The U.S. vs John Lennon/ Kyle Cross
When it comes to questioning whether or not John Lennon was politically influential during the 60's brings up a very interesting question and I think the answer is yes and no. Why yes? When it comes to political theories such as elitism and pluralism Lennon played a very unique, political role as being an artist. In some ways he was viewed as an elitist because of his easy access to the media, financial resources and faithful followers of his musical career. In some ways, I view him as a pluralist due to his strong opposition to the majority of elitists at the time and how he called upon those citizens who agreed with his views to exercise their rights, such as freedom of speech, their pluralist power, in order to sway political power in the movement's favor. Lennon's influence was successful in the release of Sinclair, but failed when Nixon was reelected president, hands down. Political power and music are "ultimately linked" (Street 253). For example, it is interesting that it is actually political policy, the constitution, that empowers people to make music to influence people, in other words exercise their freedom of speech. So, I definitely think that political figures see musicians, who oppose their views, as threats. I think censorship of all different types of mediums arose from this. But, after Nixon's reelection, Lennon and his music were no longer seen as much of a political threat. I think this could be due to the fact that Lennon considered himself an artist first and a politician second. And also because Lennon was radical and associated himself with radical people. I wasn't alive during the 60's, but I don't think everyone was a radical leftist, otherwise it wouldn't be considered that radical. I do believe that the majority of the people were middle class working people who heard his messages, but didn't care to join the revolution.