I did not feel as though I could post to Beladonna's thread on Ronald Reagan in good conscience as I simply could not come up with much to say on behalf of the man or his tenure in office. Many of you may already know that the presidency of Ronald Reagan was the main reason that I left the United States and made my home in another country - not returning for eighteen years, when (prematurely, as it turns out) I thought the country was once again safe. Obviously, my thoughts would have no place in a thread intended to honor his memory - and I didn't feel that posting something like "At least he wasn't as bad as the Bushes" was quite what Bela had in mind.

Even at that, I do not wish to go on at length about the many reasons I found Reagan despicable as both a leader and as a human being. I would just like to say here that my thoughts and prayers will not be with Reagan and his surviving family members. They will be with the 60,000 people who died of AIDS-related illnesses during his administration - and the hundreds of thousands who have died since as a result of the neglect institutionalized under Ronald Wilson Reagan. Funding for the treatment of AIDS and research into HIV was virtually non-existent under his administration - and each of those deaths and all of their attendant suffering was met, by the Reagan administration, with silence. His grim legacy is still with us - and will be for many years to come.

Others who feel as though Reagan is somewhat less than worthy of adulation may feel free to post here - though I see no more cause for an unmitigated bash-fest than I saw reason to start a thread in his honor. It's just that my life took a very different turn due to the Reagan presidency - and I made many personal sacrifices because of it. I, therefore, felt the need to mark his passing - but not with "honor".

I would ask, though, that those who do wish to sing his praises do so in the appropriate thread. This is not it.

I suppose one of the main problems I have with the Reagan Presidency (and let me make it clear here that I will only be addressing the Presidency and not the deceased human being) would be with Reaganomics, and with the change in the direction of government spending in general. I can live with an administration that cuts the budget across the board; I find it hard to accept one that cuts social services while boosting military spending at the same time.



(From this obituary: Former President Ronald Reagan Dies at 93)

(Bold added for emphasis.)



(Same source.)

On a more personal level, I was annoyed when his administration was so brilliantly successful in making the word "liberal" almost synonymous with "evil." I still don't think "our" side has recovered from that body blow yet. Maybe it's just the region in which I live, but the letters I see printed in the paper and the conservative columnists I read still use the word that way. I rarely, if ever, see anybody use the word "conservative" (without any other qualification) as an insult. By this I mean, I'm likely to see an opinion stated that so-and-so must not be elected because he or she is liberal; end of discussion. I never see it the other way around.

The Reagan legacy has, even more than it was before, made most of our elective choices only between very conservative and extremely conservative ones.

Ok, I won't "sing his praises", because I don't need to sing his praises. History has done that, and the record is clear. It is in a way fitting that such a hateful thread as this should appear in this forum on the day of his death. He faced this kind of hatred while he was alive, why not now? But it's ok, it won't change history, it won't change anything. Tomorrow morning the sun will rise on a better world because of Ronald Reagan, and that's not singing his praises, it's a simple matter of fact and no amount of spin and hatred will change that. His place in history is secure. Opening a thread for people to spew forth their hatred towards the man is unusual for this forum, but somehow appropriate. He faced that every day of his Presidency and like most of America, shrugged it off, at times amused by it. It never stuck, he was called the "Teflon President" out of frustration by his opponents, but the simple matter of fact was that their accusations against him didn't stick because they simply weren't true. Once again, I am not singing his praises, but rather just recounting history. Nothing can ever change that, the Reagan legacy is secure.

So, by all means, bash away, make up whatever you want, blame him for any evil you can conceive. See if you can re-write history and see if anyone will really believe it. There is no need for me to sing praises for President Reagan. History has done that for me, and the record is clear. The American Song he spoke of in his second inaugural address still rings loud and clear across our plains and mountains and to both of our coasts. For many of us, that song tonight rings with a mourning note for a lost friend, but it is the same song as it always was and always will be.

While I am sorry for his passing. Have you forgotten about the Iran-Contra problems Aquilla or are you doing like most conservatives that think that Reagan was the best thing since apple pie and seem to have short term memories. Or how under his adminstration Saddam got all his technology to do what he did to Iran and Saddam's own people.

First history is just that- history- and 15 years is not "history" Aquilla- though the "Reagan mythos" is being perpetuated even as we speak- for instance- there is not a shred of truth to him having any effect whatsoever on the Soviet changing thier system- except, perhaps, that some in Russia might have used Reagan and the cold war to thier own advantage to enrich themselves.

