WSJ on Michael Jackson: He belongs in the dustbin of history

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page’s ongoing hostility toward pop culture has taken a bizarre new turn (even by the Journal’s standards) with this new essay by Bret Stephens, who decided that it would be fruitful to compare the exploits of Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong to the accomplishments of the recently deceased Michael Jackson. One of the conservative movement’s best and brightest minds when it comes to foreign affairs, Stephens is apparently unhappy that our celebrity-obsessed media has wildly over-covered Jackson in the last few weeks (geez, the media goes nuts over a reclusive pop star’s mysterious death -- that’s a real news flash, huh?) while largely ignoring the achievements of the man who first walked on the moon 40 years ago.

Apparently oblivious to the fact that in addition to being a genuine kook, Jackson was a hugely popular and innovative force for several decades in popular music, Stephens tosses him into the dustbin of history, saying that while most ‘half-way educated people’ will continue to honor Armstrong a hundred years from now: ‘It’s also a safe bet that in a century the name Michael Jackson will be familiar only to five or six cultural anthropologists and, possibly, a medical historian.’ He goes on to argue that today’s culture has severed its links between merit and celebrity, complaining: ‘We make a fetish of uninteresting, detestable, loud or unaccomplished people: Paris Hilton, Princess Di, Keith Olbermann, Michael Jackson.’

I have to admit that it’s sort of wonderful to see, in just two sentences, a perfect illustration of why the conservative movement has managed to marginalize itself as an oddball minority, full of stuffy old white guys who are inherently hostile to the broad sweep of our nation’s popular culture. Does Stephens really believe it’s appropriate to lump Jackson in with two genuinely forgettable lightweights like Hilton and Olbermann, as if the charismatic pop singer who sold zillions of records was some obnoxious diet book guru who enjoyed a tiny 15 minutes of fame? Apparently Stephens is unable to distinguish between a personage’s messy private life and his or her often formidable public achievements.

Stephens seems most unhappy that today’s pop culture seems to value exhibitionists over stoic, private heroes like Armstrong. Fair enough. As a baseball fan, I’d take Sandy Koufax, another reticent hero of the ‘60s, over preening, self-absorbed stars like Barry Bonds and Jose Canseco. But the Armstrong versus Jackson comparison is unfair to both men. A deeply private man who even refused to appear in ‘In the Shadow of the Moon,’ the great documentary about the Apollo program and our race to the moon, Armstrong has deliberately chosen to stay out of the limelight. Jackson thrived on public acclaim, with his weird private life often becoming the center of attention.

But great artists have often been peculiar, not altogether pleasant people -- just imagine the media uproar if Van Gogh had been a famous painter when he cut off his ear. Charlie Chaplin had the world’s messiest, tabloid-worthy private life, repeatedly having affairs with women younger than anyone Woody Allen has courted in any of his movies. But now, as we grow close to a century away from Chaplin’s groundbreaking films, we still see him as a giant of the cinema, his sordid private life fading into the background. The same will happen with Jackson a hundred years from now. It’s what conservatives always fail to understand about pop culture. It’s not a buttoned-down world where you’re rewarded for living an admirable life. Artists are often both silly and soulful, arrogant and audacious. They are the product of a democracy, which doesn’t make you pass a good character test before you get to become a star, whether you’re a politician or a pop singer.