The United States is a Nation of Immigrants. It's Time We Lean Into That.
PLUS: Ranking this year's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame nominees
Short Round won an Oscar.
Ke Huy Quan, who almost forty years ago as a child starred as Short Round in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Data in The Goonies, picked up the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor last week for his role as Waymond Wang in the film Everything Everywhere All At Once, which also won Best Picture. The honor marks an astonishing comeback for Quan, who had given up on acting in the 1990s out of frustration with the lack of quality roles for Asian actors. After seeing the 2018 film Crazy Rich Asians, however, Quan, convinced Hollywood was finally ready to give complex Asian characters their due, got back in the game. Within five years’ time, the USC film school graduate would be holding an Oscar with his name on it. You can watch his acceptance speech below.
Quan was born in Saigon, South Vietnam, in 1971. North Vietnam toppled the South Vietnamese government in 1975, and Quan’s family fled the communist country by boat in 1978. Quan, his father, and five of his siblings made their way to Hong Kong, where they lived in a refugee camp, while his mother and three other siblings traveled to Malaysia. The journey, the sense of displacement, life in the camp, and the period of family separation was very traumatic for the seven-year-old Quan.
Quan’s family finally reunited a year later in the United States, but life in America wasn’t easy. As Quan recently told The Guardian, “We were refugees. Nobody wanted us … They would call us ‘fresh off the boat’. They would make fun of us when we were in school. You can imagine what that does to the mental state of a child.” Yet with good fortune, an education, the guidance of his parents, the support of friends, his own talent, and a lot perseverance, Quan ascended to the heights of his profession. As he said in his speech, “My journey started on a boat. I spent a year in a refugee camp. But somehow I ended up here on Hollywood’s biggest stage. They say stories like this only happen in the movies. I cannot believe it’s happening to me. This—this is the American dream!”
It was undoubtedly a proud moment for Quan, his 84-year-old mother, and the rest of his family. It should be a proud moment for America as well. Quan’s story is the sort of story this nation was built to tell. His celebration is our celebration. We aren’t the only country immigrants migrate to, but we are one of the only countries that places the immigrant story at the center of its national myth. Our core values—liberty and equality, but also hope, tolerance, perseverance, and hard work—draw people to our shores; those same people become living testaments to the importance of those values, reminding all of us what can happen on an individual-by-individual basis when we commit this country to honoring its highest ideals.
Earlier this month, the New York Times reported the Biden administration was considering reinstating a policy that would allow the government to detain families who cross the border illegally. For the past two years, in order to avoid traumatizing children by placing them in detention, the Biden administration has been releasing undocumented families with children into the United States while requiring them to wear or carry with them some sort of tracking device. This policy marked a break with the three previous administrations, each of which detained families, with the Trump administration attempting to implement a policy of indefinite detention. Trump’s presidency—which included the notorious family separation policy that could only be described as evil—revealed just how inhumane American immigration policy could be. As one prominent public figure said at the time
Biden is looking to tighten US immigration law because Title 42—the emergency CDC public health rule that allows border officials to immediately expel any migrant who crosses the border illegally, including asylum-seekers—is set to end on May 11, leading to what officials believe will be a massive increase in border crossings. Trump seized on the rule to crack down on illegal immigration, while Biden has relied upon it to counter surges in undocumented border crossings. Approximately 2.5 million migrants have been removed from the U.S. since March 2020 under Title 42, although the Biden administration has for various reasons granted exemptions to the rule to over 1 million migrants.
Title 42 has been problematic because the government has used it to expel asylum-seekers, whose entry into a country is protected by international law. Recently, large numbers of migrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela have fled to the United States to escape government persecution, violence, and dire economic conditions in their home countries. Knowing asylum isn’t guaranteed under Title 42, many asylum-seekers have attempted to enter the U.S. illegally. The Biden administration drastically reduced the number of illegal crossings in January of this year by announcing anyone seeking asylum who crossed the border illegally would be deported back to Mexico rather than their home country, while also agreeing to admit 30,000 asylum-seekers so long as they used proper channels. But Biden is also looking to toughen up the rules on those seeking asylum by proposing a rule that would presume migrants are ineligible for asylum if they enter the country illegally. They’ve also considered a rule that would deny asylum to an asylum-seeker who traveled through another country to reach the U.S., which would render nearly every asylum-seeker crossing the Mexican-American border ineligible for asylum.
