We are told with great frequency these days that America’s democracy is in danger. I for one have certainly shared that unease with readers of this newsletter on many occasions. I trace my concern for the future of American democracy to five main factors:
Donald Trump’s demagogic, bigoted, and often fascistic rhetoric; his authoritarian longings; his association with far-right, alt-right, and white supremacist figures; and his disdain for democratic norms and the rule of law, all of which suggest an interest in ruling as an undemocratic strongman. This behavior mirrors that of other strongmen who have sought and gained political power in the past.
Trump’s efforts to fraudulently overturn the results of the 2020 election, culminating in the violent January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. These events indicate Trump is willing to act on his undemocratic inclinations.
A mass MAGA movement claiming millions of adherents who are devoted to Trump, embrace his rhetoric and methods, and ignore his unethical behavior.
A Republican Party that has effectively capitulated to Trump and the MAGA movement and cannot be counted upon to check Trump.
The recent rise of far-right parties in established democracies and democratic backsliding around the world, suggesting conditions are ripe for anti-democratic political movements.
I sincerely believe American democracy is in jeopardy today and that it falls upon all of us to rise to its defense. But what exactly are Americans being asked to defend when they’re asked to defend democracy?
While more Americans have taken an interest in the health of American democracy over the past decade, I would argue “democracy” is an idea most Americans take for granted. I don’t want to shame Americans for that. It is nice, after all, to be able to take democracy for granted. It is preferable to live in a country in which political debates occur within a democratic setting than it is to live in a country in which the value of democracy itself is up for debate.
Nor would I argue most Americans lack a basic understanding of democracy. Most would probably associate democracy with voting, having some say in government, or “people power.” Others might attach democracy to ideas like accountability, fairness, rights, or freedom, or position it against ideas like authoritarianism, oppression, or communism. Regardless, I think most Americans have an intuitive sense for what democracy is even if they would struggle to come up with a definition for it on the spot.
Still, I think the idea of “democracy” has become a stale concept in American life, something many Americans reflexively associate with the basic functioning of the United States’ political-economic system. “Democracy” is simply what America does, and whatever America does is democracy. People invoke tried-and-true ideas when discussing democracy, but those ideas have lost some of their luster because they are so associated with an American project so many over the past few decades have grown disillusioned with.
I’m not just thinking about the MAGA movement here, whose members, frankly, may have never had a deep commitment to democratic principles to begin with. I’m also thinking about the millions of Americans who look at the United States’ recent history and wonder if democracy—so interwoven with American politics—is worth the bother of defending. Even those of us who do stand-up for democracy sense we’re making the case for a rather retro concept. The Norman Rockwell version of democracy just isn’t clicking with Americans in 2024.
So rather than defend “democracy,” maybe we should try breathing some new life into it. With an eye toward the future, we ought to be thinking more creatively about what democracy means, what democracy aims to accomplish, what standards a democracy ought to aspire to, and what is required of democratic systems of government. Democracy won’t survive the current crisis if it isn’t also strengthened, which will require updating it for the 21st century.
What follows is my own tentative stab at a renovated theory of democracy. It’s not focused on economic or institutional reforms, although I could imagine proposals along those lines growing out of this theory. Instead, it’s more of a big picture justification of democracy, one based on what we have learned from the experience of democracy and its development over time.
Many people have been taught democracy is good because it gives power to the people. This is an assertion baked into the origin story of American democracy: When the United States declared and won its independence from Great Britain, political power in America was transferred from the British crown to the American people, who could now claim control over their own affairs. A similar story unfolded during the French Revolution, when power was transferred from the monarchy to the people of France. This isn’t a pattern that plays out with every democracy, but in a great many cases, the transition to democracy—whether from a colonial power or an authoritarian power—marks the moment when a people could say they were sovereign and no longer subjects.
