David McAllister looks at the controversy surrounding a hit protest song in the US, and argues that we cannot allow the right to appropriate working class anger at the system

When we hear of a song or music video going viral, most people would assume Ed Sheeran, Billie Eilish or some other pop star with an established global platform. This time, the feat has been achieved by a blue collar worker playing guitar in his spare time, and the enthusiasm and discussion his song has provoked only underlines how rare this is.

‘Rich Men North Of Richmond’ is a protest song, written and played on acoustic guitar by Virginia-based country singer Oliver Anthony. In the best tradition of American roots music, the song decries the social conditions those at the bottom of society are forced to endure by those at the top. Lyrics like ‘selling my soul, working all day, overtime hours for bullshit pay’ combine with a catchy melody and Anthony’s sincere, anguished vocal to make it instantly relatable to millions of ordinary listeners in the US and beyond.

Its popularity has been remarkable. Within the first week of its release, the song reached 150,000 digital downloads and to date has had 47 million hits on YouTube. The song is clearly an authentic, angry voice of working class America and the numerous reaction videos by ordinary Americans on social media clearly see it as such.

That it has caught on so quickly tells us just as much about the level of discontent at the state of the world as the song itself, with listeners throughout social media variously describing it as the ‘song of the people’ or the ‘protest song of our generation.’ This cannot but encourage those of us who look to relate to wide layers of working class people, whether politically, artistically or both.

Controversy

Unfortunately, the song is not without its problems. Controversy has arisen around a particular section of the lyrics, which many conclude prevents the song from being something the left can embrace. Having taken to task low wages and the super-rich in the first verse, the song then moves on to welfare recipients for the second verse. It complains of ‘the obese milking welfare’ and how we shouldn’t work and pay our taxes just so ‘they’ can eat junk food. A clear tilt towards scapegoating a vulnerable section of working class people.

Reactions to this are varied, and somewhat polarised. There are those who have simply overlooked the lyric, preferring instead to emphasise the ‘overall’ focus of the song. There are those on the left who have chosen to condemn it, and the songwriter, in their entirety, probably clicking stop before the song has even finished.

For my own part, I think the popularity of a protest song which is generally against inequality and hardship is to be welcomed. Given the current state of the world, it is remarkable how rare such songs are. But this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t challenge the backward or divisive ideas people sometimes bring with them. This is not about demanding politically ‘pure’ and ‘unproblematic’ music. But it is about addressing the contradictory ideas which sometimes appear when wider layers of people become politically engaged, even if just momentarily around a piece of music.

Unsurprisingly, lyrics attacking welfare recipients have prompted a section of the American right to claim the song as their own, even to the extent that some have described the song (inaccurately in my view) as a ‘right-wing anthem.’ The song has the endorsement of right-wing commentators such as Ben Shapiro and Matt Walsh. The latter posted a video in which he uses the song to further push the false wedge between welfare recipients and blue collar workers, also referring to millions of disenfranchised people who “look and live like Oliver Anthony” (for which read ‘white working class’ as opposed to the working class as a whole).

These people have clearly spotted an opportunity to encourage a right wing populist agenda – similar to what Trump did in 2016 in places like Michigan – by weaponising working class grievances and directing them against a scapegoat. In this case, other working class people.

Message

To his credit, Oliver Anthony has since spoken out and refuted the right wingers for identifying with his song, and has ridiculed the Republican politicians for appropriating it at their presidential debate – “that song was written about the people on that stage!”

The problem is that political, topical, or protest songs, by their nature, contain a message which is clearly of concern to people other than just the singer. Therefore, they tend to draw people in more and encourage them to think and comment on the issues raised, sometimes in a way which goes beyond the intent of the songwriter on a political landscape they can’t control. Growing inequality and the dreadful lack of working class representation, but also the weaknesses of the American left and the danger of the hard right (again) filling the vacuum – this is the contradictory picture being echoed in the reactions to ‘Rich Men North of Richmond.’

There have been some interesting artistic responses. Songwriters David Rovics and Billy Bragg have each produced their own revised versions of the song, demonstrating a willingness to engage while differing where necessary. But the most important response, as always, is political. I hope that the huge popularity of Anthony’s song can open up a cultural space in which more working class voices of protest can be heard. I also hope that, in the US as well as elsewhere, class struggle and an independent socialist left can grow to the point that the siren voices of the right can be isolated.