John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death – according to the tragic Beatles star’s last personal assistant.
Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon’s death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.
via Lennon was a closet Republican: Assistant | World | News | Toronto Sun.
This doesn’t surprise me at all.
Winston Churchill, as he does so often, said it best:
“If you are not a liberal at the age of 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at the age of 30, you have no brain.”
Apparently Lennon actually had a brain.
12 users commented in " Imagine, John Lennon a Reagan fan… "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackIf you listened to his music, you could here the shift in his views to a degree. As he spent time rearing his son, getting away from the music business, getting away from the drugs, his focus became a little more pointed toward his family. Double Fantasy was a disappointment to music critics because they wanted the radical John, instead they got the middle aged thinking man commenting on real life…. “Real Love”. Not the manufactured vision for peace and love, but the tangible type that we should aspire to.
His early life was turmoil. If you get a chance read the various biographies on him, and you see someone who got so caught up in self adulation that was reinforced by the fans and drugs he took. It ruined a marriage that he got into because of his conventionalism.
Yoko came from a very conservative background as well. While she rebelled against that with her “art”, she took over the John Lennon business. John learned that business couldn’t be handled in a liberal manner, Apple was a huge money pit failure, under Yoko’s conservative business approach, he became a lot more wealthy. He also learned the value of money instead of having his manager just signing for things.
Quite believable, though he was probably more center than true right, he wasn’t a socialist rebel once he grew up some.
Interesting, Cosmic.
Yeah, as a Beatlemaniac of some degree, I’ve read a few biographies of the Beatles. I know more about John Lennon’s childhood, family life and upbringing than I know about my own parents. Which maybe says a lot about me…
I completely concur about his shift in his music. When he finally started releasing songs again, the focus shift from radical philosophical rantings to a quiet acceptance of responsibility, relationships and commitments was very refreshing and I was looking forward to more of the same when his life was cut short. Very sad.
My dad hated John Lennon. He blamed the Beatles for most of the turmoil and drug culture of the 60s, which I think is totally unfair. If anything the Beatles were the least radical of the popular bands of the day. When the Beatles were pushed by their peers to record an anti-government “protest song” their response was “Revolution” which was essentially a song saying that everything was gonna be all right. (Yes, I know on a re-recorded version of the song, John voices over “in” when the Beatles sang “count me out”.)
Cosmic, I too am a huge fan of the Beatles music. I can understand to a degree the thought that the Beatles share some blame for the 60′s drug culture. They weren’t the only ones, and as you say, fairly tame by other groups standards. The talent the Beatles had and where they took music, even aside from all the baggage, was incredible.
I think the larger portion of blame for the 60′s mess was the “greatest generation”, giving birth to the baby boomers and rampant consumerism, TV played a huge role as well. Parents tuned out, Vietnam played a big role, the Cold War, heck just about everything in that era did it’s part to bring us here, but isn’t that the way it always is?
The Beatles were so young when they broke out, playing night clubs for hours lead to drug use and abuse, they put their subtle hints about drugs in their songs, despite their denials. I mean, honestly, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds might have had some influence by a Julian drawing, but that was only after staring at the drawing while on a trip.
I think while John and the rest enjoyed the success they had, they also hated it and what it did to their lives. How do you not rebel at just about everything when you can’t even step outside your house without being mobbed by fans?
They were a bit naive which was reflected in the usually positive messages they told in their songs. All you need is love… till it doesn’t work.
I was always a fan of Lennon’s music moreso than Paul’s, though some of the therapy crap he put out was a reflection on Yoko’s influence on him going avantgard. The last music he made had me wanting to see where he would take us on his observations on life. What a big loss we had that December day.
Andy, I’ve never really been much for favorites in any area. Questions like “what’s your favorite color” are immediately captured and imprisoned by my analytical inner demon which throws the question into a smelly, bare room with one table, two chairs, a harsh light bulb dangling from a wire, and a one-way window reflecting the scene. Then it starts grilling the question: “Do you mean for clothes? Cars? Food? Walls?” then it bangs the table hard with its metaphorical fist and yells “What are you really after?! This isn’t about color at all, is it? It’s really a test of personal character in some sneaky way! What if I say ‘red’? Will I see a knowing smile and sardonic sneer as you file me away under the tag ‘people who speed in the fast lane and talk loud at parties’!?!?!”
Etc. etc…
I like a lot of John’s songs. I like a lot of Paul’s songs. I like a lot of George’s songs. I even like the few songs that Ringo contributed (“Octopus’s Garden” is quite lovely, I think). I see a distinction in general between John and Paul, where John is generally more philosophical, angry and angsty, but Paul has his share of philosophical, angry and angsty songs as well. Paul is more upbeat, rockabilly and saccharine, but John has plenty of upbeat, rockabilly saccharine songs himself. That’s in part why the worked so well together I think.
Which of them I “like better” is dependent on my mood, the situation, what I’ve heard lately and probably how hungry I am. Which is the same for pretty much every other “what’s your favorite XXX” question. The only answer I’ve ever been able to give is “I don’t do favorites.”
The biggest thing about many of the Beatles songs, especially in the earlier days, was it was a collaboration, one might come up with a larger portion of it, but both worked it over and added to it. I think the later music showed a lot of who had the greater influence in the various songs.
Paul and John both wrote great songs. I think the reason for their songs playing so well for so long is that they played off each other’s strengths, John would help add some additional edge to some of Paul’s sweeter songs, Paul would round off the rough corners of John’s.
I do think they also worked at writing songs like each other. They pushed each other so they both expanded their horizons.
I find myself still being surprised by some of the esoteric references in some of the songs, being surprised by the knowledge they had at a young age and for “kids” who didn’t really take schooling very seriously.
George and Ringo had some very good songs as well, though Ringo’s songs were a lot more limited. George was overshadowed by the giant talents of Paul and John, and his songs probably didn’t get as much notice and recognition as they should have.
I wouldn’t say I would exclude one over an another of them, but I find that I tend to enjoy more of John’s songs than I do of Paul’s, this was more true of their solo work, but even carried over somewhat into their Beatles work.
I like John’s voice quality and sound over Paul’s, though all of them had great voices. It might be in part some of the influence of liking the voice so much that lent itself to liking his songs a little more.
Interestingly, John hated his own voice. That’s why there are so many songs with John’s voice altered in some way. In one song he sang through a paper tube. Frankly I have to sometimes listen pretty hard to tell the difference between them.
If there is one Beatles song that really demonstrates musical range, control and tone quality, I would say it is “Oh Darling.” That is a really, really hard song to sing well. It’s got everything. Range, energy, sweetness, edge… I get chills every time I hear it.
“Something” may not have much range, but the sincerity and etherealness of George’s voice makes that almost the perfect love song. Sung about the same woman that Eric Clapton wrote “Layla” for. Lennon’s singing ability was most evident on his hardest rock efforts, particularly “Twist and Shout.” (Although I have to say George almost equals him on “Roll Over Beethoven”. Ringo, bless his heart, couldn’t sing a lick. On the two songs (I think) they Beatles released with him as lead, John and Paul have both commented in interviews that they had to work with Ringo to keep the song in his range. But I still like them.
Pattie Boyd would be that woman…for the record.
Cosmic, you addressed me, and talked about “favorites.” Ummmm…it’s interesting, but I have a feeling you were really addressing someone else. I mean, all I wrote was, “Interesting, Cosmic.”
Regardless, you’ve probably seen this by now, but if not… http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/06/john-lennon.html
It ain’t great, but it ain’t all that bad, either. Happy Independence Day, Cosmic!
Um… right you are Andy… dunno where my head was at…
Hi Sean,
My name is Rodger, a former blogger. Well, apparently not so much.
Reagan was a dick. John Lennon did not have a dick. Before you banish me to the netherworld, I would greatly appreciate a classic CC rebuttal. You used to be a complete baddass when challenged. I miss the appropriate and sometimes relentless articulation of logic you used at Dean Esmay’s blog.
That place is sorely lacking due to your absence. I rarely take a peak.
I do like Dean, overall, I guess. He got a little stupid with you. You probably challenged him outside the emotional bubbles he has on some subjects. Different reference points can be problematic.
So, explain to me why conservatives get all moist when apparently liberal celebrities are purported to show signs of brains. Even though I’m pretty sure Churchill said “sense” not “brains”.
I could be wrong.
“So, explain to me why conservatives get all moist when apparently liberal celebrities are purported to show signs of brains.”
…..If you have to ask the question
Leave A Reply