But while the idea of “people power” is certainly important, I would argue that focusing on “power” when thinking about democracy is problematic. Power, after all, can be abused in democracies, too, as when a majority uses democratic means to oppress a minority or replace democratic institutions with undemocratic ones. While majority rule is an essential component of democracies, few democratic theorists would argue we should put our unquestioned faith in majorities. For that reason, most democracies place checks on the power of majorities and protect the rights of minorities, but it’s always contentious when majorities claiming to represent the will of the people find themselves restrained in a democracy.
Focusing on power also turns democracy into a system of political grievance. Democracy is often erroneously described as a system of government in which people are supposed to “get their way.” Yet while democracy is a system of government “by and for” the people, it is not a system of government that delivers what each and every individual person constituting the diverse multitude known as “the people” wants. In that sense, democracy has always overpromised, leading many to grow angry and disgusted with it when it doesn’t produce the results they desire. After all, if you are sovereign, as democracy promises, is democracy really working (for you) if you don’t get what you want? Do you really have the power democracy promised to give you if you don’t get your way? That sets democracy up to be a great big disappointment. It’s no wonder so many high school government teachers tell their students democracy gives them all a “right to complain.” The implication often isn’t a right to dissent but that democracy will let them down.
But what if democracy wasn’t primarily about power?
What if we downplayed democracy’s foundational moment, the moment when the people acquired power? After all, in the world’s oldest democracies, the foundational moment was also a flawed moment, a moment when many of those democracies’ citizens were denied basic democratic rights, including the right to vote. For example, the vast majority of “the people” did not have “power” in the United States in 1776; that wouldn’t happen until 1920 (when women gained the right to vote) and it would take until the mid-1960s for nearly all citizens to acquire the right to vote. Today, when Americans celebrate their nation’s independence and the birth of their national democracy, it is almost compulsory to note the democracy they created was deeply flawed. Slavery was legal. The man who articulated the foundational principles of American democracy in the Declaration of Independence was himself a slaveholder. By downplaying the foundational moment, democracies could look to other sources of inspiration for democratic values while loosening the hold power has on the democratic imagination.
Furthermore, if power is no longer at the center of democratic theory, democracies can obsess less over who has or does not have power. One does not necessarily have to feel aggrieved or disenfranchised if their democracy does not generate the result or empower the politician they prefer. Democracy would not need to become a fulfillment center. It could instead be understood as a method for solving public problems.
But if democracy is not about power—who rules, and who gets what—then what would it be about? I would argue by divorcing democracy from power, democracy could re-orient itself around principle. Additionally, by de-emphasizing power and the foundational moment, one could focus instead on the history of democratic development to identify the positive features of democracy and build a theory of democracy around that.
With this in mind, one feature of democracy in particular stands out to me: Because it places so much emphasis on the individual and the common citizen, democracy has demonstrated it is the form of government with the greatest potential to protect human dignity and human rights. In a democracy, individuals are not subjects that need to be ruled or managed by the government. They are instead ends unto themselves, each person as free and equal as their fellow citizens, and governments are expected to honor this principle. This is not a new idea. In fact, it’s an idea embedded in the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It took a long time, however—I would argue not until after World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust and the publication of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—for democracies to finally begin taking the idea of human dignity and human rights seriously.
I think that’s ultimately what makes democracy so valuable: Because democracy places the common individual at the center of its political theory, no other form of government can more effectively stand-up for human dignity and human rights than democracy. In turn, democracies can help create more humane and decent societies. The principles of human dignity and human rights ought to serve as the foundational principles of democracy.
That would also suggest democracy is well-positioned to protect individual liberty. I wouldn’t disagree with that claim or suggest it’s insignificant, but I would interrogate its utility. It’s good that people have freedom and can shape their lives as they see fit. That’s how an individual benefits from freedom. But how does society benefit from that freedom? What does democracy get out of that deal?
Too often, people conflate personal freedom with power, with not only the ability to shape one’s own life as they see fit but to take advantage or even oppress others to maximize their own freedom. Citizens in democracies often fear that extending rights or benefits to other citizens will lessen their own freedom. Unfortunately, that turns democracy into a competition, with people looking to protect and extend the social advantages they have over others in the pursuit of even greater freedom.
