Knock Knock Knockin' on Putin's Door: The Ukraine Crisis and Russia's NATO Anxiety
PLUS: Does Dolly Parton Belong in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
An international crisis is nearing its tipping point in eastern Europe. Russia has deployed over 100,00 troops within striking distance of Ukraine. American intelligence reports indicate those soldiers are ready to invade. The United States and its European allies have demanded Russia back down while rushing military aid to Ukraine. Russia, meanwhile, is using its grievance with Ukraine to bring the United States and NATO to the bargaining table to renegotiate the post-Cold War European order.
It's a confusing crisis to follow. There doesn’t seem to be a single particular event that triggered it, and Ukraine sometimes feels like a bit player in the showdown even though they would bear the brunt of any resulting military action. And while Vladimir Putin and the Russian regime are hardly sympathetic actors, looking at the crisis from a Russian perspective shows Russia does have some understandable concerns.
The crisis in Ukraine reminds me of matryoshka, the wooden nesting dolls that have become strongly associated with Russian culture. The particular problem confronting Ukraine is like the smallest doll in the set, the one enclosed within other dolls of increasing size. So let’s start with that tiny doll and see if we can figure out what’s going on here.
Ukraine is a former Soviet republic that became an independent nation following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. In the previous paragraph, I compared Ukraine to a “tiny” doll, but it should not be diminished. After Russia, it is the largest country by area in Europe. Excluding Turkey, it is the seventh most-populous country on the continent and has slightly more people than Canada. Its capital Kyiv is larger than Rome and Paris. While I suspect most Americans are unfamiliar with Ukraine, those who are may remember how it was often described during the Cold War as the “breadbasket of the USSR” given its rich soil and productive cropland. Ukraine is also Europe’s poorest country.
Since its independence, Ukraine’s government has drifted between maintaining ties to Moscow and gravitating toward the West. At the same time, Ukraine has dealt with a lot of corruption, and the process of democratization has not been smooth. Popular demonstrations—most notably in 2004 and 2014—have brought in reform-minded governments that have sought to more closely align Ukraine’s politics and economy with the West. It’s worth noting, however, that the question of Ukraine’s political orientation has long been treated as an open political question in Ukraine. While there are those who are suspicious of Russia given Ukraine’s history with the Soviet Union and Russia’s increasingly authoritarian bent, there are others who cherish Ukraine’s deep cultural ties to Russia.
Those previously mentioned 2014 demonstrations loom large over the events currently transpiring in Ukraine. In late 2013, Ukraine’s pro-Russia president Viktor Yanukovych suspended an agreement with the European Union and began pursuing closer financial ties to Moscow. Worried this would lead to democratic backsliding, an erosion of civil rights, and more corruption, pro-European Ukrainians took to the streets and began clashing with police in what came to be known as the Euromaidan movement. This ultimately led to the collapse of Yanukovych’s regime in early 2014 during the Maidan Revolution.
The events of the Maidan Revolution unnerved Moscow. Russia considers Ukraine within its sphere of influence, but the Maidan Revolution implied a pretty big break between the two countries was on the horizon. Russia responded (quickly, I should add) by occupying and annexing the Ukrainian territory of Crimea (the home of many pro-Russia Ukrainians) and supporting pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. The conflict in that region of the country has turned into an ongoing low-grade civil war.
Putin had hoped the military intervention in eastern Ukraine would destabilize Ukraine’s new government and force it to acquiesce to Russia’s influence. While the war has bogged down the Ukrainian government, the intervention has been considerably less successful by other measures. Public opinion in Ukraine has swung against Russia, and the most pro-Russian regions of the country are now either a part of Russia itself or caught up in a conflict that prevents the pro-Russian citizens there from participating in elections. Ukraine’s current president Volodymyr Zelensky is open to joining the European Union and NATO. Culturally, a movement encouraging Ukrainian citizens to speak in Ukrainian rather than Russian is gaining steam and has become a prominent political issue.
Putin’s patience with Ukraine appears to be running out. For the past year, Russia has been building up troops along its border with Ukraine. It has also stationed soldiers in nearby Belarus. What isn’t quite clear is why this conflict is boiling to a head at this particular moment. For that answer, we need to examine the larger international issues surrounding the conflict.