To me the worst was his changing of the face of conservatism from a fiscal conservative/libertarian philosophy to the right wing christian idealogy that we have today (the neo-con)- his enabling of the "christian coalition" and the start of the drug war.

I believe he did more harm to our freedom than any foriegn invader, and set the stage for the current trading of liberty for security that we see today, and the whole idea of "pax americana".

I actually outright hate him for his enabling of the Christian coalition though- and allowing religious extremists to begin the slow slide to theocracy that he has begun.

I know it is not fitting always to hate anyone- but sometimes hate is useful- it is a human emotion with an anchor in survival.

The entire shift of conservatism we have seen since he came to power is really anti-libertarian and anti-liberty, and anti-freedom, and he fits the "cult of personality" mold very well.

Well Reagan was a congenial guy and he got along with Gorbachev and he connected with the public. From a public relations stand point he may have been the most successful president we ever had. His entire adult working life from his radio days was built on successfully projecting himself to the public. It sure paid off.

From the standpoint of understanding public policy he has got to rate down there at the bottom of the basement of presidents with perhaps only Harding and Grant as rivals. His economic point man for 4 1/2 years, David Stockman, felt he only seriously grasped 2 ideas - lowering taxes and increasing military expenditures. On almost everything else he apparently pretty much deferred to his cabinet which, under the circumstances, given the alternative, may have not been a bad idea. Stockman, interestingly, thought his conservative credentials were bogus, claiming even the democratic congress acted as something of a restraint on his big spending appetites.

Apparently he originally got his star war idea from a movie he made. Definitely one of the boondoggles of all time. He had about the most corrupt and ideologically driven administration in memory, maybe even worse than Bush 2. Of course he ran the deficits up sky high. The idea that he caused the Soviet Union to collapse was clearly absurd. Chernoble contributed more to that than anything Reagan did.

He did get me to look at politics in a new way. Now when I'm looking for a potentially successful politician to support I want to see something of the "Donald Duck" factor, a superb actor who can reduce issues to cartoon simplicities and platitudes. Of course I want my ideal candidate to have some substance and knowledge underneath but capable of keeping most of that behind the magic curtain so the public won't get confused.

Ronald Reagan apparently did make Americans feel better about themselves as he evoked tribal myths and touted "Morning in America" as an antidote to Carter's thoughtful realism. What he has objectively offered to the future I'll leave to historians. My most generous guess is he'll get about a C-.

Here are various comments from around the globe;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3295043.stm


I'm posting in this thread rather than the other because I don't feel any great admiration for the Reagan administrations or for Ronald Reagan as a man. I'm just too young for the latter.

A lot has been made of Reagan and Thatchers friendship, and how Reagan faced down the Soviet menace, but for my part, I simply don't believe it. The Soviet Union was going to collapse with or without any input from the USA. Its economy was on a self destruct course and the old guard of revolutionaries had lost touch with their own people.

Reagan was fortunate enough to be in position when this happened and as the leader of the surviving super power, he had the luxury of being able to define his own role in events. Its interesting to note that Gorbatjev speaks highly of Reagan, but that he himself never casts Reagan in the role that many Americans do. 'He was a great help' is how Gorbatjev describes Reagan's contribution.

As for his friendship with Thatcher, it was hard to see any such friendship when the IRA were openly collecting funds in the USA, or when Britain needed help in the Falklands.

I'm not sad to see him go, but I'm not happy either. Reagan was the helmsman of a great ship and he was fortunate to have weathered the storms. He sailed a strange course, and many of his passengers grumbled, but in the end he got the ship through the storm and he passed on the helm with the ship intact.

Folks, I really am surprised that no one could wait at least a week after the man was buried before a post bashing him was opened. He died, for a little while politics and the rest should not matter.

CP

When we are dead we are praised by those who survive us, though we frequently have no other merit than that of being no longer alive.

-- La Bruyere




Very poignant and very passionate Aquilla. A bit exagerrated too. Here's my question to you: Why should only those who exalt Reagan speak while the rest of us keep a discreet silence?


There is nothing "hateful" about remembering Ronald Reagan as something less than the tower of strength and virtue that you have cast him in. Reagan was not just an actor, a governor and a president. He was first and foremost, a man, not a deity, a man with all the flaws and failings of any man.

