The US vs. John Lennon

The new documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon," now playing nationwide, tells the story of Lennon's transformation from loveable moptop to anti-war activist, and recounts the facts about Nixon's campaign to deport him in 1972 in an effort to silence him as a voice of the peace movement.

In the film, Walter Cronkite explains that J. Edgar Hoover "had a different conception of democracy" from the rest of us; George McGovern talks about losing the 1972 election to Nixon; Sixties veterans Angela Davis, Bobby Seale, John Sinclair and Tariq Ali recall their movement days; and G. Gordon Liddy happily explains the Nixon point of view: Lennon was "a high profile figure, so his activities were being monitored."

Those "activities" – planning a concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration for the 1972 election – were stopped cold by Nixon's deportation order; but more than 30 years later, in the 2004 election, another group of rock stars finally did exactly what Lennon had been thinking about doing.

Although the Lennon film never explicitly connects the Vietnam war to Iraq, it's impossible not to think of the present when Nixon is shown saying, "as South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater" (and then wipes sweat off his upper lip). But there's only one explicit reference to the present in the film, and it's brief: Gore Vidal says "Lennon represented life, and Mr. Nixon, and Mr. Bush, represent death."

The real star of the film of course is Lennon, whose biting wit shines through. On his way to his deportation hearing, a newsman says, "You say you've been in trouble all your life – why is that?" "I'm just one of those faces," he replies; "people never liked me face." (I worked on the film as historical consultant, and appear in it briefly.)

Nixon got the idea of deporting Lennon from an unlikely source: Strom Thurmond, Republican Senator from South Carolina, who sent a letter to the White House in 1972 that outlined Lennon's plans for a US concert tour that would combine rock music with antiwar organizing and voter registration. Thurmond knew that 1972 was the first year 18-year-olds were given the right to vote, and that Nixon, up for reelection, worried about 11 million new voters -- who were probably all Beatle fans and mostly anti-war. Thurmond's memo observed that Lennon was in the U.S. as a British citizen, and concluded "deportation would be a strategic counter-measure."

It worked; the Lennon tour never happened.

For the next 30 years, the idea of a tour combining rock music and voter registration languished, until 2004, when Bruce Springsteen and a group of activist rock musicians did an election year concert tour of battleground states with a strategy very much like Lennon's. The "Vote for Change" tour, organized by MoveOn PAC, brought the Dixie Chicks, R.E.M., Pearl Jam, and a dozen others on a tour of swing states, with the explicit goal of getting young rock fans to register to vote and vote against the Republican in the White House.

If the idea of using rock concerts to register young voters was the same, the 2004 tour had different politics from its 1972 predecessor – that much is clear from the one concert Lennon did do before the deportation order came down: the "Free John Sinclair" concert in Ann Arbor in December, 1971. Sinclair was a Michigan activist who had been in prison for two years for selling two joints of marijuana to an undercover cop; 15,000 people turned out for the concert. "The U.S. versus John Lennon" features footage from that concert, including wildly radical speeches by Jerry Rubin, and Bobby Seale, who said "the only solution to pollution is a people's humane revolution!"

The Vote for Change tour had much less political talk, and much milder rhetoric. On opening night in Philadelphia in October, 2004, Bruce Springsteen made only a brief political statement: "We're here to fight for a government that is open, rational, forward-looking and humane," he said – not quite the same as Jerry Rubin at the 1972 concert shouting "what we are doing here is uniting music and revolutionary politics to build a revolution around the country!"

The 2004 effort was much bigger and better organized than what Lennon had in mind. It included thirty-three concerts on a coordinated schedule that moved from battleground state to state. On opening night a month before election day the focus was Pennsylvania. Springsteen played in Philadelphia, the Dixie Chicks played Pittsburgh, Dave Matthews did State College, Pearl Jam was in Reading, John Mellencamp in Wilkes-Barre and Jackson Browne and Bonnie Raitt in Erie. The next night they all moved to Ohio, then Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Florida, and then a giant finale brought everyone together in Washington, DC.

Of course 1972 and 2004 ended the same way – with the re-election of the Republican incumbent. In '72, Nixon won by a landslide; in 2004, Bush barely won the popular vote – you might call that progress.

One factor has remained the same over the last 35 years – young voters are the least likely to vote, and potentially a rich source of progressive support. The challenge of overcoming their apathy and ignorance remains – as does the strategy of reaching them through music. Thus what Lennon thought about in 1972, and what Bruce Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks and others did in 2004, remains a key to mobilizing young voters in the future.

As Lennon says in "The U.S. vs. John Lennon," "our job now is to tell them that there still is hope, we must get them excited about what we can do again."

Comments (14)

1. bravo and liberty have clearly never been to northern california.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/13/2006 @ 12:07am

2. why are conservatives so not sexual?

   nothing is more of a turn off than a conservative.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/13/2006 @ 12:08am

3. There is a message in this in that many of us personal know someone who did COME BACK and his influence is still as strong and considerably just as important as it was 2000 years ago!

   Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/12/2006 @ 10:36pm

   his influence was pretty weak two thousand years ago. And from the way you guys behave, it appears it's just as weak today.

   Posted by Will C. at 09/13/2006 @ 12:29am

4. I wish that it were true that Christ's influence was strong and important today, but it isn't: Jack Abramhoff's play showed that it's all a ruse, that greed and power are stronger than Christ's teachings, especially within the Republican Party. The Republicans are using Christ's name for social engineering. They're not a humble, least of my brothers lot. As Max VonSydow says in "Hanna and Her Sisters" if Jesus came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop vomiting. Jesus was a radical. The current administration is using religion as a front for their true belief system: greed. How in the name of all that is Holy can anyone who's studied Jesus' teaching reconcile them with Dick Cheney's vision of humanity as expressed by his politics? They're at polar extremes.