An important thing to remember is that the Ukraine crisis is not only about Ukraine’s broken relationship with Russia but Ukraine’s outreach to the West, specifically to the Soviet Union’s old rival NATO. It makes sense for Ukraine to seek shelter behind the shield of NATO, which was created in 1949 as a counter to the Soviet Union and whose member states are obligated by treaty to come to one another’s defense if attacked. Ukrainians likely believe Russia would leave them alone if NATO had their back in a conflict.
But this is where things begin to get kind of weird. Russia obviously doesn’t want Ukraine in NATO. But NATO really doesn’t want Ukraine in NATO either.
Let’s break this down. Russia’s position on the issue is fairly easy to grasp. If Ukraine was in NATO, that would mean Russia’s influence over Ukraine would be severely limited. More ominously for the Kremlin, if Ukraine joined NATO, the military alliance could station forces pretty close to the Russian heartland, which is understandably rather too close for Russia’s comfort. We wouldn’t be too happy if Russia started placing forces in, say, Cuba, right?
But NATO doesn’t really want to be that close to Russia, either, as that would mean it could easily be pulled into a skirmish between Ukraine and Russia over territory most NATO members probably feel isn’t essential to their national security interests. In fact, as mentioned earlier, Ukraine and Russia already are in a skirmish over the Donbas and don’t see eye-to-eye over Russia’s occupation of Crimea. If Ukraine joined NATO tomorrow, NATO would either suddenly find itself on a war footing with a nuclear-armed Russia or just have to ignore Russia’s meddling there. That latter response would bring into question NATO’s status as a mutual defense alliance and lead a lot of NATO members in close proximity to Russia to wonder if NATO’s big guns would come to their rescue if an emboldened Putin and the Russian army started creeping toward their backyard.
That suggests a fairly easy way out of this crisis: When Vladimir Putin insists Ukraine not be allowed to join NATO, Joe Biden should tell Putin NATO does not want Ukraine to join NATO either and just check that one off Putin’s list of demands. Yet while it should be obvious to both sides that a non-NATO Ukraine is the best way forward for both Russia and NATO, it seems NATO does not want to openly admit that. Why?
First, NATO does not want to completely foreclose the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO at some point in the future. Conditions would have to change significantly for NATO to admit Ukraine—Russia would either need to be weakened or liberalize, or there would need to be some major geopolitical realignment that scrambles the world order—but it seems NATO would be reluctant to definitively rule that option out even if as an unspoken matter of fact Ukraine just isn’t getting a membership card. Second, even if NATO doesn’t want to rush to Ukraine’s defense if it is attacked, it does not want to wall Ukraine off to the West by officially declaring it beyond its purview. If NATO did that, it would essentially be giving Russia carte blanche to intervene as much as it wanted to in Ukraine’s affairs. As long as Ukraine isn’t in but isn’t ruled out, NATO can still stick up for Ukraine when it needs to. Finally, I suspect NATO does not want to disenchant the citizens of Ukraine who are trying to democratize and reform their government and who long for closer relations with the West. “We wish you the best but you truly are at the mercy of authoritarian Russia” is not an inspiring message for NATO to send to the people of Ukraine.
Yet all this is a fairly NATO-centric characterization of the crisis. In this telling, the key assumption is that Ukraine (and we could add the despotic state of Belarus to this as well) are basically buffer states between Russia and European NATO. But that’s not how Russia sees it. Russia regards Ukraine—again, a former republic of the Soviet Union—not as a buffer state situated between NATO and Russia but rather within the Russian sphere of influence. Not only does Moscow think NATO has no business drawing Ukraine closer to it, but the whole idea Ukraine is somehow “between” NATO and Russia is preposterous to the Kremlin. If there is supposedly a “buffer” between NATO (and by “NATO,” Russia means the “original” NATO, as in the United States and its client states in western Europe) and Russia (which Russia assumes includes its client states in the former Soviet republics) Russia would probably prefer that buffer consist of the old Warsaw Pact countries of eastern Europe (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and the many countries of southeastern Europe).
