Theory from the Times London Article (Worth Considering)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
94-99 maybe......

But what about Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me and PoPMART

They were visible here and there but did not have the sustained presence they had during other eras. People my age in high school ('83 birth) had no clue who U2 were because of the lack of presence. I myself only started to get to know U2 around the time of the Super Bowl performance.
 
Interesting theory, though the simpler answer is most likely true. Its probably mostly due to their musical interests and adventures coming full circle. I'm sure if they made another couple of albums they'd eventually go back to the basics again.
 
Theory is BS. U2's music was hardly conservative in the 1980s, it broke the mold and sounded nothing like everything else on the radio at the time. The U2 1st single that most inspired some WTF's???!! from the radio listening audience would be WOWY, not the Fly. With hair bands dominant, was it conservative or safe to go and release an album like UF? That is to say nothing of the fact that U2 vocally opposed Reagan's policies.

Others did a better job than me of explaining how AB was released under Bush Sr, ATYCLB under Clinton, etc. The lag time ensured that whoever's "culture" was still firmly in control during the recording process(1990 and 1999 for AB/ATYCLB, still firm Bush 41 and firm Clinton).

Now, as a political scientist, let me explain why the President has a very minimal influence on "culture." Elections are hardly ever the result of a complete change in how the country thinks. They are impulsive, going on the events and moods of the country at the time. Take the "Reagan revolution" for example. Supposedly started by the tax revolt out in CA- well that was not due to some liberal whacko raising taxes like crazy, it was rise in property taxes due to an economic phenemonon, inflation. It was a movement against a tax that is pretty much set, not by politicians, but by the value of your home. Plus, Reagan jacked the taxes he controlled big time in CA as well as when he was President. So why did he get elected if not for the cultural and social shift to more conservative values? 1.)the economy sucked, stagflation, oil crisis, etc mostly left over from Nixon's mess and dealt with prudently by Carter, but I digress 2.)Iran hostage crisis- combination of events that had been building in Iran since 1953 and the bad luck of Carter. He sends a rescue plane over, if it had worked, 99.999999% chance it would have, he would have been hailed as a hero, but the .0001% happened and the plane crashed. Combine that with Reagan's charisma and personal appeal and he wins. In the 81/83 recession, most Americans polled feared "Reaganomics" and the Democrats won big in 1982. 1984, again, Reagan is still charismatic, and the economy is finally rebounding due to the actions of a Carter appointed fed chairman, not Reagan. So what the hell, economy good, put the incumbent back in is how most Americans think. Clinton heralded no cultural/social shift at all- he won the most votes in a 3 way race, hardly a majority or a mandate at all, and then the economy was great in 96, so he wins again. I personally liked Clinton's policies alot better than Reagan's and think he had alot to do w/the economy while he was in office, but the point is, regardless of our views, most Americans in the middle who decide elections went for Reagan in 84 and Clinton in 96 on the strength of our economy. Bush heralded no cultural shift as he didnt win in 2000 and barely squeaked in 2004. Obama, not really, people just want someone honest, who will level with us, who is smart and humble and his mandate was big, but it was to fix the economy and restore US standing in the world, not bring about a massive cultural shift. This is not what Presidents do, culture is shaped by broad trends that develop over time.

Theory, in summary, is bullshit, someone has even more time on their hands than I do on this 4 day weekend!!
 
Theory is BS. U2's music was hardly conservative in the 1980s, it broke the mold and sounded nothing like everything else on the radio at the time. The U2 1st single that most inspired some WTF's???!! from the radio listening audience would be WOWY, not the Fly. With hair bands dominant, was it conservative or safe to go and release an album like UF? That is to say nothing of the fact that U2 vocally opposed Reagan's policies.

Others did a better job than me of explaining how AB was released under Bush Sr, ATYCLB under Clinton, etc. The lag time ensured that whoever's "culture" was still firmly in control during the recording process(1990 and 1999 for AB/ATYCLB, still firm Bush 41 and firm Clinton).

