If you take his personal assistant’s word for it, John Lennon was a closet Republican who supported Reagan at the time of his death:
In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn’t the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.
He says, “John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.
“He’d met Reagan back, I think, in the 70s at some sporting event… Reagan was the guy who had ordered the National Guard, I believe, to go after the young (peace) demonstrators in Berkeley, so I think that John maybe forgot about that… He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me.
“I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who’s an old-time communist… He enjoyed really provoking my uncle… Maybe he was being provocative… but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.
“He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he’d been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy’s naivete.”
Since the existence of a stray B minor in Tom Petty’s “American Girl” inspired a number of angry e-mails to be sent my way yesterday (don’t ask), I can only imagine what opining on Lennon will do. But I think it’s non-controversial among conservatives — and indeed all men of good sense — that “Imagine” is the most politically naive song ever written, so bad that I can’t, as I usually can, mentally separate its lyrics from its otherwise beautiful melody. Then there was Lennon and Yoko’s oft-repeated line “War is over, if you want it”, which displays an ignorance not only of human nature but of the metaphysics of action.* It’s cheering to hear he was beginning to see the light before his untimely end.
*I say this even though a shocking number of my favorite Beatles songs are Lennon or primarily-Lennon compositions (“Don’t Let Me Down”, “Hide Your Love Away”, “In My Life”). But if you ask me what kind of guy I am, I’d say I’m a Paul Guy.** He was far more prolific than Lennon, especially in the last years of the Beatles, and unlike Lennon he had a truly big voice. His lyrics often weren’t as thoughtful or affecting as those of Lennon, but then they also weren’t as self-indulgent and pseudo-intellectual. I recall Lennon saying in an interview somewhere that McCartney was ‘We hope you will enjoy the show’ while he was ‘I heard the news today, oh boy’. That’s elegant.
**Harrison’s was pound-for-pound in the same league, if not at quite the same level, as either McCartney or Lennon. Pound for pound.
Interesting to imagine.
Of course, leftist (in all their class baiting) like to dismiss these stories as "rich man discovers he's a Republican".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can't believe that you left out "Revolution." That's often hailed as one of the more conservative rock songs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIndeed, I thought of it right away...
Well said.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"inspired a number of angry e-mails to be sent my way"
You get a star. But Mike has more. Always remember, it's about you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"so bad that I can’t, as I usually can, mentally separate its lyrics from its otherwise beautiful melody"
I find it rather odd that a Christian wouldn't, in principle, be for world peace. But it may be you are not Christian in which case apologies!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe perpetual peace of the graveyard?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou might actually listen to the song before jerking the knee. I'm not a religionist, but I'd imagine it would difficult for a Christian to be for a world peace that requires as a prerequisite the elimination of heaven and religion . Ya think?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSaying a Christian who criticizes "Imagine" doesn't want peace, is like saying someone who hates fascism must hate Germany.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere we have the quintessential example of left-wing closed- and simple- mindedness. Mr. Foster thinks Imagine is a naive song and, therefore, this person thinks he is not "for world peace"!!
Perhaps the responder can also explain to us why a Christian should be enamored of a song that calls upon us to imagine "no religion too?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExpatAsia, A Christian believes in the God of the Bible. A non-Christian who calls himself one believes that his own judgement defines what is good, e.g. "world peace."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe word "peace" in the Bible typically describes a right relationship with God. How about actually opening the book and reading quotes about "peace" in context? And don't cry "peace, peace" when there is no peace. Jer 6:14
I agree. The anti-religious statement of the song should be understood in the context of a message that is consonant with some religious teachings. Is there religion in the Kingdom of God? I don't imagine so, not religion in the sense that there would be religious differences.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe was a rich man, true, but perhaps the real reason he couldn't remain a lefty was that he didn't know anyone at Goldman Sachs.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBest rock review I ever read was a one-line letter to Rolling Stone:
Imagine John with no possessions.
I literally can't hear the song or even read about it without remembering that line. Anyway, Lennon liked to shock, so it doesn't surprise me that he would shake up some music-industry folks with nice talk about Reagan.
As for John, Paul or George, yeah, I have to vote Paul, too. Best melodist of the lot by far, and hanging a good melody is the trickiest art in music. Now if McCartney would only get off his Obama kick...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne can be a Christian, desire world peace and know that it is impossible given human nature.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMargaret, Absolutely, a Christian will not find peace with the natural person. Per James 4:4 Friendship with the world is enmity with God. And someone else said “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." The world's concept of peace, much like its concept of love ("make love"), is ungodly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd we thought Lennon was only sleeping.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's possible to interpret the "Imagine" lyrics in a deeper way, though I'm sure Lennon meant them in the naive way originally. It's a song about dropping preconceptions that pin us to particular ideas: one could "Imagine" a world with no income tax, though most Democrats would find it difficult. The problem with the song is that it comes off as nihilistic, denying genuine faith, religion, human connections. He doesn't take it the further - necessary - step, to actually "Imagine" what one would have in place of everything he's excluded, beyond asserting that people would automatically be happier.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLennon's old "Revolution" is actually a quite damning piece of work for those pushing a fashionable 'collectivist' offering...