Yet look at where NATO and Russia are today. From Russia’s perspective, it’s a problem that NATO has not only expanded into old Warsaw Pact territory that Russia thinks ought to be regarded as the buffer but into several former Soviet republics as well (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, the latter two of which actually share a land border with contiguous Russia.) Now, Ukraine is sending more and more signals it would like closer ties to the European Union and NATO. Russia likely sees this western encroachment as getting out of hand. Not only does the Ukraine crisis present it with an opportunity to reassert itself in a country it considers a wayward client state, but it’s also a chance to push back against NATO and reassert Russia’s influence over European politics, which it largely lost when the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.
I don’t think Americans fully appreciate just how offensive the continued existence of NATO is to Russia. NATO was formed to counter the Soviet Union, which no longer exists. Yet NATO remains. Its eastward expansion seems to imply it now regards Russia as its primary antagonist and a force whose influence must be contained. A strong argument can be made that’s a clear-eyed assessment on NATO’s part even if we want to debate the wisdom of NATO expansion into the old Soviet bloc. But from Moscow’s point of view, NATO is an organization more intent on suppressing rather than respecting Russia’s presence on the world stage.
Putin’s strategy for much of the past decade vis-à-vis NATO and the West has been to try to exploit divisions within and between countries to destabilize individual nations and the western alliance. This was most obvious in Russia’s meddling in the 2016 United States election. While Putin was not the architect of Trump’s victory, Russia’s interference was designed to amplify the divisiveness of Trump’s campaign. (I don’t think Putin ever imagined how much damage Trump would end up inflicting on America’s democracy.) The extra kicker is that Trump was very anti-NATO and made it difficult for member states to trust the United States’ commitment to the alliance (so much so that European nations have pondered contingency plans in the event Trump or another Trumpian president comes to power and kicks NATO to the curb.) That sort of internal strife is exactly what Putin hoped to foment within the western alliance.
Biden’s victory in 2020 may have pushed Putin to adopt a more aggressive posture. Biden regards Putin as a menace and has made it a priority to rebuild the United States’ international alliances. Now Putin may be worried a newly assertive NATO led by a newly assertive United States may be eager to confront Russia. Putin likely sees the Ukraine crisis as an opportunity to engage the United States and NATO on his own terms over the future of European geopolitics.
As I wrote earlier, Putin’s penchant for authoritarianism makes him a very unsympathetic figure on the world stage. Still, it’s understandable why Russia is alarmed over NATO’s expansion into what it likely regards as its sphere of influence. At the same time, I’m also pulling for Ukraine to somehow make it through this. It’s completely understandable why Ukraine, pursuing a path of national self-determination, would want to turn its back on the Russian political and economic model. Hopefully this crisis can be defused so that Ukraine isn’t devastated by war.
It's possible Putin’s sole aim here is to irritate Ukraine’s border and use the instability he is willing to create in the region as a bargaining chip to force the United States and NATO to acquiesce to some of his demands. (There are some missile treaties that need to be revisited, for instance.) When relations are good between the West and Russia, he can ratchet down the tension; when they turn sour, he can start rattling the saber.
There is a real danger here, though, that Russia or the US/NATO may overreact and trigger a broader conflict. Hopefully Putin hasn’t convinced himself that his military buildup now requires him to invade Ukraine. I don’t think he actually wants to do that: While Russia would quickly overpower their opponent, the Ukrainian army is not a pushover (it’s the third largest army in Europe.) Military analysts assume it could inflict some pain on an invading force. If Russia then chose to stay in Ukraine, it would probably find itself in a costly guerrilla war. The US and the EU would also impose some pretty heavy sanctions on Russia, but beyond that, an invasion would also probably unify NATO and find NATO soldiers moved closer to Russia’s borders, which is not what Russia would want. At the same time, the US and NATO could overreact to Russia’s threat or invasion and find itself in an unprecedented cyberwar with Russia. It’s also possible NATO could feel compelled to rush in to bolster the defenses of its eastern European members, prompting Putin to extend his destabilization efforts to the former Warsaw Pact nations and the Baltics. NATO would likely find it hard to effectively counter such domestic turmoil, and a prolonged effort to do so could fray the alliance.
The Biden administration instinctively wants to punch back hard at Putin. Biden wants to reestablish the United States’ status as the leader of the free world and stand up for democracy and against authoritarianism both at home and on the world stage. Additionally, as a Democratic administration, it’s still angry over Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, and Biden probably senses an opportunity to prove to voters that he’s tougher with Russia than Trump and the Republican Party. But Biden needs to be careful, as this is a crisis that could quickly escalate and destabilize Europe.