But again, it’s possible to move past that by diminishing power’s place in democratic theory. If we turn once more to the history of democratic development, we find that democracy, more than any other form of government, is good at creating open societies in which people are free to learn and share information. It’s not just that people are free and can shape their lives as they see fit; it’s that people can use that freedom to explore new ideas and improve their lives. Similarly, a democratic citizenry can use their freedom to explore new ideas and improve their society. Democracy as an open and collaborative undertaking can give individual freedom a greater social purpose, as our freedom can be used to make more informed, thoughtful, and conscientious public policy. As I mentioned earlier, by de-emphasizing power, democracy can evolve from a system of government that is expected to satisfy our personal ambitions to a system that is primarily understood as a method for solving public problems.
So that’s my rough attempt at an updated theory of democracy. My theory places a greater emphasis on the experience of democracy rather than the foundation of democracy in order to de-emphasize power’s often corrosive influence on democracy and to accentuate the real benefits derived from democracy, namely a respect for human dignity and human rights, the creation of a more humane and decent society, and the creation of a civic culture in which people can use their freedom to improve society and more effectively address public problems. Perhaps that’s somewhat of a repackaging of Enlightenment era democratic ideals, but it also feels like people have been striving for decades or even centuries to drag those ideals to the forefront of democratic life. Regardless, my hope would be that people today would find this recalibrated form of democracy worth defending.
Signals and Noise
By Tom Nichols of The Atlantic: “Don’t Let Trump Exhaust You” (“By overwhelming people with the sheer volume and vulgarity of his antics, Trump and his team are trying to burn out the part of our brains that can discern truth from fiction, right from wrong, good from evil. His campaign’s goal is to turn voters into moral zombies who can no longer tell the difference between Stormy and Hunter or classified documents and personal laptops, who cannot parse what a ‘bloodbath’ means, who no longer have the ability to be shocked when a political leader calls other human beings ‘animals’ and ‘vermin.’”)
A.B. Stoddard of The Bulwark looks at how the Trump campaign and the RNC are already prepping to steal the 2024 election — and how one part of the recently passed Electoral Count Reform Act could help them do it.
The Washington Post has an excerpted profile of Steve Bannon from Isaac Arnsdorf’s forthcoming book ‘Finish What We Started: The MAGA Movement’s Ground War to End Democracy’ that positions Bannon as the architect of a nationalist, authoritarian political movement. (“Bannon was not merely a student or passive observer of this prophecy; he wanted to be an agent of it, and an architect of the era that came next. So when he watched Trump glide down a golden escalator to announce his campaign for president, in 2015, his first thought was, ‘That’s Hitler!’”)
A 538 interactive: “What Would It Take to Flip Blue/Red States Red/Blue?”
The Biden administration is putting in place a rule that would make it harder for presidents to strip federal workers of civil service protections, something Trump would like to do to undermine the so-called “deep state” and replace federal workers with Trump loyalists willing to break democratic guardrails.
Rogé Karma writes for The Atlantic about how Biden is not benefitting from having passed popular policies like lowering prescription drug prices.
By Michael C. Bender of the New York Times: “The Church of Trump: How He’s Infusing Christianity Into His Movement” (“Long known for his improvised and volatile stage performances, former President Donald J. Trump now tends to finish his rallies on a solemn note. Soft, reflective music fills the venue as a hush falls over the crowd. Mr. Trump’s tone turns reverent and somber, prompting some supporters to bow their heads or close their eyes. Others raise open palms in the air or murmur as if in prayer. In this moment, Mr. Trump’s audience is his congregation, and the former president their pastor as he delivers a roughly 15-minute finale that evokes an evangelical altar call, the emotional tradition that concludes some Christian services in which attendees come forward to commit to their savior.” The article also includes this doozy of a quote from a 67-year-old South Carolinian: “They’ve crucified him worse than Jesus.”
