going to require a little negativity.

DS: What’s next. Are you writing a book with Roy Neel?

JG: Professor Neel and I have been talking about it. I mean, he is busy being Chief of Staff for Al Gore again, so that’s slowed up his work, and mine as well. I’m thinking about writing a follow-up, not to Negativity, per say, but talking about the role the news media play in this process, because I don’t think it’s been talked enough about. Mostly I’ve been interested in a completely different subject: the discrimination that Mitt Romney faced as a Mormon surprised me. And I want to try and get at that more. I’ve been collecting some data with some colleagues that are trying to sort that out with a little bit more precision. I’m not Mormon myself, but I don’t understand why people who are ideologically conservative, who should have much in common with Mormons, think that Mormons are not really true conservatives, or whatever. It’s a puzzle to me, so I’m trying to think a little bit more about that.


This interview will be available soon, in its entirety, on www.stopsmilingonline.com

Postcards from the Edge: When Nobody Was Looking

Several news outlets reported today that Zimbabwe has has shut down all aid groups serving its grossly poor population. The announcement came on the heels of reports that some American and British diplomats were detained for several hours following a six mile high-speed chase only days after the American ambassador to Zimbabwe criticized its former president and current dictator for his gross and violent abuse of power.

Surely, this is news that should alarm us. This is front page news, right? (Sigh.)

No, water cooler talk today was instead filled with autopsy reports on the long-awaited close of Hillary Clinton's one-woman act, "Dead Candidacy Walking." There were gasps and blank stares of bewilderment when details of television journeyman Ed McMahon's financial situation were mentioned. And then, as if in unison, mouths were frantically covered with cupped hands when my boss revealed that McMahon had also recently broken his neck. ("He must have fallen down the stairs. Old people always fall down the stairs." one participant observed. "And maybe those checks are heavier than they look.")

The oldest guy in our group, looking a little nervous, quickly changed the subject. "Oh, and the NBA Finals start tonight! Boston and LA? Are you kidding me? It's like old times, man! What? The Stanley Cup is already over? Who won? Shit, I hate Detroit. Detroit sucks."

At lunch we discussed reality television - not for the first time, of course. Everyone agreed that "Living Lohan" is so distasteful as to warrant fewer than five minutes of wasted attention. "It's Complicated," the new psuedo-voyeuristic program that follows the sham that is Denise Richards' life, on the other hand, is well worth our time.

"She's a train-wreck!" someone said in a tone normally reserved for the parts in movies where a symphony belts out "Ode to Joy" in the background. I took a final bite of my sandwich when the conversation shifted to Richards' hair. My co-worker's matter-of-fact delivery of "It's definitely fake," was followed by a flurry of nodding heads and verbal agreements. The aura of resentment in the room was palpable.

It was then that I thought about bringing up the news from Africa. "Oh, yeah, but did I mention that Zimbabwe thing?" I'd say. "I think it's kind of a big deal. This guy lost an election and now he's terrorizing opposition leaders and capturing American and British diplomats. And to reduce further infringement by foreigners, he's kicking out all the aid groups that provide nearly 2 million people with enough food to survive on a daily basis."

I began to open my mouth, but thought better of it - everyone was ready to get back to their desks. And anyway, we had moved on to something more interesting.

Truth to Power: Obama Addresses Race

It is no secret that I am one of the millions of Americans who has watched this election saga unfold with a great deal of awe pointed in the general direction of Barack Obama. Yes, I once had the great opportunity to intern and provide a menial service to Obama in his first summer as a United States Senator in his Chicago office, and I have a photograph somewhere deep in some box of my fellow interns and I with Obama's arm draped around some of our shoulders. Sadly, if I am completely honest, that alone might be enough for me to vote for him - just that personal connection to such an important public figure makes me feel like I have participated in something far greater than myself.

But there is so much more to it than that. I became acquainted with Obama during my sophomore year in college. When I returned home throughout the year, my Godmother (a fierce crusader against social injustice before, during, and after her time serving with my Godfather, Monsignor Jack Egan) related to me stories of a talented and riveting politician from the South Side of Chicago who was gunning for Peter Fitzgerald's soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat. She'd send me clippings from time to time, and I came to know this man through newspaper and magazine articles.