Biden might be wise to seek counsel from Germany, who among NATO’s major powers has taken a low-key approach to Russia’s provocation with Ukraine. Perhaps it’s their proximity to Russia, but the Germans seem to view Russia as something like a brontosaurus: An old, lumbering giant that is impossible to ignore and must be minded. Germany strikes me as more interested in finding ways to accommodate and reassure Russia by recognizing them as a major world player and a leading voice in Europe. Call it Ostpolitik Zweiter Teil. If Putin could also somehow be convinced to accept the principle of national self-determination to allow Ukraine to chart its own destiny, then it may be possible to turn down the heat on this crisis. My guess is that’s going to take years of diplomacy, however.
Signals and Noise
You may not be aware of this, but Democrats currently lack a functioning majority in the Senate. This isn’t some drag on Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema, either. First-term New Mexico Senator Ben Ray Luján (only 49 years old) was hospitalized recently after suffering a stroke, and his office has indicated he won’t be able to return to the Senate for the next 4-6 weeks. Who knows if that diagnosis is reliable. What this means is Republicans can block anything Democrats want to do now. It’s not likely they’ll do that, but anything that comes down to a party line vote is doomed in this 49-50 Senate. Remember, Biden’s got a Supreme Court nomination hanging in the balance; he’d probably be able to get someone like Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski to back his nominee, but that may also come with a price now. With Luján out, that also means a Democrats-only Build Back Better plan is going nowhere, even if it’s a Democrats-only Manchin-authored Build Back Better plan. And who knows if and at what point Republicans might call for a vote to determine which party has a majority in the chamber. Given the age of many Democratic senators, it was always possible the death or incapacitation of a member of their caucus could cost them the majority. Hopefully they’ve learned this lesson: When you’ve got the power, don’t waste time enacting your agenda. They’ve got some time to get their act together now. When Luján returns, his first two votes should be on confirming a Supreme Court nominee and passing some version of Build Back Better.
Interesting language in the resolution the Republican National Committee passed this past week censuring Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for serving on the House 1/6 committee. They chastised the two members of Congress for assisting Democrats in the “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse.” Do they mean these “ordinary citizens”?
Such legitimate political discourse! Party leaders quickly clarified they actually didn’t mean the “ordinary citizens” pictured above. That means they must have meant “ordinary citizens” like Donald Trump, Rudolph Giuliani, Mo Brooks, etc, you know, the one’s who I guess figuratively but not literally urged a different group of ordinary citizens to storm the Capitol.
This is a few weeks old, but I’ll just put this here. This is a screengrab of nutcase Representative Madison Cawthorn (R-NC) cleaning his gun during a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing.
Said John Feal, a 9/11 first responder who attended the virtual hearing, “It was immature. He’s a child. He lacks common sense. I think the congressman was overcompensating for something that he lacks and feeling inadequate among the heroes on that call.”
Did you see the February jobs report? 467,000 new jobs, way more than expected! Amazing! Way better than the numbers in the disappointing November (249,000) and December (199,000) reports that Biden got dragged over the coals for! Except this jobs report revised those numbers upward: 647,000 new jobs in November and 510,000 in December. That’s right: Apparently November and December’s reports were off by 259.8% and 257.3% respectively. Now may I make a suggestion? How about from now on, nobody makes a big deal about a monthly jobs report. Let’s just all chill out and take a longer view on this stuff.
This is funny: If you’ve been following “Partygate” in the UK (and even you haven’t) you’ll enjoy “The First Thing You Need to Know About Boris Johnson is He’s a Liar” by comedian Tom Walker a.ka. Jonathan Pie.
Here’s some good news: With the redistricting process almost entirely wrapped up, it looks like there will be 2-3 more Democratic-leaning seats than before. (For more on how this all played out, click on that link.) It turned out Republicans—who were pretty heavily gerrymandered to begin with—chose to protect their seats rather than more aggressively push their advantage in states where they controlled the redistricting process (and where they did, courts have thrown out their gerrymanders.) Meanwhile, Democrats have gerrymandered the crap out of Illinois, New York, and Oregon. (Check out the caterpillar that is Illinois’ new 15th District.) Will that be enough for Democrats to hold on to power in the House? Not if even a modest wave forms for Republicans, which is anticipated. But it will certainly help Democrats recover beyond 2022. If you want to try your hand at the dark art of gerrymandering, check out this simulation courtesy of the New York Times.
