Comment
Bridge Over Troubled Water (1969 Video)
24 02, 21 00:21
This was originally a FB post that I think is worth retaining.
FB friend Steve Kelman posted about the 50th anniversary of the release of Simon and Garfunkel's Bridge Over Troubled Waters album, and that triggered a memory of the first time I heard (actually viewed) the title song. In 1969, even before music videos were a "thing" (MTV wasn't even launched until 1981), and months before the release of the single or album, CBS televised a special, Simon and Garfunkel's "Songs of America" (produced by Charles Grodin), that included a video version of Bridge. Even though we are learning a lot about the origins and inspiration for the song (none of it really political), it was Grodin's idea to use it as a political statement. The presentation of Bridge and other songs in the documentary was regarded as so political at the time that the original sponsor (the old AT&T) pulled out and a new sponsor was found for its one and only airing.
It is tough to get hold of the original video of Bridge as presented in that show, and the one posted here is not only of poor quality (a video of a BBC broadcast), but it is also interrupted by a commercial. Nevertheless, it is worth the effort view it as a political artifact of the time.
The video itself is posted as part one of the CBS special which is posted in three parts. To get the full political impact of Bridge, the video will start @11:20. (If anyone has a cleaner copy, please let me know -- I believe there was a DVD release of the show issued, but it is no longer available.)
https://dai.ly/x51647l
The best "backgrounder" on Bridge is found at https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200122-the-forgotten-political-roots-of-bridge-over-troubled-water.
FB friend Steve Kelman posted about the 50th anniversary of the release of Simon and Garfunkel's Bridge Over Troubled Waters album, and that triggered a memory of the first time I heard (actually viewed) the title song. In 1969, even before music videos were a "thing" (MTV wasn't even launched until 1981), and months before the release of the single or album, CBS televised a special, Simon and Garfunkel's "Songs of America" (produced by Charles Grodin), that included a video version of Bridge. Even though we are learning a lot about the origins and inspiration for the song (none of it really political), it was Grodin's idea to use it as a political statement. The presentation of Bridge and other songs in the documentary was regarded as so political at the time that the original sponsor (the old AT&T) pulled out and a new sponsor was found for its one and only airing.
It is tough to get hold of the original video of Bridge as presented in that show, and the one posted here is not only of poor quality (a video of a BBC broadcast), but it is also interrupted by a commercial. Nevertheless, it is worth the effort view it as a political artifact of the time.
The video itself is posted as part one of the CBS special which is posted in three parts. To get the full political impact of Bridge, the video will start @11:20. (If anyone has a cleaner copy, please let me know -- I believe there was a DVD release of the show issued, but it is no longer available.)
https://dai.ly/x51647l
The best "backgrounder" on Bridge is found at https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200122-the-forgotten-political-roots-of-bridge-over-troubled-water.
Comments
Accountability and the Reaffirmation of Unity
08 02, 21 16:56
(The following is one of my "Drafts" — but in reality it is a failed commentary/op-ed. I submitted it to the NYT, realizing it was much too long, and after three days of no response — which means they were not interested — I sent it to the Outlook section of The Washington Post. And now, after a week at WAPO I am going to give up. A colleague who read the submission pointed out that it is both too long for those outlets and perhaps too heavy on the historical stuff for the typical reader. And so I post it here hoping maybe a couple of folks might stumble across it and find it informative.)
Since the events of January 6, calls for accountability have saturated our airwaves as a stunned nation seeks to deal with the aftermath of the violent attack on the Capitol. Investigations and indictments have followed as we seek to identify and bring to some form of justice the most visible among the rioters. The growing demands for acco
untability extend as well to those perceived to have incited or supported the mob. In addition to a presidential impeachment in the House and calls for conviction in the Senate, there is an outcry for the censure – and even expulsion from office -- of members of Congress now characterized as part of a “sedition caucus”.
Moreover, some prominent Republicans, shocked by the role the Trump-dominated party machinery played in the violence, have given the call for accountability an organization form by establishing the “Republican Accountability Project,” with its website (accountability.gop) declaring that “Accountability is the only way forward for the Republican Party.”