Now, as a political scientist, let me explain why the President has a very minimal influence on "culture." Elections are hardly ever the result of a complete change in how the country thinks. They are impulsive, going on the events and moods of the country at the time. Take the "Reagan revolution" for example. Supposedly started by the tax revolt out in CA- well that was not due to some liberal whacko raising taxes like crazy, it was rise in property taxes due to an economic phenemonon, inflation. It was a movement against a tax that is pretty much set, not by politicians, but by the value of your home. Plus, Reagan jacked the taxes he controlled big time in CA as well as when he was President. So why did he get elected if not for the cultural and social shift to more conservative values? 1.)the economy sucked, stagflation, oil crisis, etc mostly left over from Nixon's mess and dealt with prudently by Carter, but I digress 2.)Iran hostage crisis- combination of events that had been building in Iran since 1953 and the bad luck of Carter. He sends a rescue plane over, if it had worked, 99.999999% chance it would have, he would have been hailed as a hero, but the .0001% happened and the plane crashed. Combine that with Reagan's charisma and personal appeal and he wins. In the 81/83 recession, most Americans polled feared "Reaganomics" and the Democrats won big in 1982. 1984, again, Reagan is still charismatic, and the economy is finally rebounding due to the actions of a Carter appointed fed chairman, not Reagan. So what the hell, economy good, put the incumbent back in is how most Americans think. Clinton heralded no cultural/social shift at all- he won the most votes in a 3 way race, hardly a majority or a mandate at all, and then the economy was great in 96, so he wins again. I personally liked Clinton's policies alot better than Reagan's and think he had alot to do w/the economy while he was in office, but the point is, regardless of our views, most Americans in the middle who decide elections went for Reagan in 84 and Clinton in 96 on the strength of our economy. Bush heralded no cultural shift as he didnt win in 2000 and barely squeaked in 2004. Obama, not really, people just want someone honest, who will level with us, who is smart and humble and his mandate was big, but it was to fix the economy and restore US standing in the world, not bring about a massive cultural shift. This is not what Presidents do, culture is shaped by broad trends that develop over time.

Theory, in summary, is bullshit, someone has even more time on their hands than I do on this 4 day weekend!!

OK you can get off your soap box now. You're a democrat and you want to make love to Obama, we get it. That didn't have anything to do with the topic.

Anyone with a bit of sense can see this theory is BS. A monkey could figure it out. Maybe if U2 wrote an album one week and released it the next it could be true, but U2 takes years to create albums. What you need to look at is when the albums were written. When you do this it's painfully easy to tear this argument down.
 
OK you can get off your soap box now. You're a democrat and you want to make love to Obama, we get it. That didn't have anything to do with the topic.

Anyone with a bit of sense can see this theory is BS. A monkey could figure it out. Maybe if U2 wrote an album one week and released it the next it could be true, but U2 takes years to create albums. What you need to look at is when the albums were written. When you do this it's painfully easy to tear this argument down.

No shit, you have to look at when the albums were written, that is what I did.

I hardly want to make love to Obama, I actually reasoned well against the idea that Clinton or Obama had any kind of cultural mandate. I had doubts about the man, I was 100% Biden from the start, but anyone who can not see that Obama is a reasonable, smart person who listens and was elected by the American people because of the economy and our falling status in the world is an idiot. This is the case regardless of your political views, you can disagree with Obama, but you know why he was elected, just as I know why Reagan was elected in 1980. You may diasgree on Obama's specific plans, but you know why he got elected last yr.

I was not on any kind of soapbox, just explaining why a theory that had its own thread started about it was BS, which I have every right to do, I believe. Havent checked the forum rules recently. I didnt go off topic either, the thread was about political trends and U2's music, which I did not stray from. Obviously, since you disagree with my views, which I only let be known in this thread a VERY little, you decided to be an asshole and personally attack me.

You dont know me, so dont assume I am some kind of preachy, arrogant, soap box screaming ass liberal because I am not. I am a relatively moderate Democrat who has friends/family of all political stripes. I am a 21 yr old kid, I dont think I am smarter than anyone else.

Your "you want to make love to Obama" line shows you are an immature person who can not seriosuly discuss a topic. I am perfectly comfortable being straight, so I dont think I will be doing that anytime soon. Maybe you are insecure in your own life and thats why you had to attack me, I dont know. Dont ever make any statements such as "you want to make love w/ x or y.." to me ever again, you got it?