Don Trump had quite the Easter on Truth Social, posting 71 times (often in all caps) but only rarely mentioning the religious holiday. When he did, he said, “Happy Easter to all… including those many people I completely and totally despise because they want to destroy America.” He also reposted a message that called him “the Chosen One.” His $59.99 Bibles are still for sale.
In case you missed this, from Saturday Night Live:
Trump’s Truth Social network is valued at between $6-7 billion after going public two weeks ago. Its stock price, however, is wildly divorced from its actual value, as the company lost $58 million in 2023 (and, as The Guardian reports, nearly went under in 2022 if not for a bailout by a wealthy Russian-American investor currently under investigation by the FBI.) The company’s stock value is being sustained by investors who are essentially propping up its value as an in-kind donation to Trump, who is suddenly worth $7 billion due to his ownership share in the company. That money would come in handy given his legal bills, fines, and campaign costs, but he can’t sell his shares for six months. While a $300 million cash infusion could help keep Truth Social afloat, an auditor warned its operating losses could make it go out of business. That may put strain on the stock price. The company would also likely tank if Trump sold his shares. This seems like another example of Trump personally profiting by selling junk products. (By the end of the week, the stock had sunk to a post-merger low, erasing $2 billion of value from Trump’s stake in the company.)
Three judges in three separate cases rejected Trump’s attempts to delay or toss aside charges.
Jack Smith’s team of prosecutors in Trump’s classified documents case are now openly voicing their frustration with Judge Aileen Cannon’s handling of the case to the judge herself.
By Aaron Blake of the Washington Post: “Trump is Tempting Fate on Gag Orders—For Himself and For the Country” (“After violating gag orders on at least two and arguably three previous occasions — and after a judge this week employed a novel tactic to get him to stop — Trump is flouting his latest one. He’s doing so in a way that reinforces just how much latitude he’s been given, and just how untenable that latitude might be as his various cases proceed. The faceoff is one with increasingly profound implications not just for Trump, but for a country whose judicial system is tasked with holding him legally accountable but is taking a beating as judges try to figure out what to do.”)
The New York Attorney General is investigating whether the company that posted the $175 million bond in Trump’s civil fraud case is good for the money.
“They’re not humans. They’re animals… I’ll use the word ‘animal,’ because that’s what they are.”—Donald Trump, at a rally in Michigan, using dehumanizing rhetoric to refer to migrants
Will Weissert and Jill Colvin of AP find Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric is resonating with many Democratic constituencies.
Having spent months trying to find someone willing to run for the nation’s top office, the centrist No Labels group announced it will not be fielding a candidate for president this year.
Ohio’s Secretary of State has told the Biden campaign the Democratic convention (which is scheduled for mid-August) will occur too late for the state to include the Democratic Party’s nominee on Ohio’s general election ballot.
Michael Scherer and Sabrina Rodriguez of the Washington Post report Democratic insiders are arguing about voter registration efforts, as the party inclinations of non-registered voters are now nearly split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. In the past, non-registered voters leaned significantly toward Democrats.
Erin Mansfield of USA Today looks at how numerous southern states have tightened voter laws.
Vaughn Hillyard of NBC News reports independent presidential candidate Robert Kennedy, Jr., has repeatedly downplayed the severity of the 1/6 assault on the Capitol. Ally Sammarco of Los Angeles Magazine also finds he often repeats Russian propaganda when discussing Ukraine (i.e., that Putin wanted to “de-Nazify” the Ukrainian government.)
Tiffany Hsu and Steven Lee Myers of the New York Times examine Chinese efforts to spread misinformation and stoke division on social media ahead of the 2024 election. Most posts are aimed at undermining support for Joe Biden, suggesting the Chinese government may prefer a second Trump administration (or the chaos that comes with a Trump presidency.)