Attempts by the Biden administration to humanize enforcement of Title 42 have not necessarily produced desirable results. For instance, under Trump, the United States deported 16,000 unaccompanied children who arrived in the country illegally. Biden changed the rule so anyone under the age of 12 who crossed the border alone was allowed to stay in government custody until a family member in the United States could be located. That, however, led to a major increase in the number of unaccompanied children entering the U.S. illegally, as parents who feared they would be denied entry concluded sending their child alone was the best option for their kid.
Immigration is a vexing political issue for multiple reasons. The sheer number of migrants seeking entry to the United States on an annual basis—hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people—places enormous strain on the nation’s immigration agencies, social services, and infrastructure. Placing a cap on the number of people allowed to enter the U.S. each year would push many to enter the country illegally. The Biden administration is signaling they would like migrants at the Mexican border to form a line and enter the country through proper channels, but again, if that line is too long and time-consuming, many will likely begin turning to alternative means to cross the border. Still, among those who do cross the border legally, many overstay their visas; in fact, approximately half of the illegal immigrants in the United States actually entered the United States legally. As all this demonstrates, it is very difficult for administrators to design “orderly” policies that don’t somehow exacerbate problems in other areas.
There is also the political problem attached to immigration, which is that a lot of Americans not only dislike illegal immigration but immigration generally. A recent AP poll found about 40% of Americans think the United States should accept fewer immigrants and refugees while only about 20% believe the United States should admit more. Because non-citizens can’t vote, politicians don’t have much incentive to stand up for them; if they do, their opposition will likely paint them as more concerned with the interests of non-Americans than the American people. This is true even when it comes to refugees, whom international law obliges us to care for. It becomes far too easy for politicians to overlook the genuine humanitarian concern here—parents and children fleeing dangerous homes, settling in insecure migrant camps, negotiating an opaque bureaucracy or undertaking precarious treks across the border, living in constant fear of deportation—and use these very vulnerable people as a way to look tough on immigration.
Of course, getting tough on immigration often translates into the construction of a police state. It involves hiring more border patrol and deportation agents to round up non-threatening parents and children who have come to this country seeking little more than a life of peace and stability; turning the nation into a fortress with a wall running along its southern border that would provide little by way of actual security; and issuing deterrence policies so severe in their consequences that they force desperate people in desperate situations to make impossible choices. And to justify treating people this way, we often dehumanize them: We stereotype them as “criminals” and “rapists,” dredge up tired old racist tropes to suggest they are undeserving of our sympathy and a place in our community, and cast their plight as a sign of their inferiority. The irony is that many who believe this rarely interact with or live alongside immigrants themselves; when they do, the immigrants they do know are always amazingly “the good ones.”
Democrats, who generally favor more liberal immigration policies, sense immigration isn’t a winning issue for them. Their strategy appears to be to speak highly of immigrants while adopting policies that won’t allow Republicans to peg them as too soft on illegal immigration, which Republicans do anyway. Meanwhile, the problems associated with immigration fester: People still cross the border illegally, lines of legal entry and pathways to citizenship are still too long, it still remains too hard to effectively police the border and enforce immigration laws, immigrants and refugees are still treated inhumanely, and the United States still runs afoul of international law. And so long as those problems fester, immigration is going to be a drag on Democrats.
If immigration is a losing issue for Democrats, why not lose it then on terms that at least stir the consciences of Americans? Embrace that more liberal immigration policy by calling for additional agents to process a greater number of immigrants at the border. Make it easier for immigrants to navigate the pathway to citizenship. Emphasize how it makes more sense economically and administratively to set up a system designed to expedite the immigration process than it does to create a police state engaged in an unending struggle to chase down illegal immigrants. And drive home that this is the more compassionate approach to dealing with this problem, the one that doesn’t criminalize children and separate them from their parents or demean people for wanting to improve their lives.
Democrats will undoubtedly be dragged by Republicans for not being tough enough on immigration. When that happens, start telling personal stories like the one Ke Huy Quan told on Oscar night. Those sort of stories make Americans of all backgrounds proud of the country they’ve inherited and maintained. It affirms the values Americans cherish. To reject the immigrant is to reject our history and suggest America isn’t all we say it’s cracked up to be.
If a Vietnamese refugee can make it here, that means any one of us can, too. It means the promise isn’t broken, our national aspirations can still be realized, that the American Dream is alive and well. And to paraphrase Quan, Dreams are something we need to believe in. We can’t give up on that. We need to keep that Dream alive.