Top 5 Records Review: Does Dolly Parton Belong in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is out with its nominees for the class of 2022. It’s a fair list of seventeen acts, most with a plausible case for induction, although given the backlog at the Hall, a lot of people will wonder why a lot of these artists aren’t in already and why there aren’t more recently-eligible acts to vote for. (Artists become eligible twenty-five years after the release of their first record.) It wasn’t a particularly earthshaking ballot either: Ten of the acts had been nominated before, leaving seven first-time nominees, and while it’s interesting to see those seven names appear on the ballot for the first time, only 2-3 were really surprising.
Rather than list the seventeen nominees, I thought I’d group them into tiers by how well I think they merit induction.
Tier 1 (Sure-Fire Hall of Famers)—These five artists are distinguished from the others by their importance, influence, and artistry. If you’re telling the story of rock and roll, you can’t gloss over these musicians. Beck, with his junk bin samples and an appreciation for the sleazy kitsch of the 1970s, is a late Gen-X icon and a crucial 1990s artist; so unhip he was cool, his deconstructive collage-like music oozed irony and pushed alternative rock (and some might argue rock and roll) to its artistic end. (See “Loser”, “Where It’s At”, and the audacious “Debra”.) Kate Bush’s idiosyncratic music led female singer-songwriters to embrace more creative, fantastical, and Romantic forms of self-expression. It’s hard to imagine the Lilith Fair generation of artists taking shape without her influence. (See “Wuthering Heights” and “Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)”.) Eminem, the turn-of-the-century’s enfant terrible as well as one of the most-popular acts of the past twenty-five years, is an artist of surprising psychological depth and often grouped among the greatest rappers of all-time. (See “The Real Slim Shady”, “Stan”, “Without Me”, and “Lose Yourself”.) The British band Judas Priest (along with Motorhead and Van Halen) stripped the blues from heavy metal in the late 1970s, paving the way for a new era of metal and styles as disparate as thrash metal and hair metal. Their leather-and-studs look—drawn equally from punk and leather culture (the band’s lead singer, Rob Halford, came out as gay in the late 1990s)—came to define the image of metal. (See “Breaking the Law”, “Living After Midnight”, and “You’ve Got Another Thing Coming”.) The gloriously trashy New York Dolls only released a couple albums in their mid-70s prime and few people bought their records, but they were a critical bridge between the glam rock movement and punk. (See “Personality Crisis” and “Looking for a Kiss”.)
Tier 2 (In the Queue)—Welcome to the backlog. Each of these artists belongs in the RRHoF but there are others ahead of them in line. Unfortunately, the RRHoF only allows voters to vote for five artists on the ballot and will only induct the top 6-7 vote-getters (although last year they made some workarounds for that) meaning many of these acts may end up trapped in a sort of purgatory until the backlog of highly-deserving artists gets cleared up. Often unfairly pigeonholed as a one-hit wonder (for “Whip It”) Devo would influence the development of post-punk, synthpop, and industrial music. Although their output was somewhat uneven, at their best they were wildly original and astute critics of empty-minded American mass culture. (See “Jocko Homo”, “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction”, and “Whip It”.) The British synthpop bands Duran Duran and Eurythmics were fixtures on MTV during its earliest years. Duran Duran brought the high-fashion glam rock of Roxy Music into the 1980s and helped set the tone for 80s pop music with a style they described as a blend of the Sex Pistols and Chic. (See “Girls on Film”, “Hungry Like the Wolf”, and “Rio”.) Eurythmics, fronted by the androgynous Annie Lennox, created a chilly yet soulful style of synthpop that still sounds cutting edge today. (See “Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)” “Here Comes the Rain Again”, and “Would I Lie to You”.) While both bands are great in their own right, their only limitation may be that as pop artists they can’t quite fill out a greatest hits compilation. Few Americans are familiar with the work of Nigerian Fela Kuti, but he is a giant of 20th century pop music. Although I haven’t dug into much of his catalog, what