One of the things admirers of Reagan point to was his ability to speak plainly to the American people. Well, both of us may listen to the same words, but it is conceivable that we may not agree upon what it is we've heard.

I fully anticipated that there would be a lot of heated rhetoric directed against anyone who dared utter a less than exalting word about President Reagan. Your post certainly met that expectation.

What is the proper time to express honestly how one felt about a figure as controversial and polarizing as Ronald Reagan? A week ago when he was still alive though ravaged by a wasting disease? In a month when he's gone into the ground? Now, when the moment of his passing is upon us and gives us cause for reflection?

Or not at all is when we should remember Reagan unless we are prepared to praise his memory and deeds? That would seem to be the appropriate time going by your post Aquilla.

I don't think there's anything inapporpriate in each person recalling a national figure in their own way. Some will praise Reagan and others will criticize him. This is what debate is all about. And not even a man's death--certainly not THIS man--is beyond the scope of debate on this board.

Nobody has yet posted, "I'm glad Ronald Reagan is dead and gone." I didn't say that in Belladonna's thread and I'm not saying it here. What those who admired Reagan have to understand, if not necessarily accept, is that he is not beyond critique and criticism. Not in life and not in death. It happens whenever a President passes and the same will occur when Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. pass on.

If anything I would think those of you that admired Ronald Reagan would take some solace in knowing the man's life was meaningful enough to provoke both praise AND criticism.

Perhaps when the initial wave of emotionalism passes some cool and sober critical analysis and thinking will emerge. Maybe some of us will still be listening after we've been savaged for burying Reagan, not praising him.

This seems to be a little bit tacky so soon after his death. Equally tacky is people who use the (I hate reagan or bush or even america ) only because we don't agree with thier policies. I see the conservatives as the ones spreading the "hate" (via rush and shawn) They use this powerful word to lightly (hate)

I think it is fair that this thread exists, in large part to keep it from detracting from the homage to President Reagan thread. Many of us viewed much of Reagan's presidency as dark days. I can and did find good things to say about president Reagan, but I by no means feel that he is worthy of being described as one of our best presidents much less than being described as one of the greatest historical figures of all time.

I do agree with Conservpat that a few days of delay, before wading into a serious debate about the legacy of Reagan is appropriate.

Reagan was a successful leader, but then again so is our present president. I did not wish to go where Reagan led in many ways. He would definitely not qualify for my list of top five presidents, but much in the same way that Andrew Jackson was a disagreeable president IMO(Reagan did come to Nashville to lay a wreath on Jackson's grave in 1982), I would put him down on a list of successful presidents.

My main reason for posting on this thread now is my wish to state that I do not wish to be beset by a multitude of memorial please for Ronald Reagan. When we do, if we do, let's do it in more appropriate places. Andrew Jackson's face is on federal currency (the man who fought to destroy the bank is now memorialized by what is effectively the Third Bank of the US) and Reagan's name is on an airport (I'm sure air traffic controllers love that).

Reagan is due credit in some areas, and he served his country as he saw best. But in our need to find modern heroes in an era so bereft of them in our leadership, let's be careful to not try to make more out of him than there was, or to march to the creation of memorials in partisan celebration or show of power.

Wertz Wrote:



Check the polls dude, you are in a slim, sliming, slimer minority on your opinion.

To say you WON'T go into the reasons you thought he was despicable, is simply calling him dispicable. Guess what. Not many care.

You left the Country, then came back, then talk of leaving again.

Is it that hard to find a ticket agent?

Ronald Reagan was one of this Countries greatest leaders. He deserves to be dead more then 24 hrs before the Ultra Libs attack him.

Rest in Peace Ronald Reagon, This Country will never forget your OUTSTANDING LEADERSHIP!



Red

Who asked you ro remain silent, Nighttimer? Certainly not I in my post. As a matter of fact, I distinctly invited people to bash away. I viewed Wertz's used of the term "despicable" to describe him as a human being to be on the hateful side.



But, maybe that's just me and you use a different dictionary and have an alternate meaning for the word. Or maybe because you disliked the man, it's ok with you. That's fine too, you most certainly have the right to express that opinion and I don't think anything I said in my post here runs contrary to your right to believe, to make up even anything you want and express it here in this forum.

So go ahead, bash away, deny history and call President Reagan any kind of names you wish to call him. That is your right. Just keep in mind I also have the right to disagree and to express that disagreement here in this forum as well. And, I fully intend to do exactly that.