Signals and Noise
Let’s begin with something of an apology. Shadi Hamid writes in The Atlantic about how politics and “information addiction” are making Americans—specifically young liberals—sick. Seeing catastrophes and injustices around every corner, politically- attentive young liberals are experiencing higher than normal rates of depression. (So if you’re reading Reason to Believe this week: Sorry.) Hamid wants liberals to quit mainlining the news and look on the bright side for once. But I don’t know: While I do think liberals often overlook the political leverage they do have in American politics, the nation is still perched in a pretty precarious position. Pretending everything will just work out fine is as unrealistic as catastrophizing everything.
Stratechery has a good in-depth overview of what went wrong at Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and what it means for the tech industry, the US banking system, and government regulation of the financial sector.
Emily Stewart of Vox wonders if the Fed’s interest rate hikes led to SVB’s collapse. In another article, she looks at how worried we should be about the stability of small banks (while reminding us we don’t want a world with only a few big banks.)
Annie Lowrey of The Atlantic has delivered two good articles on the banking crisis: “You Should Be Outraged About Silicon Valley Bank” (looking at the way so many people in positions of responsibility either didn’t act to prevent SVB’s collapse or threw gasoline onto the problem) and “Silicon Valley Bank’s Failure Is Now Everyone’s Problem” (which asks the question “Is every bank too big to fail now?”)
In 2018, the Republican-led Congress (with some Democratic votes) and President Trump passed a bill loosening bank regulations. According to Democrats, one of those changes—which exempted medium-sized banks from “too big to fail requirements”—likely contributed to SVB’s failure. Republicans blame it all on “woke” banking, which is weird.
Given how unremarkable a basic bank run is, Jesse Eisenberg of ProPublica wonders where the regulators were.
The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank has particularly rocked climate start-ups, many of whom had accounts with SVB, reports David Gelles of the New York Times. It also might lead to tougher regulation of cryptocurrencies.
Peter Baker of the New York Times looks at the political consequences of what Joe Biden won’t call a “bailout.” (“Washington remains haunted by the specter of government intervention after the banking sector collapse that triggered the Great Recession, leaving leaders of both parties determined to avoid any repeat of that painful period. The colossal bailouts initiated under President George W. Bush and continued under Mr. Obama arguably saved the global economy but also provoked such a ferocious popular backlash that they transformed American politics to this day. The notion that ‘fat-cat bankers,’ as Mr. Obama once called them, should be rescued by the government even as everyday Americans lost their jobs, their homes and their life savings so rankled the public that it gave birth to the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements and undermined the establishment across the political spectrum. In some ways, that popular revolt empowered populists like Donald J. Trump and Bernie Sanders, ultimately helping Mr. Trump to win the presidency.”)
This is depressing: One of the people lobbying on behalf of Signature Bank—another bank the federal government had to step in to rescue this past week—to loosen federal banking regulations is former Democratic congressman Barney Frank, who co-authored the Dodd-Frank legislation that toughened banking regulations following the onset of the Great Recession.
Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post notes this sudden concern with the stability of our banking system should prompt Congress to stop playing games with the debt ceiling.
Buckle your seat belts, folks: Don Trump thinks he’s going to be indicted this week.
Using Simpsonian logic, Don Trump blamed Mike Pence for 1/6, saying if Pence had simply sent the votes back to the state legislatures, his supporters wouldn’t have attempted to subvert the government using violent means.
Trump’s 2020 campaign paid $600,000 to researchers to investigate claims of voter fraud. They found very few instances of fraud and nothing to back up Trump’s most common and outlandish accusations. Yet Trump continued to push those accusations and never made the investigation’s claims public.
Once again, a state Republican party has selected an election denier as its new leader, this time in Colorado.
Matthew Dallek has written a book about the John Birch Society and wonders in The Atlantic if its collapse in the 1960s might foreshadow the collapse of the MAGA movement.
Simon Rosenberg argues Ron DeSantis’ hard embrace of MAGA politics will make him nearly unelectable in a nationwide presidential contest in 2024.
But Josh Barro looks at how DeSantis may be setting himself up well for a general election run (and why he shouldn’t be underestimated.)
Twenty-one South Carolina Republican lawmakers have proposed a bill that would make women convicted of getting an abortion eligible for the death penalty.
Christian Paz of Vox imagines a scenario that could get Independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema re-elected in Arizona.
Freshman Republican Tennessee Congressman Andy Ogles raised $25,000 for a burial garden for children. There is no garden, and no one can find the money. Ogles is also embroiled in a Santos-esque scandal concerning his own inflated resume. (BTW: Tennessee is working overtime to dethrone Florida as the craziest state in the nation.)
Ronald Brownstein of The Atlantic examines the widening gap between the demographic characteristics of the House districts represented by the two parties, which has not only left Congress deeply divided by closely divided.
Following on from last week’s post about the hollowing-out of American institutions, Leana S. Wen of the Washington Post has written an article about the need to restore public trust in public health systems.
From Ian Bremmer:
John Gruber has an interesting take on why the US should ban TikTok. (A TikTok ban could hurt Democrats politically, though.)
Eric Cortellessa of Time has a profile about one of the most surprisingly effective bureaucrats in Washington: Postmaster General (and Trump appointee) Louis DeJoy.
Ron DeSantis told Tucker Carlson he does not think protecting Ukraine is a vital American interest and characterized the conflict as a “territorial dispute” between Russia and Ukraine.
Isabelle Khurshudyan, Paul Sonne, and Karen DeYoung write in the Washington Post about growing problems in the ranks of the Ukrainian military, which is running short on ammunition, experienced soldiers, and morale. Some frontline officers doubt Ukraine’s ability to launch a significant counteroffensive. NATO officials believe approximately 150,000 Ukrainian soldiers have either been killed or wounded in a year of war, which has deprived the military of its most experienced and capable fighters.
The International Criminal Court has opened cases against Russia concerning the abduction of children and the targeting of civilians. Late last week, it issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has joined the protests against Israel’s new far-right government, telling Jonathan Guyer of Vox, “The government of Israel is the enemy of the state of Israel.”
For the first time, Gallup found more Democrats sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis. As background, Netanyahu has made it a point to specifically court conservative Christians and Trump supporters—who are more amenable to his hardline policies—rather than the broader American public.
French President Emmanuel Macron has raised his nation’s retirement age from 62 to 64, igniting a fierce political backlash in France.
Brian Resnick of Vox interviews science writer Carl Zimmer about why it’s so hard for scientists to settle on a definition of “life.”
Top 5 Records Music Review: Ranking the 2023 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Nominees
The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame announced its 2023 nominees a couple months ago. Voting is open, and the results are expected to be announced in early April. It’s a short list this year—only 14 artists—but that means they could induct up to half of the names on the ballot. And it’s a pretty solid list, too, with only one artist I’d consider an unequivocal “no” but only on a technicality. As for everyone else, well, some cases are stronger than others, but there’s no one whose induction would lower the bar. So here are the nominees, broken down into five tiers from least to most deserving.
Tier 5 (On the Outside Looking In)—Last year, the most contentious RRHoF nominee was country musician Dolly Parton, who initially declined her nomination because she didn’t consider herself a rock and roll performer. A public eager to honor her compelled her to rescind her request, and Parton soon found herself a Rock and Roll Hall of Famer. I agreed with Parton’s first instincts: While both genres have influenced one another, country and rock and roll have for the most part developed independently of one another. Honoring country in the RRHoF would require the RRHoF to not only consider dozens of other legendary country performers, but performers from other non-rock genres as well, such as jazz, salsa, and traditional pop. It’s fine to honor those artists, but doing so in an institution dedicated to celebrating the history and development of rock and roll would muddle its mission.
Which is why I wouldn’t vote for 89-year-old Willie Nelson, who appears on the ballot for the first time this year. It’s not because I don’t think Nelson is an historically important artist—he certainly is—just that RRHoF voters need to be careful about inducting performers working beyond the boundaries of rock and roll. Yes, if Parton is in, it makes sense to induct Nelson as well, and as an outlaw country musician who broke with the Nashville establishment of the 1960s and 1970s, Nelson has some of rock and roll’s rebellious spirit in him as well. But this is setting up a problematic precedent that should be stopped before the RRHoF loses track of its purpose. (It would have been far better for the RRHoF to give Parton and Nelson a Musical Excellence Award.)