I have heard suggests his brand of West African funk is comparable in stature to the work of James Brown and George Clinton’s Parliament-Funkadelic. (See “Water No Get Enemy” and “Zombie”.) The Detroit band MC5 is also an obscurity to American audiences (like New York Dolls they only recorded a couple albums) but as arguably the first punk band, their brand of music foreshadowed the direction rock and roll would take from the 70s onward. A product of the radical politics of the 1960s (their mentor was John Sinclair, the founder of the White Panthers) the MC5 recorded some of rock and roll’s angriest and most militant songs. (See “Kick Out the Jams”.) Uncompromising in their views, Rage Against the Machine was also a ferociously political band, but they released their music in the 1990s during a decidedly less-political moment in American history. RATM also represents the pinnacle of rap-rock, a style they both popularized and mastered; your appreciation of the band may depend on your opinions of that genre. (See “Killing in the Name”, “Bulls on Parade”, and “Sleep Now In the Fire”.) One of the most surprising names on this year’s ballot is A Tribe Called Quest, an early 90s alternative rap group. Compared to their peers, the jazz-inflected ATCQ moved at a different pace, dwelled within a different dynamic range, and dug into a different groove. More so than the gangsta rap that came to dominate the charts at the time, A Tribe Called Quest’s influence can be heard all over today’s rap records. (See “Can I Kick It”, “Check the Rhime”, “Scenario”, and “Electric Relaxation”.
Tier 3 (One Foot In, One Foot Out)—In the pantheon of 70s singer-songwriters, Carly Simon is not in the same class artistically as Joni Mitchell, Jackson Browne, or Paul Simon. She never released an album as groundbreaking as James Taylor’s Sweet Baby James or Carole King’s Tapestry. There were limits to Simon’s voice and she was not a distinguished singer. Her work had the whiff of product and skewed a little too much to the cultural tastes of the Upper West Side and the Hamptons. If her privilege granted her independence, though, she was able to channel that spirit into music in the 1970s that could connect to the strivings of a generation of young women. In some ways she was the first singer-songwriter to assert that the modern woman should be able to have it all: Career, romance, friends, family, joy, comfort, a public life, an inner life, aspirations, contentment, a world of her own. Later, on songs like “Coming Around Again”, she could measure the toll of that. In that sense, her music is representative of an era and her career deserving of recognition. Does that make her a Rock and Roll Hall of Famer? Maybe not. But then again: “You’re So Vain”. (Also see “Anticipation” and “Nobody Does It Better”.)
Tier 4 (You Can Make the Case, But…)—I understand the argument for Pat Benatar: There weren’t that many straight-up female solo rock performers during her peak in the late 70s/early 80s. “Love Is a Battlefield” is an enduringly cool song. Yet her hits don’t fill out a greatest hits compilation, and her albums lack the deep cuts that reveal grander artistic ambitions. Even if her music slots in nicely on classic rock radio, it’s also for the most part fairly generic and indistinctive. Critics didn’t rave about her, and while she had her fans, I think when most people look back on the early 80s, she was someone they liked in addition to their favorites. Even among fellow new wave artists like the Cars, Blondie, and Pretenders, she comes in a notch below. (See “Hit Me With Your Best Shot” and “Shadows of the Night”.) As for Lionel Richie, I do think he belongs in the RRHoF but as a member of the Commodores. Richie had big solo hits in 80s and knew his way around a ballad. But while he was a hitmaker, his work isn’t on the same level as that decade’s greatest pop stars. Richie is no doubt a part of the 80s’ pop landscape, but, like Benatar, he seems adjacent to the more exciting stuff that was charting at the same time. (See “Endless Love” with Diana Ross, “All Night Long (All Night)”, “Hello”, and “Dancing on the Ceiling”.)
Tier 5 (On the Outside Looking In)—I understand Dionne Warwick is the Queen of Twitter and all, but her catalog is very tame. I don’t want to say there isn’t some space for that, but no matter its merits, I just don’t find it edgy or challenging in the least. Safe, easy, and inoffensive, she’s one of those artists who soundtrack waiting rooms. Hard pass on my ballot.
