As promised, here is part two of my interview with Bad Religion. For this interview, I spoke with Brett Gurewitz, one half of the songwriting team in the band and we used the lyrical subjects from The Empire Strikes First [review] and previous records as a jumping off point to look at some of the issues they've raised. Greg, unfortunately, couldn't participate in this part, but you can see my interview with both him and Brett that was posted on Saturday in the first part.
First, because it is one of my favourite songs, I wanted to ask you about "Sorrow." It confused me to no end because of all the religious imagery. Well, itâs the story of Job from the Old Testament. Job was the most righteous man in the world. The devil said to God "these people are basically bad" and god said "Well no."
The devil said "Give me one example" and god said "Look at Job, heâs a righteous man."
The devil said that he could corrupt him like any man, and they made a wager. And that was godâs way of rewarding the one righteous man on the planet. That was god turning his back on the one man who was good and righteous. Thatâs not god, thatâs religion.
Thatâs an example of how detestable religion is. What is the lesson there?
No matter how good you are, god will turn his back on you? This is the basis for Judaeo-Christian religion? Is it any surprise the world is so screwed up.
They say that the story of the Job is the saddest story ever told, so it seemed like the best archetypal story to start a song called "Sorrow"
It seems telling that it picked up a lot of meaning after September 11th.
It took on meaning, but thatâs the beauty of using archetypes in writing. It makes your song somewhat universal. I try to do that as much as possible. It gives the song more power; it imbues it with more potential.
Most of my themes were political on the new record, but the song "Beyond Electric Dreams" isnât about religion, but about spirituality. Itâs about finding hope and a basis for a moral code in nature; not needing to seek that through some kind of transcendental channel.
"Let Them Eat War" reminded me less of hip hop than I thought it would.
Itâs definitely in the context of Bad Religion; he sings a verse, he does it in his own style.
It reminds me of the Jim Carroll spoken word bit in And Out Come the Wolves
Itâs poetry, but even if it is hip-hop, thatâs ok. If it challenges what people think is "allowed" then thatâs good.
That song in particular seems to hit the current administration the hardest. His re-election campaign is about being a war president.
The main theme of that song is the way that Bushâs support comes from the working poor and the working class, and yet these are the people who his policies hurt the most.
Heâs managed to hijack their religion, so they tend to vote in lockstep.
His policies reward the wealthy, and do the most harm to the working poor. In times of war, they rally around their president and encourage their children to join the military. All the while, Bush cuts benefits to the military and increases benefits to the wealthy corporations. Itâs a great irony. One would think that if there were any sanity in the world, those people would be opposing Bush.
Theyâre buying into the tendency to blame things on globalization, for example; itâs misdirection.
Theyâre taking him hook, line and sinker. Itâs because his politics are the politics of fear. He and his team - mainly Karl Rove - have been extremely sophisticated in the user of the media. Especially these very friendly outlets like Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh. These folks really buy the whole program.
Yes, "Let Them Eat War" is an anti-war song, but itâs asking a more complicated question: How is it that his support base is so gullible?
It seems like 1984 is a reoccurring theme on the record. "Boot Stamping on a Human Face Forever" being the most obvious. You didnât say "doublespeak" but you've hinted at it.
I really think Orwell was a visionary. Take the line "You deserve Two Minutes Hate," it comes from the television show the citizens were required to watch. It was two minutes of propaganda. There is a certainly an Orwellian undercurrent. I really feel that the writings of Orwell were prophetic.
Orwell talked about how the only limit to his totalitarian vision was the lack of technology. He spoke about central authorities in his non-fiction writing, and now, it seems like a lot of that technology exists and is being gradually phased in.
If you interpret things a little differently, like the whole idea of Big Brother controlling the brains of the population via little cameras in every apartment. It hasnât happened; instead we have a monitor in every apartment.Â People tune into "Big Brother" and their brains are controlled by what theyâre told. Itâs much more subtle, but kids are turning into Fox News and watching the "No-Spin Zone" or "Hannity and Colmes" and then turn to CNN and say, "Thatâs the liberal media!"
Thatâs a coercive force. CNN is quite conservative.Â Itâs astounding how television has managed to homogenize and declaw the American worldview.
The never-ending war is the most Orwellian. A War on Terrorism is like a War on Weather. Itâs an abstraction so itâs by definition a never-ending war.
What is war if not terrifying? How can you have a war on terror? What about the language that has entered into our daily lives? Itâs not doublespeak, but whatâs friendly fire, or collateral damage. What are "Islamic Extremists" exactly?
All these things, a little at a time, chip away at the national resolve.
Since September 11th, there have been no major attacks on US soil, and so you see politicians on television claiming that the war on terror is effective. Thatâs pretty textbook example of specious reasoning.Â Terrorism is multi-variate and any number of reasons could exist for a decline or upswing in terror attacks.
Thatâs what I mean by the sophisticated manipulation of people by the media. What brought president Bush - an unpopular president when he entered office - popular support? A huge terrorist attack.