Then, like so many others, I witnessed history when Obama delivered his now famous keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention in Boston. I remember it well. I sat alone in a dorm room in New York City, captivated as I had never been before by the words of a public figure. I couldn't sleep that night.

And I doubt I will sleep well tonight as I have just finished watching, for the second time, Obama's stirring speech on race from earlier this morning in Philadelphia. Addressing those dinner-table secrets and hush-hush sentiments that we so often pretend do not exist, Obama took the decidedly disgusting words of his own pastor and utilized them to promote progress and understanding in a way that is fundamentally different from anything else on the political landscape. (It reminded me of the Father's Day talk he gave at a South Side church in June of 2005, which is excerpted here, and which made me realize the degree of my own ignorance when it comes to race relations in America.)

And when I am lying awake tonight, internally debating the grand issues which Obama so eloquently addressed this morning, I will become once again, like millions of others, a participant in this presidential election, and that is what makes the Obama candidacy so special. That is the hope that the pundits and the critics so easily dismiss. Some might find his charisma to be a superficial character trait, a misleading attraction. I believe it to be the opposite, to be the foundation for an American rhetoric we might all share down the line, when push comes to shove, and when complacency with the status quo is understood to be good, but not good enough. Words are important. Words reflect our character and our own self-worth. His words, gratefully, reflect a country that might once more direct itself towards its fullest potential. See for yourself below, check out some media reactions here, or read the entire transcript here.

The Sincere Sequel: Tony Earley's "The Blue Star"

Some of us have had the great opportunity to learn under a great educator, those teachers who push forward our learning process and interest beyond expectations within a certain field, but also in the world outside of it. My friend, and Daily Snooze contributor, Alonso (see his previous post here) and I had such an opportunity when we enrolled in a freshman seminar at Vanderbilt about Ernest Hemingway's short fiction. Our professor for the class was the author Tony Earley. Though neither Alonso nor I received exemplary marks, we did gain a newfound hobby: reading and writing short stories.

By the time I signed up for my next class with Earley, essentially a beginner's guide to writing short fiction, I was a senior and had read his two collections of short stories ("Here We Are In Paradise," "Somehow Form a Family: Stories That Are Mostly True"), some of his fiction that appeared in the New Yorker, as well as his debut novel, "Jim the Boy," which garnered high critical praise and has sold upwards of 145,000 copies. The class multiplied my appreciation and understanding of fiction writers, and helped me grow past the self-consciousness that accompanies any sort of artistic endeavor. For that and many other reasons, I am extremely grateful to Prof. Earley.

Now comes Earley's second novel, "The Blue Star," a sequel to "Jim the Boy." A long time coming, some might say, but according to fellow novelist Scott Turow, who reviews the book in the New York Times Sunday Book Review here, some things are worth the wait. For Malcom Jones at Newsweek, the book is, "full of feeling but not sentimental, "The Blue Star" is both believable and enchanting." Expect our review here at the Daily Snooze as soon as we get our hands on a copy. In the meantime, check out this recent interview with Earley on Vanderbilt's website and find out why he (and probably every other successful writer out there) gets excited each time his phone rings.

The Seeing is in the Believing: Rev. Gary Davis Prays the Blues

I heard Wilco frontman Jeff Tweedy offer some fascinating personal insights during a recent interview on a Chicago radio show called The Eclectic Company, hosted by musicians Jon Langford and Nicholas Tremulis. The program is one of the last remaining staples of a formerly great lineup at 93.1 on the FM dial, and the rotating hosts usually have a creative musical giant in the studio to discuss those influences on their work that may stray from the mainstream.

Tweedy stumped even the brilliant Langford with some of his random choices, but one they could both agree on was the great Rev. Gary Davis, whose guitar style has played a role in the development of great folkies and blues artists like Dave Van Ronk, the Grateful Dead and Bob Dylan. I had heard a couple of the Reverend's recordings in the past, but Tweedy's recommendation renewed my interest in the blind bluesman who migrated from Durham to New York during the Great Migration, where he became known as the Harlem Street Singer. I went YouTube hunting and came across this star-studded clip that includes Pete Seeger, Donovan and Shawn Phillips.