   Posted by Lazaro Vega at 09/13/2006 @ 02:28am

5. Posted by DARLADOON 09/13/2006 @ 12:08am

   DARLA, you're gay. So how many conservative lesbians do you run into anyway?

   Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 09:07am

6. BTW, I LOVE Mr Wiener's sub-text....

   "If John Lennon had had his 'get out the vote' concert...McGovern wouldn't have lost"...hehe

   Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 09:08am

7. "Of course 1972 and 2004 ended the same way – with the re-election of the Republican incumbent."

   Hint: The hippie peace/love/dove/Woodstock/Rock musicians as philosophers crap ain't working!

   Posted by woodyee at 09/13/2006 @ 1:31pm

8. Speaking of bankrupt: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/13/air-america-bankruptcy/

   EXCLUSIVE: Air America To Declare Bankruptcy, But Progressive Radio Remains Strong Air America Radio will announce a major restructuring on Friday, which is expected to include a bankruptcy filing, three independent sources have told ThinkProgress.

   Air America could remain on the air under the deal, but significant personnel changes are already in the works. Sources say five Air America employees were laid off yesterday and were told there would be no severance without capital infusion or bankruptcy. Also, Air America has ended its relationship with host Jerry Springer.

   The right wing is sure to seize on Air America's financial woes as a sign that progressive talk radio is unpopular. In fact, Air America succeeded at creating something that didn't exist: the progressive talk radio format. That format is now established and strong and will continue with or without Air America. Indeed, many of the country's most successful and widely-syndicated progressive talk hosts -- Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller, for instance -- aren't even associated with Air America.

   Radio giant Clear Channel is so committed to progressive talk radio that, this week, it will announce a partnership with the Center for American Progress, Jones Radio, and MSS Inc., to conduct a nationwide search for the next Progressive Talk Radio Star.

   Posted by woodyee at 09/13/2006 @ 1:36pm

9. Posted by WOODYEE 09/13/2006 @ 1:36pm

   Expected....and just as predictable will be the calls of "So, we progressives don't need radio to tell us what to think like you stupid cons"....

   from the same people that 2 years ago claimed that Al, Randi, Malloy, Seder, etc. would "stomp Rush Limppaw and Sean Insanity...just wait and see!"

   Posted by Mask at 09/13/2006 @ 2:02pm

10. Maybe the younger people don't vote because they have apathy towards liberal ideas. They want the big house, big car and big cash that socialism and fairness can't deliver. Keep your hands off my money.

    Posted by bobthestew at 09/13/2006 @ 7:22pm

11. Fascinating. A whole page devoted to right wing posters egging people on to fight with them, so I don't even get to read a coherent response to the initial post. Really, that is glorious internet reading. Hey, here's one: accuse me of being too liberal for "real" freedom of speech. That'll burn me. And, hey, stop posting articles in your posts: it's annoying and it's unrelated. Get your own blog for that.

    Posted by ANDREWBAUER at 09/14/2006 @ 03:53am

12. Posted by ANDREWBAUER 09/14/2006 @ 03:53am

    I thought my second post (not to DARLA) was quite coherent.

    Mr Wiener tried to make some subtle "linkage" to the shut-down of Lennon's anti-war concert, and the 1972 election. Ridiculous on the face of it, given the landslide Nixon got.

    And it also granted Lennon (who in death, like JFK, has achieved a liberal apotheosis) the power to "change the world", while all he really ever did was entertain people.....and make $100 Million doing it!

    Posted by Mask at 09/14/2006 @ 09:01am

13. Mask, Yes John Lennon was essentially an entertainer first, and no concert tour by itself would have ever changed the results of the election, but can we at least agree that McGovern was proved right by history: after months of worrying about the shape of the table, we left Vietnam, and in the end all the effort this nation expended there just didn't amount to one spit's worth of difference.

    Posted by jhartfd at 09/14/2006 @ 12:08pm

14. "I wish that it were true that Christ's influence was strong and important today, but it isn't: Jack Abramhoff's play showed that it's all a ruse, that greed and power are stronger than Christ's teachings, especially within the Republican Party. The Republicans are using Christ's name for social engineering. They're not a humble, least of my brothers lot. As Max VonSydow says in "Hanna and Her Sisters" if Jesus came back today and saw what was being done in his name, he'd never stop vomiting. Jesus was a radical. The current administration is using religion as a front for their true belief system: greed. How in the name of all that is Holy can anyone who's studied Jesus' teaching reconcile them with Dick Cheney's vision of humanity as expressed by his politics? They're at polar extremes.

    Posted by LAZARO VEGA 09/13/2006 @ 02:28am"

    Quoted for great truth. Lazaro, thank you for this post.

    I am reminded of the bumper sticker "God, please save me from Your followers." But we mean the "followers" like Pat Robertson, Dick Cheney and GWB, the megachurch megapastors and their megafollowers, the televangelists and their telefollowers, rather than the millions of humble, good people who strive to walk in Jesus's footsteps and to follow his real teachings. I have known many of them and they are a joy to be around. Someday, God willing, this perversion of Christianity by the megachurches and the televangelists will end... and I do believe that there is a special place in hell reserved for the megapastors and the televangelists.

    Posted by siegeljd at 09/14/2006 @ 11:49pm