There’s another problem Parton and Nelson’s nominations highlight as well: The RRHoF’s failure to honor Gram Parsons, the artist in the late 1960s who did more than anyone else to reconnect rock and roll to its country roots. Whereas so many country musicians are bound by tradition, Parson’s work with the Byrds, the Flying Burrito Brothers, and on his own records aimed to open country music to new musical possibilities. That the RRHoF is suddenly inspired to honor country musicians when it cannot bring itself to give the founder of country rock the recognition he deserves demonstrates how the RRHoF oftentimes struggles with the basic task of chronicling the history of the music it celebrates. (See “Blue Eyes Crying in the Rain”, “Georgia on My Mind”, “On the Road Again”)
Tier 4 (You Can Make the Case, But…)—None
Tier 3 (One Foot In, One Foot Out)—I suspect there’s a lot of industry goodwill out there for Sheryl Crow, which may be enough to land her in the RRHoF. She compares favorably with other singer-songwriters and solo artists in the Hall. She can fill out a greatest hits album with her best songs, although those songs (for the most part) are also very middle of the road. Crow wasn’t at the heart of the 90s Lilith Fair movement, nor was she an essential 90s roots rocker, so her historical impact is faint. Her records are remembered fondly without necessarily being revered. At the end of the day, she’s a catchy, admired, but perhaps undistinguished artist. Crow is by no means a lock for the RRHoF, but her inclusion wouldn’t be egregious, either. (See “All I Wanna Do”, “If It Makes You Happy”, and “My Favorite Mistake”)
Forty years ago, Cyndi Lauper released She’s So Unusual, a sneaky good album that leads with six great songs—“Money Changes Everything”, “Girls Just Want to Have Fun” (so much better in context than as part of a Best of the 80s comp), “When You Were Mine”, “Time After Time”, “She Bop”, “All Through the Night”—before settling into three tracks of filler. Excepting the song from The Goonies, Lauper would gift us with one more hit—“True Colors” (1986)—before becoming a fixture of 80s nostalgia. Some might even say a punchline. But time has been kind to Lauper, who has emerged as the patron saint of soulful weirdos, the quirky vulnerable-but-tough girl who’s an ally of every outcast. Lauper is an icon now. But does that make her a RRHoFer? Other artists—Carole King, the Sex Pistols—have earned induction based off one album’s worth of work. She’s So Unusual doesn’t match Tapestry and Never Mind the Bollocks in terms of significance, though.
Is it possible after all these years, even after it’s become an accepted fact, that people still don’t appreciate how great, how soulful Chris Cornell’s voice was? That to me remains the greatest attribute of Soundgarden, who, along with Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Alice in Chains, defined the sound of grunge rock when it exploded in the early 1990s. More importantly historically, however, no other Seattle rock band was more devoted to the fusion of punk and metal than Soundgarden. Yet in my book, that’s also their greatest drawback: Their albums are a slog. Grunge had its moment, but it hasn’t aged well. Soundgarden is next in line after the twin towers of Nirvana and Pearl Jam, but voters will need to assess how deep they need to go to give 90s hard rock its full due. (See “Black Hole Sun”)
Twenty years ago this April, the White Stripes released Elephant, which led off with the now ubiquitous “Seven Nation Army”. Rolling Stone gave the album a rare five-star review, the White Stripes were anointed the greatest rock band of their era, and a mere five years into their career, they were destined to enter the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I felt that way then, but I’m not so sure now. What people appreciated about the band then was that they knew their roots: The blues, garage rock, punk. But did that lead the Stripes to anything new? Their formalism and carefully curated image cultivated intrigue; now it seems stagey and pretentious. They’ll probably walk right into the RRHoF, but honestly, they seem like a band fabricated for induction. (See also “Fell In Love with a Girl”, “Icky Thump”)
Tier 2 (In the Queue)—He isn’t in the same league as Michael Jackson, Madonna, and Prince in the pantheon of 1980s pop acts, but George Michael stands just outside their circle. With Wham! and then as a solo artist, Michael’s blend of new pop, synthpop, and post-disco helped set the standard for the 80s pop explosion. (See “Everything She Wants”, “Faith”, and “Freedom! ‘90”.) Nominated for the fifth time, Rage Against the Machine would seem to be exactly the sort of artist RRHoF voters would want to enshrine: An innovative, defiantly political band. Perhaps their association with much-maligned rap-rock hurts them even though they stand out artistically from other acts in the genre. With only fourteen nominees this time around, this finally may be RATM’s year. (See “Killing in the Name”, “Bulls on Parade”, and “Sleep Now In the Fire”.) Another repeat nominee is the Spinners, who are up for induction for the fourth time. I may be inflating this group’s significance, but if the Hall wants to honor all the important 60s and 70s soul acts, this Thom Bell-produced Philadelphia Soul group leads a list of artists (Harold Melvin and the Blue Notes, Joe Tex, Barry White) who must be considered. (See “Could I Be I’m Falling In Love”, “One of a Kind [Love Affair]”, and “The Rubberband Man”.) It makes sense to also induct Warren Zevon, an acerbic 70s singer-songwriter whose dim view of humanity brought to the surface what so many of his SoCal peers only hinted at in their work. Given the RRHoF’s penchant for enshrining singer-songwriters, it’s amazing Zevon has never even been nominated before; some think it may be a result of appearing alphabetically last on lists of overlooked artists. (See “Werewolves of London”, “Lawyers, Guns and Money”, and “Excitable Boy”.) And if we’re being completists, if Def Leppard and Judas Priest have been inducted in recent years, then so should Iron Maiden, a touchstone for all heavy metal bands that followed in their wake and an enduringly popular live act. If they make the cut, the RRHoF should also give Eddie, the band’s zombie-like mascot, a trophy. (See “Run to the Hills”, “The Trooper”, and “2 Minutes to Midnight”.)
