Political Songs
Reading edition
If one goes up a mountain and surveys all the kingdoms of the world one sees a good many horrible things. Few of them are worse, in their way, than the modern political song. There have been bad political songs in all ages. Cæsar’s soldiers used to sing some which were not merely uninspiring but irrelevant, and Lilli Burlero (or Lillibulero) itself was no great shakes as a poem although its tune had a swing. But there have never been any to equal in badness the kind of songs that has been generated by the British party system. The only modern politicians who ever manage to generate a good song are the Socialists. Socialist song-books, in spite of their plenitude of hack phrases about chains and freedom’s dawn, always have a good deal of tolerable poetry in them. William Morris’s political songs are excellent, and some of the modern foreign Socialist songs are really worthy expressions of the movement. When their words are not good their tunes are: witness the Internationale and that stirring Italian labour song that is now, I believe, prohibited by King Victor’s Government. But the kind of songs that our good Liberals and Conservatives sing at their meetings are gruesome.
I hold in my hand—as the saying goes—the Liberal Song Sheet now being used at big party meetings. One or two of the more facetious ditties show some ingenuity, and there is a certain go about the first line of “Stamp, stamp, stamp upon Protection”; but for the rest the only song the writer of which would not get a birching in any properly constituted society is Ebenezer Elliott’s God Save the People, which is generations old. “Let who will make a nation’s laws as long as I make its songs,” said some writer. One might add: “Let who will make a nation’s songs as long as they are not done by the people who make its laws.” Caucus-provided laws may be all right, but caucus-provided songs, written by party agents and under-secretaries, are not successful.
The chief characteristic of the Liberal songs, apart from their metrical and linguistic peculiarities, is their insistence upon incongruous military image. Imagine Mr. Asquith donning bright armour and taking part in the incidents depicted in these verses—to the tune of Who will o’er the Downs?
Our leaders, tried and trusted men, Still love the ancient faith, To Freedom and to Conscience true In danger and in death. And they have donned their armour bright, Their courage all aglow, To lead the toilers of the land Against the Tory foe. For years we’ve suffered pain and loss, By privilege oppressed; Our birthright has been filched from us And left us sore distress’d. But now our leaders—trusted, tried— Are keen to strike a blow, And wrest our stolen acres from The proud, disdainful foe.
It is not my business to discuss the justness of the judgments here implied, but what on earth is the point of suggesting that Mr. Asquith, Mr. George, Mr. Lulu Harcourt, Lord Haldane, and so on, are true “in danger and in death”? They may have come unscathed through the fire of Suffragette dog-whips, but nobody calls them to die for disestablishment. There is here an utter lack of reality, a lack that must prevent these songs from moving anybody to action, as good songs should do. They are as conventionally false as the cheapest kind of leading article.
Here are some more extracts from the same source:
We defend the right we won in ages past; We demand the measures by the Commons passed, Let no Lords presume to wreck the work at last, For we go marching on. Freedom for our trade and nation From all insolent vexation. For democracy’s salvation We all go marching on. Peers and Tories may to wreck the work unite, Britain’s sons for Britain’s freedom still shall fight; None shall hinder us till triumph is in sight, As we go marching on. Then up to the sky with your Hip-hip-Hooray! For the unbeaten leader, who leads us to-day. For Asquith—to-day, after long, weary years, Our victorious Captain o’er Tories and Peers. Then cheer with a will for the great deed is done; Attacking the Veto, we’ve fought and we’ve won; Henceforward these islands of ours are to be Not the Land of the Peers but the Land of the Free. Long, long in shameful slavery The emerald isle hath lain, The victim of past knavery, And Unionist disdain. But Freedom’s day is coming— See how the foemen flee! Home Rule is just And come it must To set old Ireland free! One blow will end the matter! Strike, strike it with a will! The enemy we’ll scatter And quickly pass our Bill. Our leaders are determined, True followers are we, Our arms are strong To right the wrong And set old Ireland free.
A curious thing is that almost universally in these songs the virtues and actions of the party leaders get almost as much attention as the political questions at issue. This is the mark of the caucus.
It is a very difficult thing to write a good propagandist song at all. A first-rate tune will often cover up the most prosaic words, but generally speaking political songs split on the rock of the specific. It is the greatest mistake to expect to stir people with verses dealing with a particular Bill. The spirit of freedom, the spirit of revolt, the passion of love, or the passion of hate, may make good songs, but it is a hopeless task to try to make poetry out of the taxation of land values or an import duty on corn. A good Socialist song may deal with brotherhood or service, but it cannot deal with “the nationalization of the means of production, distribution, or exchange.” One should avoid the kind of concrete details that produce a sense of anticlimax, and the kind of personalities that sound false. The spirit of Liberty may appropriately be depicted in a helmet, but it is silly to conjure up a picture of Mr. Asquith with a suit of armour over his frock-coat. Even the fact that a thing is glaringly true does not necessarily make it suitable for metrical statement. It is true that there is an insufficient supply of sanatoria and that the thought profoundly moves many people. But a song emphasizing the fact must be a failure. Modern political songwriters fail (1) because they are usually people who cannot write verse at all, (2) because they try to make their songs like extra-rhetorical speeches or articles. Probably the next Liberal song will deal with the ravages of pheasants.