Just a hypothetical here, if Bill Clinton died, and conservatives started bashing his tenure [Monica, etc. etc.] would those who are bashing Mr. Reagan be just as outraged as Aquilla, myself, Redliner, etc., etc. are right now? Would they not be asking to have a little respect for a newly DEAD former president...That's my only point. Many don't or didn't like Mr. Reagan, and that's fine, you have your reasons, but please just give it a little bit of time before you talk about how contemptible of a person you believe that he was.

CP

Since the US completely collapsed under Reagan, perhaps we should rethink our views of him...

Reagan restored confidence in the Presidency, confidence which had been wiped out by Vietnam and Watergate.

Reagan ended the malaise of the 1970s, transforming the economic landscape for good or for ill. At the beginning of Reagan's first term, the US was in the middle of the greatest recession (depression?) since the Great Depression. Interest rates hit 20%, unemployment topped out at over 11%.


The fact is, Russia became the world's largest steel and oil producer during the 1970s. Communism had expanded into Africa, Latin America and Africa. The USSR seemed bent on expanding with the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 (which turned out badly for them).

Meanwhile, US prestige was declining. Reagan promised to bring back the US military. He promised the "supply side" economics of lower taxes, since Reagan saw excessive taxation as a "crowding out" of private investment.

Reagan left office with interest rates at one third of what they were when he entered, despite the increased deficits. He left office with unemployment rates in the 5.5% range when they were over 7% when he began his first term. Inflation, which was over 10% when Reagan came into office, hovered around 4% when he left.

The election of 1980 was a turning point in American politics. He beat the incumbent 489 electoral votes to 49. Reagan's overwhelming re-election in 1984 was the approval stamp of the people of the United States, in which the Democrats carried only 1 state (and the District of Columbia).

Is Reagan some kind of saint? Of course not. He is human, with human faults. No one is perfect.

But Reagan believed in eternal optimism and did not dwell on negatives. His policies pulled us out of the ghastly 1970s. His policies once again put the US as the world's pre-eminent military power. Some think these are bad things, I guess. To each his own.

As for Wertz's assertion that Reagan was somehow culpable for the AIDS epidemic... After 20 years of research, there is still no cure for AIDS and its victims continue to multiply. There are still over 40,000 new cases in the US every year, and over 15,000 deaths. I guess now that Reagan is gone, AIDS will soon follow?

I'm another one who couldn't post in the other thread.
I feel bad that he's dead, especially for his family. I'm not going to pretend that he was a great president or even a great man, because he wasn't. We're still suffering today, and our young men are dying, because of his administration's penchant for propping up evil regimes around the world. The Republican party has become a puppet of the lunatic religious right, which is something he started. The "war on drugs" was escalated to ridiculous levels in his administration. On a personal level I refuse to forget his support of Apartheid in South Africa or his reaction to AIDS.
A man has died, died in a way that was very hard on his family. At the same time we should not lie about his legacy.

I'm not defending Wertz's use of the word "despicable" in describing how he felt about Reagan. It's a little too strong for me, but it works for him. That's his opinion and he's welcome to it.

But Aquilla you've used the word history no less than seven times in your two posts about Reagan.

I think we all agree Reagan is a historical figure. What we disagree was his impact for better or worse.

Who was Reagan to me that I should "like" or "dislike" the man? I didn't know him. Never met him. I don't have any strong feelings one way or the other about him personally,

But he DOES have an eight-year record as a President of the United States and that is not above critique. I don't have to "make up" anything about Reagan. What he did and did not do as President is part of that history and as such can be examined critically.

And that's all that I'm doing Aquilla. I'm not bashing, denying history or calling names. Maybe if you dial down the vitriol you might recognize that.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.
The evil that men do lives after them;
The good is oft interred with their bones.
-William Shakespeare (1564 - 1616), "Julius Caesar", Act 3 scene 2

I think it's important here that everyone gains a bit of perspective. When someone dies, they are dead. Reagan's friends are family are presumably not active members of this forum; so I ask those who are singing his praises, "to what end?" Those that would extoll him as the greatest leader since Alexander the Great see him as a political icon; and are using his passing to reaffirm his place in their political pantheon. How is that any more or less tacky than Wertz placing him in the context that he was familiar with?

Lets put this another way... suppose you were at a memorial service for someone close to you. What sort of service would you prefer? Would you hire a bombastic, charismatic speaker to extoll his endless his praise upon everyone within shouting distance, or would you quietly reminisce about what he meant to you, and the people in the audience who knew him?