In the heated rhetoric of the past several weeks, we hear calls for “unity” as a counterpoint to accountability, implying that the latter will only worsen an already divisive situation. Marco Rubio, for example, regards calls for accountability as a tactic being used by the left “to try and crush” its political opponents. Why throw fuel on the remaining embers? It is time to let things cool down, Rubio and others argue, and to get beyond some irrational desire for retribution and punishment.
However, such an argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of accountability and its historical role in the Anglo-American tradition of governance. Underlying the demand for accountability is the idea that to hold someone to account is to make them “answerable” for some action that has violated agreed upon standards of behavior expected of members of the shared endeavor we call civil society. Implied in that view are two fundamental assumptions of how we govern ourselves: first, the existence of a body of widely accepted norms (oftentimes in the form of laws) that reflects how we manage our expectations of each other; and second, the availability of some fora (e.g., courts) where those charged with violations of the agreed upon rules and standards can be called to account for their behavior.
Accountable governance, in other words, is built on a foundation of shared values and norms, and each time we are called upon to enforce those standards – that is, to hold others to account for alleged violations of mutually agreed upon expectations -- involves more than seeking retribution and punishment. Rather, each instance of accountability involves a reaffirmation of the collective commitments we make to each other.
While we associate modern forms of accountable governance with democracy and the rule of law, its roots in the Anglo-American tradition can be traced to events in Britain more than nine centuries ago. As any student of English history knows, in 1066 William, Duke of Normandy, was victorious at the Battle of Hastings and thus began the Norman Conquest of Britain. I emphasize "began", for it would take at least another decade for him to complete the subjugation of the Anglo-Saxons who had ruled England since at least the 5th century. Under the Anglo-Saxon regimes, all loyalty to the person nominally designated as the British king was filtered through an elaborate arrangement of dukes, earls and other aristocratic designations. The Anglo-Saxon kings had been chosen in a manner somewhat similar to how the College of Cardinals selects the Pope. Unlike his predecessors, William initially pursued his claim to the British throne by using force to overwhelm – and frequently replace – those who might resist his entreaties.
It was rule-by-conquest, but as a form of governance the constant reliance on the threat of coercion would not prove sustainable. This became evident when troubles in Normandy forced William to return to France and leave the governing of England to those he regarded as trusted deputies. By 1084 the situation in England had deteriorated and William returned to Britain to once again reassert his authority by force of arms. By then it was clear that rule-by-conquest had its limits in a feudal society where the allegiance and obligation of each individual was restricted to those at the next highest rung in hierarchy of titled landholders.
In its place he created a different form of governance, one based on accountability.
The effort involved two steps. First, he dispatched agents of the court to conduct a comprehensive survey of all the properties that comprised the royal “realm.” Conducting that census reflected his claim (established through coercion) that any and all things within that realm ultimately belonged to the Crown. Compilations of those surveys – known as the Domesday Books – were eventually delivered to William's castle in Salisbury where the crucial second step took place. There, in August 1086, William convened a meeting of "all men of any account." At that meeting each and every "accountable" person – regardless of station or status in the feudal hierarchy – took an oath of fealty to William. This was more than an oath of allegiance or loyalty. It was an oath acknowledging their accountability to the sovereign and commitment to meet the duties and obligations that came with being subject to the Crown. Although often overlooked in the annals of history, the taking of the Oath of Salisbury marks a pivotal moment in the history of Anglo-American governance. It represented a fundamental shift from rule-by-conquest to rule-by-accountability, and its impact can be seen in other watershed events in the development of modern democratic governance – from the Magna Carta to the American Revolution to the ongoing efforts to create and sustain regimes based on democracy and the rule of law. Today, the acceptance of accountability as a fundamental premise of modern American government is pervasive and unquestioned. Accountability is baked into our political culture, and hardly a day goes by that we do not hear someone call for greater accountability to be applied to some actor whose actions do not live up to the expectations we have of each other as members of our civil society.
Certain scandals and tragic events – from Watergate to 9/11 to Katrina to the recent attack on our national Capitol-- amplify calls for accountability focused on finding fault, assessing blame, and exacting punishment. On the surface, it is a view of accountability that stresses "answerability" and the need to "reconquer" those engaged in unacceptable behaviors. But every so often we need to be reminded that underlying our efforts to hold individuals accountable is an act of unity based on a reaffirmation of basic commitments we have to our shared values and norms as members of this imperfect civil society.