I am not a religious person, and when I first heard the Rev. Davis say in this clip that he wanted to play a number that came to him by the Holy Spirit, I admit to rolling my eyes. But then I heard him begin to play and sing like a man possessed. My eyes stopped rolling and I quietly wished that all it took to believe was the ability to see.

Dead or Alive: The Stones, Blind Melon, & William Safire

Sure, we always considered Keith Richards to be the Rolling Stone most likely to succumb to his rock 'n' roll ways, but now there's a report from BBC Radio regarding a plan hatched by the geniuses of the Hells Angels to assassinate Stones frontman, Mick Jagger. (Wasn't this a short-lived sitcom on ABC?) The plot came after the notorious fatal stabbing that occurred during the Stones' 1969 performance at Altamont Speedway in California, where the Angels were both providing and breaching security.

According to former FBI agent Mark Young, the Angels (ironically) chose to make their attempt on Jagger's life by sea near his Long Island vacation home. The Angels were thrown overboard when a storm hit, and the plot went kaput. I think the obvious lesson here is that the Hells Angels should probably confine their outlaw activities to dry land.

In other frontman death and survival news, Blind Melon is back on tour with singer and songwriter Travis Warren filling in for the deceased Shannon Hoon. The Washington Post has this more detailed account of how this came to be, 12 years after a Hoon overdose left his band mates thinking it was all over.

And finally, with Hillary Clinton's front-runner status dead and gone, Barack Obama's buzzword, transformative, has come alive to such an extent as to garner some attention from my favorite wordsmith, William Safire. Safire, a former speechwriter for Dick Nixon and Spiro Agnew (he famously coined Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism" line), slowed down his Pulitzer Prize-winning journalistic career a few years ago and keeps his contributions limited to a recurring column in the New York Times Magazine called "On Language." Check out his latest here, and find out why the original maverick may have been just an opportunistic rancher.

The Phil O'Bannon Vote: Election 2008

My brother Matt sent me this link to an Aspen Times editorial titled, "In election 2008, don't forget Angry White Man," and though it kind of reminds me of an article a few years back in Vanderbilt University's satirical weekly, The Slant, it is nonetheless humorous and relatively insightful.

The author, Gary Hubbell, decries the lack of attention being paid to one key demographic: Angry White Men, of course. These gun-toting, illegal-immigrant-hating, American badasses would never vote for Hillary Clinton, voted in droves for George W. Bush, and sound suspiciously like Dick Cheney clones.

Hubbell claims that these Angry White Men may represent any cultural background, but you've got to wonder what those Angry White Men in the Catholic Church think of Republican nominee John McCain's recent acceptance of Texas pastor John Hagee's significant endorsement. What's the big deal? Not much, except that Hagee has referred to the Catholic Church as "the Great Whore," and cites Hitler's Catholic grade school education as the foundation for his anti-semitic views. Ouch. As a white man who was raised Catholic, that kind of makes me angry.

Daydream Nation: What Would You Do to Save American Democracy?

The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School recently conducted an informal survey of several notable minds in which they asked participants what they would recommend our next president do to repair our democracy. One of my favorite responses is West Wing actor Bradley Whitford's suggestion that celebrities be allowed to park in handicapped spaces, but there is no shortage of well-thought out and informative recommendations to counter his humor. Several academics agree that the closing of Guantanamo and the repairing of America's system of checks and balances are among the most important first steps towards a restored and renewed democracy.

The prospect of publicly financed elections is another popular idea, though it is one which would require an overhaul of the hearts and minds of our Congressional representatives, and is probably next to impossible to achieve amidst the current political stalemate in America. It also might hurt the economy, according to Freakonomics author Stephen J. Dubner.

But, in my mind, there is no finer response in this survey than that of Heather Gerken, a professor at Yale Law:

If the president asked me to identify a reform proposal for fixing what ails our democracy, I would tell him that he is asking the wrong question. We already spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about what's wrong with our election system and how to fix it. The problem is that we are fighting reform battles on hostile terrain, and almost no one is thinking about how to change the terrain itself. Our focus should not be on end goals but on how to get from 'here to there' — how to create an environment in which reform can actually take root...