Now, if you walked out of that memorial service and you saw your loved ones reputation being tossed around like a political football I think you'd find both sides of the debate tacky. That or you wouldn't care.

The fact is that Wertz started this thread to discuss the Reagan that HE remembers. He has good taste not to invade other discussions of the man where his opinions will offend people, and it is only fair that if you participate here, you show the same respect.

===================================================

How do I remember Reagan? To be honest, my earliest recollections of the man come from Saturday Night Live impressions. Lets face facts, the man's memory was next to useless by the end of his presidency. Even his confidents will admit that. So what about his much ballyhooed foreign policy? Whether or not the Soviet Union would have collapses without his help or not (any scholar I know who has studied IR would suggest yes), lets be honest; his solution was "we'll outspend them until they go broke." Containment is one of my favourite elements of U.S. history because it is basically a 40 year debacle that everyone assumes was a smashing success. The process of Containment, as it was practiced by Truman on down through Reagan was completely counter-intuitive. The Soviet Union, whether or not they practiced it economically, embraced communism as a political ideology. One of the key elements of that ideology is historical determinism. Any communist "KNOWS" that eventually communism will succeed over the whole world. It is for this reason that George Kennan, the man 'credited' with creating the policy of Containment, wrote this his Long Memo when stationed in the Soviet Union. Here, when describing American Foreign Policy goals, he states what his in-depth knowledge of Soviet Power had taught him:



Yeah, Reagan really had that nailed. Soviet Russia was doomed to fall under the weight of it's own ideals as it's 'inevitable' victory would become more and more protracted; even if that state hadn't come to economic ruin (which Reagan was partially responsible for.)

What is his legacy on the foreign policy then? A nuclear stockpile that could destroy the world 12 times over, a series of countries that remember U.S. intervention far more than the Communists we were supposedly protecting them from, the decline of the U.N. (for better or worse), and of course the geometric growth of oh-so-popular American jingoism.

His economic policy? Well, for starters, the recession that he supposedly fixed was more a function of the Oil Crisis than domestic policy; so unless you are going to give him credit for fixing that situation as well I'm not sure how you can honestly suggest that he ended the recession... especially since most conservative economists assert so adamantly that economies ebb and flow regardless of the policies that oversee them. Supply-side economics is as far as I'm concerned the most popular fable in the history of human understanding. It is the only "scientific" theory in our history which depends entirely on anecdotal evidence. There is no proof that it works, lots of proof that it doesn't, but it is so widely popular that it has been exported as policy to nearly every industrialized countries, often with disastrous results.

That is the Reagan that I remember. If you don't approve of my recollection, fine. It is as tacky as the craven idols that some would erect just down the street from here.

I noticed there was another thread about President Reagan,but since I had a differing opinion, out of respect I didn't post anything there.

Also I was going to abstain from this thread too, until I read some of the remarks which really surprised me. Wertz used "one word" which seems to have set off an explosion from the right. While I may not exactly agree with the word used, I will defend him with the freedom of speech.

Some words as slime and sliming seem to be a little harsh and uncalled for especially since Mike and Jaime have cautioned against the use of such rhetoric during this election year.

I don't believe it is wrong for people of opposing views of President Reagan to have a thread to present their thoughts. What I do resent is certain individuals telling us that we are bashing and have no right to freedom of speech.

Since when did expressing your views become against the law. The term bashing was used to describe these expressions. I definitely believe that is not true.

As for my thoughts on President Reagan:

1. His trickle down economic theory didn't work. only the rich got richer. the poor or working class never received the benefits.

2. He beefed up the military at the expense of domestic needs.

3. Iran-contra affair

4. 241 marines killed in their barracks in Beirut,Lebanon and what did Reagan do, He eventually withdrew the marines out of the country.

5. Many member of adminstration were indicted for various misdeeds(James Watt and Oliver North for example)

6. With Reagan's nuclear arms build-up, he helped create the anti-nuclear movement, and made people aware of the dangers of these weapons and the effects on a society of disproportionate military spending.


In defense I will say one thing in his favor. He took responsibility for the Iran-Contra affair.

I have given my opinion of President Reagan and if any of you of the opposing view want to call it bashing and slime. Make yourself at home!

I don't think Redliner was using the word 'slime'. I think he meant Slimmer, not slimer.