Just Security takes an in-depth look at the 1/6 inmates currently imprisoned in the DC jail whom Trump keeps promising to pardon. Nearly all of them either confessed to or were found guilty of assaulting law enforcement officers.
Elizabeth Williamson of the New York Times writes about a new cadre of lawyers using defamation lawsuits to combat political disinformation.
An earthquake struck New Jersey this week.
Rudy Giuliani also said he believed God uses earthquakes to punish “communist states” like California and Giuliani’s home state of New York.
Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post examines the post-pandemic “Medicaid Purge,” which has resulted in millions losing health care coverage.
The Florida State Supreme Court ruled Florida’s 6-week abortion ban could take effect but also said a referendum that would add abortion rights to the state constitution can be included on the ballot this November. Sixty percent of voters in Florida would need to support the referendum for it to become law.
Aaron Blake of the Washington Post points out Trump has no idea what to do on the abortion issue.
Citing the “lack of clarity” in a recently-passed law concerning IVF treatments in Alabama, the hospital at the center of the controversy is ending IVF services.
Recently unsealed documents reveal Republican New Hampshire state legislator Jon Stone has quite the bio.
David J. Lynch of the Washington Post writes the Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore won’t have major effects on the nation’s economy but could prove devastating to the city’s local economy.
In the biggest protest since Hamas’s attack on Israel, tens of thousands of Israelis gathered in front of the Israeli military’s headquarters to call for the resignation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (And then last night, an estimated 100,000 people took to the streets to protest Netanyahu.)
Israeli war cabinet member Benny Gantz—who leads polls to become the next Israeli prime minister—has called for early elections.
World Central Kitchen halted relief operations in Gaza after seven of its workers were killed when an Israeli airstrike targeted their convoy. Netanyahu confirmed Israel was responsible for the attack but said it was “unintentional.”
By José Andrés, founder of World Central Kitchen, for the New York Times: “Let People Eat” (“Israel is better than the way this war is being waged. It is better than blocking food and medicine to civilians. It is better than killing aid workers who had coordinated their movements with the Israel Defense Forces….In the worst conditions, after the worst terrorist attack in its history, it’s time for the best of Israel to show up. You cannot save the hostages by bombing every building in Gaza. You cannot win this war by starving an entire population.”)
Meanwhile, Politico reports the Biden administration is considering selling billions of dollars worth of fighter jets, air-to-air missiles, and guidance kits to Israel. Yet it also appears the Biden administration has communicated to Israel’s leaders it is about out of patience when it comes to Israel’s handing on its military operation in Gaza. (Even Trump is criticizing Israel now.)
Gallup now finds a solid majority of Americans (55%-36%) now disapprove of Israel’s military action in Gaza.
An Israeli airstrike killed a top Iranian general along with six other high-ranking Iranian military officers during an attack on a building near the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The U.S. and Israel are anticipating Iran will soon retaliate, creating concern about a wider regional war in the Middle East.
House Speaker Mike Johnson has begun outlining his plan for the Ukraine aid package, suggesting passage of such a bill may be weeks away. But Politico notes Johnson may have boxed himself in on the issue.
Meanwhile, Tim Judah writes in the New York Review of Books that morale in Ukraine has plummeted.
By Isabelle Khurshudyan of the Washington Post: “With No Way Out of a Worsening War, Zelensky’s Options Look Bad or Worse”
Top 5 Records Music Review: Ranking the 2024 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame dropped its nominees for the class of 2024 on, of all days, a Saturday morning back in January, so it’s understandable if you missed the announcement. This year’s ballot of fifteen artists features ten new nominees, only one holdover from last year’s list, no country artists, and no first-year eligibles (understandable when the biggest names to release their first records in 1999 are 50 Cent, Lil Wayne, Jennifer Lopez, and John Mayer.)
So this is a year for playing catch-up, but unfortunately, while there are a number of deserving artists on the ballot, the nominating committee kept many of the RRHoF’s biggest snubs (i.e., Gram Parsons, Joy Division/New Order, the Smiths) from consideration. In fact, a defining feature of this year’s list is how many of the nominees actually recommend other, more deserving artists.