"You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You'd better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow"
Maybe Lennon was growing up a little during the Reagan Era, but he would have returned quickly to embracing the opposite - for the Fashion is heavy in this artistic arena.
Mr. Foster, I am not surprised many wrote angry emails over the idea an Artist wanted Mrs. Bachmann to stop playing his work to identify with a politician. The fashion is thick amongst us, with some so passionate, they are no longer conservative with their efforts. It is all emotive nonsense.
This seems a natural, an artist trying to protect their own property. Who would want their work to be used by any politician? The Fleetwood Mac tune, "don't stop thinking about tomorrow" always turns my stomach these days, being ultimately connected with the corrupt Clinton incompetence. Yesterday might be "gone", "don't you look back", for it will remind you of the Clinton lies about genocide in Rwanda, a disastrous attempt to Nationalize the US Health Care, massive tax increases, Federal Loan guarantees for Enron, peddling pardons to the likes of the "RICH", the mindless Gorelick Wall, the Somalia version of the Bay of Pigs, Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, Chinagate - even the abuse of a young intern in an attempt to rig Bill's personal sexual harassment trial.
The sexual overtones alone, in terms of Petty's "American Girl", should have made the Bachmann Camp reconsider it's use, but such is the state of today's contemporary politics (especially with Our Own Conservative Side who should know better) - some rarely pay attention to the content.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhen I saw this headline, my first thought was "Oh, please don't tell me that we have to accept the guy who wrote 'Imagine' as one of ours." I mean, I know that the Republican party is supposed to be a "big tent," but surely there are limits.
However, if he really was embarrassed by the sentiments expressed in the "dopey anthem for fluffy nihilists" (thank you, Mark Steyn), then I might forgive him for having written it. Maybe. Eventually.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMy brother actually predicted this on his blog, The Solid Surfer, in 2005. His prediction that Lennon would have become a Republican was picked up by James Taranto and the WSJ. See the link and story below:
External Link
John Lennon - Republican?
Next week sadly will be the 25th anniversary of John Lennon's shocking murder. And as we recall and commemorate the ex-Beatle's all-too-short life, we fondly remember him as a colorful figure, husband and father, standout musician, and international celebrity.
Many mainstream media outlets, though, also remember Lennon the political activist, and assume that if alive today, he would have continued the radical leftist bent he displayed in the late '60s and early '70s. To mark what would have been Lennon's 65th birthday, for example, Beatles biographer Hunter Davies speculates that John would be at the forefront of leftwing activism, protesting against Bush, Blair, and the war in Iraq.
Now certainly Mr. Davies knows plenty about the Beatles, but on this matter I believe he is fully mistaken. Au contraire, I see Lennon becoming a patriotic, pro-America Republican.
Yes, I know this may sound ludicrous to some - this same man, after all, virtually represented all things anti-authority, protested vehemently against Vietnam, and wrote his most famous solo song ("Imagine") as a virtual ode to utopian communism. But perhaps even more strongly, Lennon detested hypocrisy and always remained on the search for the "next big thing." Given this, I doubt he would have stagnated politically like so many of his leftwing brethren; rather, I believe he would have reversed course entirely a la Michael Medved, David Horowitz, and other liberals-turned-conservatives.
Notwithstanding Davies' official group biography, the best Beatle book out there, in my opinion, is the late Ian MacDonald's Revolution In The Head. (For the record, I am a huge Beatles fan who owns all their albums, has read a number of books on the band, and has seen both McCartney and Ringo in concert in recent years.) Not quite a traditional biography, Revolution examines the Beatles and their music in the context of the decade they represented most - the 1960s. (The band formed in 1957, issued their first single in 1962, and broke up in 1970.)
Many of the book's most fascinating sections cover Lennon and his cultural and political views, and far more than being a by-the-numbers leftist, the head Beatle continually explored new avenues of life experiences in an ongoing search for meaning and importance. Never settling on any one phase for long, John led the group through a myriad of '60s hallmarks - tough rock 'n' roll, Bob Dylan-style folk music, psychedelic drugs and the Summer of Love, meditation and Indian mysticism, anti-war protests, and finally a return to their roots (the "Get Back" project which was released as the Let It Be album). This same pattern continued after the Beatles' breakup, as John launched a solo career, explored leftist/communist political activism with wife Yoko Ono, spent an infamous two-year "lost weekend" living the celebrity life in Los Angeles, sought peace and quiet by moving to New York, retired from music in 1975 to become a stay-at-home father, and returned to his career in low-key fashion shortly before his 1980 assassination.
Clearly, Lennon was no career leftwing activist; rather, it was a particular phase in his highly varied and fascinating life, and as he grew older, he certainly appeared to grow more conservative in his cultural and family outlook. At the same time, he always railed against establishment stagnancy, and today, it is the Democrats, particularly those on the far left, who have largely assumed this characteristic. I believe John would have continued these personal trends, and were he alive today, would with sharp moral clarity support America's efforts to achieve freedom around the world. Assuming he would have obtained U.S. citizenship (he was on track, having been granted permanent residency status), I feel he would have become a card-carrying Republican and voted for President Bush in the 2004 election.
Perhaps his latest song would have even been a cover of "G-d Bless The USA."
*note: This essay is adapted from a piece I wrote back in October on the occasion of Mr. Lennon's would-have-been 65th birthday.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse