> Lazy evaluation as a default seems to imply the necessity of something like monads.
If the assertion is that monads only have use in lazy languages then I disagree with that assertion. Otherwise, indeed, monads are a powerful abstraction for expressing computation of many kinds.
> The question is whether lazily evaluating everything is a good idea; [...]
To what is this question relevant? The usefulness of Haskell?; Haskell has an active userbase and community; that it is useful is a given.
> I haven't seen many problems in the wild that are referentially transparent in nature (i.e. purely algorithmic).
Some programs cannot be written that are completely referentially transparent, yes. However, their implementations can be composed of referentially transparent constructs. I don't think the Haskell language makes the claim that all programs are to be purely referentially transparent, indeed, Simon Peyton Jones calls Haskell his favourite imperative language. He also claims that most of the work of a Haskell program is in the pure code, which makes sense.
> Based on the whole monad & monoidal wankery I'm seeing, I'm inclined to think that it's not (yet).
I am not sure how to interpret this remark.
> Based on the whole monad & monoidal wankery I'm seeing, I'm inclined to think that [lazy evaluation is not a good idea] (yet).
Perhaps, but more elaboration on why monads are indeed “wankery” should be provided for this claim to hold meaning.
> Haskell is a research language, and probably should remain there until they hash all these issues out
Which issues? A list of them -- in a simple and orthogonal manner -- would be helpful. Perhaps I could forward them to the Haskell mailing list.