And then there’s the biggest name on the ballot, an icon so big she only goes by one name, an artist the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame was seemingly built for but who has spent 60 years on the outside of the institution looking in, someone who’s omission from the RRHoF is simultaneously inexplicable and completely explicable. I’m talking about the one and only Cher, of course, and you can read my thoughts on her case for induction below, where I’ve divided this year’s nominees into five tiers arranged from least to most deserving of enshrinement.
Tier 5 (On the Outside Looking In) This year’s ballot includes three artists (two of whom have been eligible for over twenty years) who barely even crack most people’s snubbed artists lists. Foreigner, who debuted in 1977, is a staple of classic rock radio and has sold millions of records, but is about as generic a rock band as you can find. I’ve grown to appreciate the very 80s appeal of “Waiting for a Girl Like You” (its distinctive synth line played by then-unknown non-bandmember Thomas Dolby) and “I Want to Know What Love Is”, but this is corporate rock at its most corporatized. Rock and roll history would remain unchanged if Foreigner had never existed. Foreigner’s peak coincided with that of many punk, post-punk, and new wave bands; why aren’t they getting more consideration? (Further listening: “Feels Like the First Time”, “Hot Blooded”) Peter Frampton may be a well-liked classic rock figure, but he simply lacks a catalog to justify his inclusion in the RRHoF. Frampton’s biggest claim to fame is Frampton Comes Alive!, a live double album from 1976 that would become that year’s highest-selling record; its a decent but undistinguished slice of mid-70s rock that is notable for Frampton’s use of the talk box (search for it on Wikipedia and the first picture you’ll see is Frampton’s personal device.) Every classic rock aficionado gives Frampton Comes Alive! a listen (and the ending of “Do You Feel Like We Do” is still a rush, especially if you haven’t heard it in a while) but forty-eight years after its release, it’s hardly an essential. (Further listening: “Baby, I Love Your Way”, “Show Me the Way”) Lenny Kravitz isn’t a classic rock artist, but his entire career has been an homage to the classic rock and R&B sounds of the 60s and 70s. While I consider the retro-Philly soul song “It Ain’t Over ‘Til It’s Over” (1991) and “Are You Gonna Go My Way” (1993) stone-cold classics, Kravitz’s musical output is rather underwhelming. As a 90s artist, he just doesn’t stack up against the more distinguished grunge and alternative rock acts that dominated radio during that decade, and the quality of his records declined as the 90s progressed. Kravitz looks like a rock star, but his influence has been negligible.
Tier 4 (You Can Make the Case, But…) Ozzy Osbourne is the patron saint sinner of heavy metal, but he has a thin case for induction as a solo artist. Osbourne is already in the RRHoF with Black Sabbath, the band with which he recorded his most important work. His legacy as a solo artist is tied up in Blizzard of Ozz (1980) and Diary of a Madman (1981), but those albums stand out due to the guitar work of Randy Rhoads, who was inducted into the RRHoF in 2021. Sure, it’s Osbourne’s name on those records so he deserves the accolades, but so long as Black Sabbath is in (and so long as groups like Iron Maiden and Motorhead remain out) there is no urgency to recognize Osbourne as a solo act. (Further listening: “Crazy Train”)
Just before the RRHoF announced their list of nominees, I wondered aloud to my wife if Cher belonged in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. How can someone as iconic as Cher not be in the RRHoF? But take a closer look at her musical output and you’ll begin to understand why. Cher became a fixture of 1960s pop culture as part of Sonny and Cher, but their act was always hippie adjacent and never authentically countercultural. As sweet as “I Got You Babe” is, it was also an attempt to cash in on Bob Dylan’s penchant for using the word “babe” in his songs. By the end of the decade, the duo had morphed into a square lounge act, and during the early 1970s, they were variety TV show hosts. It was at that time that Cher struck out on her own as a solo artist, but despite a few hits in the 1970s (“Gypsys, Tramps and Thieves”, “Half-Breed”, “Dark Lady”) nothing rose to the level of classic. Cher revitalized her career in the mid-80s with a number of critically-acclaimed film roles before releasing her best song, “If I Could Turn Back Time”, in 1989. Ten years later, she conquered pop radio with “Believe”, which used auto-tune for artistic effect. The song went on to become an LGBTQ anthem.