Tier 1 (Sure-Fire Hall of Famers)—Back on the ballot for a second year in a row is A Tribe Called Quest. Last year, I had ATCQ listed as a Tier 2 band, but it’s becoming harder and harder not to view this jazz-influenced rap group as one of the most innovative and influential acts of the 1990s. Overshadowed at the time by gangsta rap, the musical paths blazed by A Tribe Called Quest are still being explored by today’s most adventurous artists. (See “Can I Kick It”, “Check the Rhime”, “Scenario”, and “Electric Relaxation”.) Kate Bush returns to the ballot for a fourth time, this time buoyed by the use of her 1985 single “Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)” in last year’s season of Stranger Things, which pushed the track to #3 on the US Billboard charts and to #1 in the UK. Bush’s fantastical, Romantic, highly dramatic music lit the way for the Lilith Fair generation of singer-songwriters. (Also see “Wuthering Heights” and “Babooshka”.) First-time nominee Missy Elliott would be the first female rap artist to enter the RRHoF. Elliott’s work (both as a producer and an artist) was always wildly creative, hitting the charts and MTV playlists at rhythmic and lyrical right angles before quickly dominating and rearranging them. (See “The Rain [Supa Dupa Fly]”, “Get Ur Freak On”, and “Work It”.)
The most important artist nominated this year, however, is Joy Division/New Order, who sit near the top of the RRHoF’s snub list. Formed in 1976 in Manchester, England, after guitarist/keyboardist Bernard Sumner and bassist Peter Hook attended a Sex Pistols concert, Joy Division quickly moved on from punk to become one of the most important post-punk bands to emerge from the UK. Their throbbing bass lines, jagged guitar parts, and crooned songs of melancholy and despair distinguished them from angry punk bands and set the stage for goth rock (see “She’s Lost Control”). Joy Division soon began experimenting with synthesizers (see “Love Will Tear Us Apart”) but before embarking on a US tour, lead singer Ian Curtis committed suicide. Rather than break-up, the band renamed themselves New Order and began creating early synthpop and electronica tracks, including “Blue Monday”, the best-selling 12-inch single of all-time and a classic club track. Their influence stretches to the Cure, Depeche Mode, U2, the Smiths, Smashing Pumpkins, Radiohead, and Interpol. There are entire musical cityscapes built on the foundations laid down by Joy Division and New Order. (For more about Joy Division and the fraught life of Ian Curtis, watch the excellent 2007 film Control.)
If I had a ballot, I’d vote for all four Tier 1 artists (Joy Division/New Order, Kate Bush, Missy Elliott, and A Tribe Called Quest) and probably the Spinners as the longest overdue act on the list. But who do I think will make it? Willie Nelson for sure, along with Cyndi Lauper, Warren Zevon, Missy Elliott, and George Michael. Beyond those five, it gets hard to see, though. Kate Bush is a very buzzy pick, but I’m not sure voters will rally to her on account of the popularity of a Netflix TV series. There’s been a contingent of voters who have been pushing 80s post-punk/synthpop bands into the RRHoF lately, so I could see Joy Division/New Order making it, but they’re also more obscure than the likes of recent inductees Eurythmics and the Cure. If Joy Division/New Order doesn’t make it, that would probably pave the way for the White Stripes or (finally) Rage Against the Machine.
Further Reading: “Why Are Women So Marginalised by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame” by Courtney Love for The Guardian