People rally behind the president in a time of fear. If there is no terror attack, heâs doing a good job and people will support him. If there is another terrorist attack, his popularity goes up, not down.
Itâs a lose-lose situation for broad-minded liberals with a progressive worldview.
Itâs not even a question about liberal media anymore. The BBC is not liberal, The Economist, a magazine I subscribe to, is considered quite conservative.Â But because theyâre European, they donât feel that being "conservative" means that they have to agree with everything Bush does.
Ideology is always a bad thing. To be rigidly ideological is any direction is a bad idea, because any conviction should come from investigation and evidence.
Having said that, there is a political pendulum that swings right to left, and right now itâs swung so far to the right that itâs terrifying to me. Iâve never seen anything like it in the US.
Thatâs why I bring up the "liberals as champions of reason and probity." Itâs true that some arenât and are simply ideological, but it is by far the lesser of two evils.
Were you a Clinton supporter?
My personal politics are far more liberal than Clinton, but I think he was a much, much better president that Bush. The worst thing he did was getting a blowjob.
He did oversee the biggest peacetime expansion in history.
He did luck out a little.
He was a great president.. Every positive and meaningful reform in the modern era was a liberal reform. As a Democrat, Clinton is on the liberal side, so I supported him more than his opponent each time.
Looking back on the Clinton days, that was the golden era compared to today.
Â "Godâs Love" seems like a really melancholy song… there has always been a undercurrent to Bad Religion, but that one seems particularly sad. Itâs sad, but I think itâs also a rousing song. I think itâs pretty powerful. As Greg explained it to me, sometimes youâll see a starving, suffering child or suffering in the world around you and theologians will say to a child, "God loves us Billy."
And weâll ask "How can God do this do this to us?" Heâll tell us that weâre just men and we canât understand God. God does love us, but itâs hubris to think we can understand his master plan so weâre just supposed to have faith.
Greg is asking, is this how God shows his love?
We have a president who genuinely thinks heâs doing the right thing. And where does this conviction come from? Itâs certainly not from evidence because there isnât any. His conviction must come from God. The most powerful man in the world, and heâs trying to make a decision whether to go to war, and there isnât any evidence for it, so he prays. And a little voice says "Go to war, do it for me."
And then he has the conviction that heâs doing the right thing, and heâs doing it for Godâs love.
And then we have these Muslims and theyâre cutting off this Jewish guyâs head, and doing it for Allah. Thatâs not God; the god that these people are talking about seems like a bloodthirsty curmudgeon.
Do you ever worry that youâre going to be accused of overreacting and being too dramatic? Like when progressive people bring up 1984, many people just accuse them of being melodramatic.
Not to sound like an old man, but Iâve been making records for twenty years and Iâve never really brought it up before. To say that anyone who is raising his or her voice in this day and age is overreacting is akin to how Rush Limbaugh saying that the American soldiers in Abu Ghraib were just "blowing off steam."
This is one of my first experiences with this. I canât really remember the last time a Republican was in office.Â I sometimes wonder if my concerns are overt because Iâve never seen anybody but Clinton.
This is the worst, this is worse than Reagan by far.Â That was still during the Cold War and there were checks and balances on American power. Even Vietnam took place during the Cold War. So, while world opinion was largely against the action in Vietnam, it wasnât the same set of circumstances.
In the world, you aligned yourself with the Soviet Union or with NATO. Vietnam was the wrong war and it was an immoral war. But people didnât think that the US was a superpower run amuck. They were still being kept in check by the Soviet Union. There was a sense of containment of both of the super powers.
Now, the US is the sole superpower in the world, and we have unilaterally and pre-emptively attacked a sovereign nation who was no threat to us. And there is nobody to contain us.
The whole world is watching and the difference is there is more responsibility that comes from being the only superpower on the planet. You have to take the moral course.
The founding fathers were also very insistent on internal checks and balances between levels of government by electing each branch seperately, but now itâs Republican controlled in all directions.Â Iâm surprised theyâve only put in the partial-birth abortion bill.
If they get re-elected, theyâll put another conservative justice on the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade is gone; the womanâs right to choose is gone. Born-Again Christians give a fetus more rights than an independent woman.
Overall, it seemsÂ that this is a very dark record, lyrically.
What the record is saying is that these times are desperate, and something has to be done and I believe music can be a force for social change and we made this record very topical so that hopefully it will have a positive influence and help in some small way to facilitate that change.
Weâve gone twenty years without making a topical record.
I think that restraint is what will make people take it more seriously, because youâve never done anything like this.
Weâve always been political; weâre secular humanists, weâre feminists. Weâve always championed social justice. These have always been causes that weâve held high and yet weâve never been a preachy band. Weâre not a "funny" punk band that decided to become political. I hope weâre somewhat credible on that level.
Weâve never been explicit or topical on a record because the times never warranted it.
Are you fundamentally idealistic about the future?
I donât want to be a defeatist, but I donât have a rosy outlook.