Some cite Cher’s long career and ability to reinvent herself as a reason to induct her into the RRHoF. I see a career of modest peaks and valleys, with those late career peaks more fluky than signs of sustained excellence. (She’s basically a one-hit wonder of both the 80s and the 90s.) The RRHoF inductee she most reminds me of is Kiss, a band whose hall-of-fame credentials hang more on their larger-than-life reputation than on its musical output. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame seems incomplete without Cher in it, but given her catalog, her exclusion doesn’t feel like an oversight, either.
But here’s my major gripe with Ozzy Osbourne and Cher’s nominations: If you’re nominating artists who are already in the RRHoF with their original groups (like Osbourne) and who distinguished themselves as solo artists in the 1970s while becoming LGBTQ icons (like Cher) why not nominate Diana Ross? After she left the Supremes at the end of the 1960s, Ross released a number of top ten albums and singles (“Ain’t No Mountain High Enough”, “Love Hangover”, “Upside Down”, “I’m Coming Out”, “Endless Love”) that have stood the test of time. Osbourne and Cher’s nominations make Ross’s exclusion look ridiculous.
Tier 3 (One Foot In, One Foot Out) I feel conflicted writing about Oasis because the Beatlesesque (What’s the Story) Morning Glory is one of my go-to albums from the 1990s. Some have said the band’s oft boorish behavior makes them a lock for the RRHoF, but the fact remains that their recording legacy—two great albums, followed by nothing memorable—is quite thin (although about as substantial as Guns N’ Roses.) Britpop fans would likely argue Blur should go in first, and while I prefer Oasis, they’re right on the historical merits. More importantly, though, why are we dealing with Oasis when the Smiths still haven’t made it in? (Further listening: “Supersonic”, “Wonderwall”, “Champagne Supernova”) As long as we’re on the topic of jumping the line, it seems to me Jane’s Addiction should have to wait until at least Sonic Youth, the Replacements, and Pixies are inducted. Jane’s Addiction is often positioned as the band that transitions alternative rock to the mainstream at the turn of the 1990s, and while they were definitely a part of that, they didn’t make the transition themselves, unlike R.E.M. and fellow L.A. band Red Hot Chili Peppers. Give them credit for being there at the birth of 90s alternative rock and for founding Lollapalooza, but their induction can wait. (“Jane Says”, “Been Caught Stealing”)
The other artist I’m placing in this tier—Sinéad O’Connor—is a special case. Like Oasis and Jane’s Addiction, O’Connor’s main recorded contributions to rock and roll music are found on two albums. O’Connor’s career was derailed, however, after she tore up a picture of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live in 1992 to protest child abuse in the Catholic Church. If rock and roll is about protest and rebellion, the RRHoF would do right by honoring an artist who paid a high price for taking a political stand. While I would not be disappointed to see O’Connor inducted, my only objection is she should not be inducted this year, as she passed away only a few months ago. By nominating her now, the RRHoF seems to be patting itself on its back for recognizing both her music and her causes while ensuring their ceremony won’t be inconvenienced by a controversial acceptance speech. It all feels gross. Sinéad O’Connor belongs in the RRHoF, but this is not the year to induct her. (Further listening: “Mandinka”, “Nothing Compares 2 U”)