Discuss these things in a grown up way, and understand that people make posts based on their opinions a hell of a lot more than I do and a lot less reasoned as well. There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion on a forum. Who died and made you the decider of what is on topic and what is not.

Mods, want to let this jerk off know that you will decide when someone is derailing a thread. I dont care how long he has been here, this is unintelligent, over the line and childish.
 
Theory, in summary, is bullshit, someone has even more time on their hands than I do on this 4 day weekend!!

This statement devalues your credibility in regards to your entire dispute of the theory's validity.

I say this because you wrote more about it then anyone else so it seems you are the one with the most time ;]

So perhaps you are a contrarian indicator...meaning that the theory does have some validity!
 
This statement devalues your credibility in regards to your entire dispute of the theory's validity.

I say this because you wrote more about it then anyone else so it seems you are the one with the most time ;]

So perhaps you are a contrarian indicator...meaning that the theory does have some validity!

I wrote a couple paragraphs, it took about 10 minutes!

I would venture to say someone who thought something like this up spent not 10 minutes but something like 10 nights trying to connect these 2 things.

I am not a contrarian indicator, I have a difficult enough time expressing things in a straightforward manner!

Thanks for the concern, though!
 
Political discussions really belong in FYM. Though there is no reason for personal attacks.

You're more than welcome to make a thread there if you want to discuss U2 from a political standpoint.
 
No shit, you have to look at when the albums were written, that is what I did.

I hardly want to make love to Obama, I actually reasoned well against the idea that Clinton or Obama had any kind of cultural mandate. I had doubts about the man, I was 100% Biden from the start, but anyone who can not see that Obama is a reasonable, smart person who listens and was elected by the American people because of the economy and our falling status in the world is an idiot. This is the case regardless of your political views, you can disagree with Obama, but you know why he was elected, just as I know why Reagan was elected in 1980. You may diasgree on Obama's specific plans, but you know why he got elected last yr.

I was not on any kind of soapbox, just explaining why a theory that had its own thread started about it was BS, which I have every right to do, I believe. Havent checked the forum rules recently. I didnt go off topic either, the thread was about political trends and U2's music, which I did not stray from. Obviously, since you disagree with my views, which I only let be known in this thread a VERY little, you decided to be an asshole and personally attack me.

You dont know me, so dont assume I am some kind of preachy, arrogant, soap box screaming ass liberal because I am not. I am a relatively moderate Democrat who has friends/family of all political stripes. I am a 21 yr old kid, I dont think I am smarter than anyone else.

Your "you want to make love to Obama" line shows you are an immature person who can not seriosuly discuss a topic. I am perfectly comfortable being straight, so I dont think I will be doing that anytime soon. Maybe you are insecure in your own life and thats why you had to attack me, I dont know. Dont ever make any statements such as "you want to make love w/ x or y.." to me ever again, you got it?

Discuss these things in a grown up way, and understand that people make posts based on their opinions a hell of a lot more than I do and a lot less reasoned as well. There is nothing wrong with expressing an opinion on a forum. Who died and made you the decider of what is on topic and what is not.

Mods, want to let this jerk off know that you will decide when someone is derailing a thread. I dont care how long he has been here, this is unintelligent, over the line and childish.


I think the reason Obama was elected was because after the mess that went on during Bush's presidency people were eager to get as far away from him as possible. Seeing as how McCain previously supported most of Bush's proposals and was the more conservative choice people wanted something different. Also the generall public was drawn to Obama because of his good looks and charismatic way of thinking. These things are important to people, which I find completely ridiculous.

I'm not trying to argue either way who was the better candidate (I know if I bashed Obama on here I'd be crucified), but I think the main reason Obama was elected is pretty obvious. If Bush's last term hadn't been such a disaster I think McCain would have done MUCH better. If things go badly in the next four years (regardless of whether or not it's his fault) I highly doubt he'll be voted back in for a second term.
 
I think the reason Obama was elected was because after the mess that went on during Bush's presidency people were eager to get as far away from him as possible. Seeing as how McCain previously supported most of Bush's proposals and was the more conservative choice people wanted something different. Also the generall public was drawn to Obama because of his good looks and charismatic way of thinking. These things are important to people, which I find completely ridiculous.