The big headline when it came to this year’s list of nominees was the inclusion of Dolly Parton. Parton is a beloved American icon. Even in a nation as divided as ours, she maintains both one of the highest positive and one of the lowest negative celebrity Q ratings; in other words, regardless your politics, regardless your background, regardless your age, regardless your taste in music, you are probably pretty fond of Dolly Parton. I’m sorry to say, however, that she doesn’t belong in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
This really has nothing to do with Parton’s merits as a musician but what counts as rock and roll. My definition of “rock and roll” is pretty broad: So long as it’s descended from the spirit of 50s and 60s rock and roll music I’m open to it. I push back hard against those who would argue pop, rap, singer-songwriters, or electronica should be excluded from the RRHoF, and think voters should be open to inducting acts working in genres that stray from the parameters of conventional or mainstream rock (i.e., fusion, Krautrock, progressive rock, art rock, etc.)
But outside a few crossover country-pop hits (including “9 to 5”) Parton is squarely a country music artist. This is not to say Parton doesn’t deserve music industry or artistic accolades—she is deservedly an inductee of the Country Music Hall of Fame—or the nation’s undying affection (she did basically cure COVID, after all.) I just think there has to be some respect for the boundaries of the genre even if that genre is broadly defined.
Additionally, if Parton makes it in, the RRHoF will significantly worsen its backlog problem not because her slot will keep someone else out but because it should in turn open the Hall’s doors to other deserving country artists. The RRHoF has inducted country artists in the past (Jimmie Rodgers, Hank Williams, Bob Wills, Bill Monroe) but under the Early Influence category. The few acts that have been inducted into both the Country Music and Rock and Roll Halls of Fame (Johnny Cash, Brenda Lee, Elvis Presley, the Everly Brothers, Ray Charles) can boast strong rock and roll credentials. Induct Parton, however, and one has to ask why the likes of Patsy Cline, Loretta Lynn, George Jones, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, Buck Owens, Tammy Wynette, Waylon Jennings, Glen Campbell, George Strait, Reba McEntire, Garth Brooks, Charlie Daniels, Ronnie Milsap, Tanya Tucker, Dwight Yoakam, Trisha Yearwood, Shania Twain, Tim McGraw, Faith Hill, and the Dixie Chicks aren’t in. And if country suddenly counts as rock and roll, then why not jazz (Count Basie, Coleman Hawkins, Dizzy Gillespie, Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk, Max Roach, Sarah Vaughan, the Modern Jazz Quartet, Dave Brubeck, Frank Sinatra, Dexter Gordon, Charles Mingus, Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane, Sonny Rollins)?
Again, Dolly Parton is a great musician. I just think her induction would necessitate turning the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame into a more general Music of the Late Twentieth Century Onward Hall of Fame, which fundamentally alters its purpose.
Who would I vote for if I had a ballot? Keeping in mind that voters can only vote for five artists, it would make a lot of sense to vote for my five Tier 1 artists: Beck, Kate Bush, Eminem, Judas Priest, and New York Dolls. I might act a little more strategically though and not vote for Eminem since I’ve never been a huge fan of his and I wouldn’t be heartbroken to see him have to wait a year or two before getting the call. I also suspect a lot of people are going to include him on their ballot, so I doubt he’ll be short on votes. So who would I throw that extra vote to? If I step back to think about it, I’d probably say Rage Against the Machine as they embody the spirit of political rock and roll at its best. (By that same logic, I could also put a mark next to MC5’s name.) But of all the groups I could vote for, I think Eurythmics are my favorite and it would be a joy to see them inducted. Rage Against the Machine vs. Eurythmics: That would be my dilemma.
Now who do I think is going to get in? Eminem is a lock. There’s a lot of good will for Lionel Richie, so I think he’ll make it. Because Hall voters like to honor singer-songwriters, so will Carly Simon. Beyond that I’m going to guess Duran Duran, Rage Against the Machine, and either Judas Priest or Eurythmics…let’s guess Eurythmics. Fela Kuti, Dionne Warwick, and MC5 won’t get the votes, but they’ll be given a Musical Excellence Award. (That’s also how they’ll finally get Chaka Khan, a multiple nominee who didn’t make this year’s ballot, into the Hall as well this year.) And the last inductee? None other than Dolly Parton. I’d put money on that.
Exit music: “Here You Come Again” by Dolly Parton (1977, Here You Come Again)