Tier 2 (In the Queue) As the queen of hip-hop soul, Mary J. Blige merged the street-smart sound of rap with 90s R&B to transcend the more carefree New Jack Swing that was so popular in the early 1990s. She doesn’t have as many instantly recognizable hits as other R&B pop stars, but that shouldn’t hold her back. Since her debut in 1992, Blige has emerged as a Black feminist icon, someone who has endured pain, hard times, and heartache and who knows exactly what the world owes a woman who has put up with so much. (Further listening: “Real Love”, “Not Gon’ Cry”, “Family Affair”) While the RRHoF has inducted many classic rock artists from the 1970s (including many middle-of-the-road artists like Steve Miller, Chicago, and the Doobie Brothers) they have barely scratched the surface when it comes to 70s funk bands like Kool and the Gang. Kool and the Gang were one of the decade’s best funk groups, and after disco appeared to end their career, they regrouped as a post-disco pop band. Hits like “Celebration” have soundtracked family cook-outs ever since. Their early 80s singles may have turned more critical listeners off, but Kool and the Gang deserve induction based on their 70s work alone. (Further listening: “Jungle Boogie”, “Spirit of the Boogie”, “Ladies’ Night”) Rock and roll purists probably consider Sade too easy on the ears, but the British sophisti-pop band has emerged as one of the most influential artists of the 1980s. Their cosmopolitan blend of jazz and R&B, seasoned in the 90s by guitar rock, influenced neo-soul artists like Erykah Badu and D’Angelo as well as contemporary musicians like Frank Ocean and SZA. (Further listening: “Smooth Operator”, “The Sweetest Taboo”, “No Ordinary Love”) The Dave Matthews Band was the biggest band in the world in the early 00s and still retains a massive fan base. They’ve often drawn the ire of critics for Matthews’ simple-minded lyrics and meandering songs, but their sound is distinct and they rank among rock and roll’s all-time great live bands. For so many people, the 1990s sounded like the Dave Matthews Band. (Further listening: “Ants Marching”, “Crash Into Me”, “Crush” [see Exit Music])
Tier 1 (Sure-Fire Hall of Famers) I’ve written about Mariah Carey and A Tribe Called Quest before, so I’ll keep it brief this time around. Mariah Carey was the biggest pop star of the 1990s. She possessed amazing range as a singer, and her melismatic vocal style influenced a generation of singers. Purists will complain she’s too pop, but she’s too big of a star for the RRHoF to ignore. (Further listening: “Emotions”, “Fantasy” remix ft. O.D.B., “We Belong Together”) Just as gangsta rap was conquering the rap world, A Tribe Called Quest released a series of cerebral jazz-influenced albums that charted an alternative path forward for hip-hop. ATCQ remains a source of inspiration for contemporary artists, and their influence grows with each passing year. (Further listening: “Can I Kick It”, “Check the Rhime”, “Scenario”, and “Electric Relaxation”) The other sure-fire nominee is Eric B. and Rakim, an underappreciated rap duo who were first nominated for the RRHoF twelve years ago. MC Rakim revolutionized rapping by composing his lyrics, which allowed for more sophisticated rhyme schemes. His songs often featured internal rhymes and lines that extended across bars, which marked a deviation from the standard stomping rhythms of early rap. Rakim also utilized a jazzier, more laid-back delivery that broke with the more blunt and boisterous rapping characteristic of the early 1980s. As a DJ, Eric B. relied heavily on samples, particularly of James Brown, who in turn became the major touchstone for rap artists. (Further listening: “I Know You Got Soul”, “Paid in Full”, “Follow the Leader”)
Unlike years past, when RRHoF voters could only vote for five nominated artists, they can now check the box next to seven names on their ballots. Hopefully that also means the RRHoF will have bigger classes of inductees going forward. If I had a ballot, I’d vote for Mary J. Blige, Mariah Carey, Eric B. and Rakim, Kool and the Gang, the Dave Matthews Band, Sade, and A Tribe Called Quest. Unfortunately, I suspect the artists I’ve ranked lower on my list stand a better shot at making it in this year. We should find out before April is over.