Rather than urge the president to fight the same fight in the vague hope that his proposal, unlike so many others, will take root, I would urge him to step back and think about how to create an environment that is more receptive to change generally. It is time to think less about end results and more about the institutional correctives and intermediary strategies that will help us get from 'here to there.' We have already spent a lot of time identifying the journey's end. Now is the time to figure out how to smooth the road that leads there.

My 'here to there' proposal might seem modest when compared to the goals typically articulated by reformers—rewriting campaign finance laws, a nonpartisan system for administering elections, redistricting reform. But proposals like these have been met with a deafening silence from voters and politicians. We know the basic outlines of the reform we need; we don't need a president to help us with that. What we need is an environment in which change can happen. That is where presidential vision and leadership can make a difference.

In other words, Ms. Gerken is explaining that to chart a reformed course for American democracy, we need a reformed strategy that abandons those tired methods which have been so unsuccessful for so long.

I remember being appalled by an article in Harpers Magazine by Ken Silverstein in which he went undercover to expose the subterfuge practiced by K-Street lobbyists, and their incestuous relationships with our political representatives. If you have the time, I recommend you read it here.

When I complained to my father after reading this article about the blind eye we Americans turn to the degree of blatant corruption and misguided ethics, he looked at me as though I were a child just discovering the true nature of Santa Clause, devastated by the harsh reality I simply avoided previously. "We live in the best country in the world," he said. "We can't be perfect."

My dad's response disappointed me greatly. After all, this is the man who always pointed out that the B+'s on his children's report cards were not A's. If we are content to settle with the current state of affairs, then we are no better than an underachieving student capable of far greater things. Or a celebrity willing to step on the rights of others in order to get a better parking spot.

CSN Why? Neil Young and the Power of Music

Somewhere Bono is crying. The whole "music can change the world" movement (yes, it still exists, if only in the hearts and minds of the innumerable, scraggly old hippies who roam the Denver streets like zombies) took another hit this week when Neil Young expressed his dismay over the limitations of music's ability to affect change.

Said Young: "I think that the time when music could change the world is past... I think the world today is a different place, and that it's time for science and physics and spirituality to make a difference in this world and to try to save the planet."

An odd set of statements given Young's history of topical songwriting, no? This is the man who wrote "Ohio" in protest of the Kent State shootings in 1970 and had it released to radio stations within a couple of days. He's also the guy who composed and released Living With War just a couple of years ago in response to what he saw as an unjust war.

And yet, a University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine study discussed last week in the New York Times claims that teenagers listen to music for almost two and a half hours a day. How is it, then, that music cannot change the world? That two and half hours a day is far more time than I spent with my parents on a daily basis as a teen. Of course, reading further into the study, we find that during that same two and a half hours of audio enjoyment, teens receive 35 substance abuse references every 60 minutes.

A few months ago, I spoke with rock critics Greg Kot and Jim DeRogatis about Rock 'n' Roll's ability to do good. I asked for their favorite example of a musician who might be a criminal if not for the music they learned to play.

In his response Kot said the following: "I think a lot of the best rock music was made by the middle class. Don’t you think? It’s the middle class people that are kind of thinking about the world. It's not necessarily that we’re saved by rock ‘n’ roll, I think that’s almost kind of a myth – 'My life was saved by rock ‘n’ roll.'"

Derogatis politely interrupted his counterpart, repeating, "It's not a myth. It is not a myth." When it was his turn to respond to the question, his answer was surprising, to say the least. "I think Kurt Cobain was a guy whose life was saved by rock ‘n’ roll," Derogatis said. "It may seem ironic given the way his life ended. But he was an incredibly smart and sensitive guy in backwater Aberdeen, Washington. You know, where going out and shooting a shotgun off, hopefully just at stop signs, but more often than not, at people you didn’t like, was a version of a nice time. And instead he discovered a world of ideas and brilliance."

As an often naive idealist, I'm with DeRogatis on this one, and Kot has Neil Young in his corner. The idea that a creative art form such as Rock 'n' Roll lacks the ability to change the world is a depressing one. But if a message as great and powerful as Martin Luther King's was accompanied by the music of the Staple Singers, why can't today's change agents utilize a vast stable of artists who are able to produce a noise that might make us think, make us question, and make us hope? Neil Young may have said one thing, but his actions tell us another: that he is a thoroughbred in that stable, and one whose music will continue to inspire long after he is gone.