I'm not trying to argue either way who was the better candidate (I know if I bashed Obama on here I'd be crucified), but I think the main reason Obama was elected is pretty obvious. If Bush's last term hadn't been such a disaster I think McCain would have done MUCH better. If things go badly in the next four years (regardless of whether or not it's his fault) I highly doubt he'll be voted back in for a second term.

Yes, and Bush's term was a disaster because of the things I mentioned. 1.)his poor handling of the economy-you dont think his massive deficits contributed anything to the credit crisis? and 2.)his failure on the international stage, particularly in Iraq, taking his eye off Afghanistan, a complete mess now, and pretty much ignoring Israel-Palestine. Yes, McCain would have done much better if Bush's term had gone better, but it did not and McCain had a chance to be the "maverick" he always claimed to be and run away from his policies in 2008. All he did was run toward them, so no sympathy from me.

Obama, though charismatic, got elected because of the issues, people had and still do have many questions about him, myself included, but he is getting the benefit of the doubt.

I dont blame you for not liking how people decide who to vote for on charisma or looks, but a few facts. 1.)Its how Reagan got elected 2.)Its how GW Bush got elected, people wanted to have a beer w. him and 3.)It was only a backdrop to Obama's election, it got him noticed, it got him a fair hearing w. the people, but the fact is that McCain was running ahead, especially in states like Florida, until the financial crisis hit. This was actually the most issues based election in a long time, and McCain's erratic handling of his votes w the financial crisis sealed his fate in the eyes of most.

Of course, if Obama's plan does not work, expect him to be voted out. He said as much himself down in Florida the other day.

Now, I'm done with you/ this thread, sorry Sicy for posting after you suggested it go elsewhere. If there is nothing negative or personal to add from you, Shart, good bye and see you next time I venture over to FYM.

Otherwise, enough of the back and forth and I will be focusing on the album release.
 
U2 are Irish. Irish, not American. They are very much involved with American people, because it's their first market and it has been so from the very beginning, they tried first the UK, but they were given very little opportunities there and they turned to US. The band was very much involved in the first Clinton's ellection with the ZooTv phone calls to Bush etc., Bono has been involved with American politicians (among others) for the last years within his work for DATA, but U2 works, even TJT and R&H, are very much the makings of European people as much as anyone can be European or American in a globalised world, not to mention AB, Zooropa or Pop.
The Times theory is not a theory, it's just a way of extending an article a few lines longer. First of all, they should have established what they consider conservative and progressive in music and then, they should have revised dates of albums and dates of presidencies (maybe a writer who knows how long a U2 album takes to be recorded would have been useful here too) and it will have been clear from the very beginning that this has no case. I'm quite shocked The Times published such a flagrant inconsistent story, I can expect it from other newspapers, but The Times usually live up to their reputation. I would like to know how they explain Tony Blair's support to G. W. Bush in terms of conservative/progressive politics.
 
I wrote a couple paragraphs, it took about 10 minutes!

I would venture to say someone who thought something like this up spent not 10 minutes but something like 10 nights trying to connect these 2 things.

I am not a contrarian indicator, I have a difficult enough time expressing things in a straightforward manner!

Thanks for the concern, though!

I was just busting your b**ls :wink:

I enjoyed reading what you wrote!

As a matter of fact, I have been accused in the past of being long winded! You should have heard my 7th grade English teacher!

:reject:
 
I'm going to shoot holes in this theory.

AB was made and released while Bush Sr. was still in office. It came out a whole year before the '92 election. If you read the Flanagan book, you'll see that the Gulf War reports were an influence on them during the writing and recording of AB.

ATYCLB was recorded and released while Clinton was still in office. It was released Oct. 2000, weeks before the election of Bush.

Though NLOTH will be released under Obama, it was made during the second George W. Bush term (taking several years)

So there.

edit: Just read the whole thread and see Rachel and others also realized this.

So there, anyway. Dumb theory.
 
Last edited:
I was just busting your b**ls :wink:

I enjoyed reading what you wrote!

As a matter of fact, I have been accused in the past of being long winded! You should have heard my 7th grade English teacher!

:reject:

Thank you! Figured as much, sometimes I take things too seriously!

I have had no shortage of accusations of being long winded leveled at me, so I understand!:wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom