Letters to the Editor
-
This is a joke, right?
Reaganism itself: "an outgoing, energizing, even sensuous ideal of a bountiful, limitless American future open to everyone who was determined to succeed."
Gag. How nice that the bill for this generation-long delusion is just coming due.
To borrow from MST3k's Tom Servo, "Future may not be available as seen. Personal fates may vary. Future not available in Africa, India or Central and South America."
-
President Reagan, What Do You Think Of Dmitri Medvedev and Gazprom?
I still remember my first voter's registration card. I have been a Reagonnite as long as I can remember. Which means, he didn't need to be the one to remember, given his age and enthusiasm and love for capitalism. I hate when he is called "teflon"; as though he could be referred to as a newly graduated law student with big plans and ideas. His "Tear That Wall Down" theory will penetrate so many venues. Not just oil magnates in the Middle East, Russia, Canada etc., but the human right to succeed, no matter what ethnic, religious or sexual background. I love President Reagan the way I love Abraham Lincoln, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Oliver North, Condoleeza Rice, etc... anyone who is willing to wear a helmut and trudge through the minefield, even if he or she is considered "teflon". We can't possibly believe our Constitution and history since our 80's presidency and his continuous thread of capitalism won't stick with us forever.
-
He never did stop sucking.
The Washington Post covered for Ronald Reagan shamelessly. The man never gave a speech without numerous "mistakes," which would be called lies if one wanted be less charitable about it, but which the press largely ignored (as later on the press ignored the clear signs of his worsening Alzheimer's during his second term). At the time, I could not understand this reaction but, after Iraq, it seems to have been an early warning sign of the degradation and corruption of a once great newspaper, and of the press in general. At this stage in their decline, it is hard to care one way or the other what the Washington Post thinks about anything.
Worse than merely sucking, the man was also a racist, of the vilest sort. To anyone to whom this seems extreme, I invite them to consider why he launched his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. He didn't just appeal to racists, he made a conscious decision to appeal to those who supported racist murders.
So, no, I refuse to degrade the name of our first President by linking Washington National Airport to the name of our 40th President, and I feel very confident that we will get his name off of it officially in due course.
-
I was a child of the Reagan years
As I turned ten, Reagan came in to "save the country." For the poor and disadvantaged life went from bad to worse. We were left behind by the Reagan revolution, constant layoffs, government cheese, and never-ending poverty. The “great president” line, is a propaganda lie created to rehabilitate his ruined legacy.
Today we have another fanatical president who is already working on rewriting history, in twenty years Salon will run "The George W Bush years didn't completely suck"
-
I lived through Ronald Reagan
He sucked. The catastrophic choice of James "use it up the lord is comin" Watt as Interior Secretary, strikebreaking with the air traffic controllers, the streamlined inspection system which directly caused the e-coli outbreak in the meat supply, cuts in education funding, and that was the small stuff.
Grenada, Nicaragua, the lies just went on forever.
It's a sad thing that Bush the lessor makes Regan's time seem relativley benign.
One thing I will credit him for: he got elected by telling people that they could feel good about America after Nixon's disgrace and Carter's self-flagellation.
-
How quickly people forget
As others have pointed out, a presidency by satan looks good compared with the Bush nightmare, but you have to have been an adult before Reagan to know what the world was like then. As are all actors, Reagan was little more than a wind-up puppet that fatuously spit out the lines of his masters. It is clear that the masters got what they wanted: Increased profits at the expense of those who did the work to create them, a decline in the net worth of the poor and middle classes; the sense by the people that government can do nothing right, but that foreign policy, military response, or anything directed by executive can never be questioned.
Like his political descendants, who today pay him homage, he lied, he doubled dealt, he used his subterfuge to under cut the constitution. He was not there for the people when they needed him; in health care, the environment, energy policy... you name it. By amassing and justifying the power he managed to accrue for the now imperial presidency he damaged democracy with one of its first near fatal blows. And he did like any big screen actor would, without having to concern himself with what was happening of screen, just keeping to the lines.
-
The ultimate guide to Reagan's suckage
For hilarious proof of the myriad ways Ronald Reagan sucked, pick up a copy of Paul Slansky's book "The Clothes Have No Emperor." Slansky was a frequent contributor to Spy Magazine and meticulously details every idiotic move Reagan and his administration made, as well as the foibles of other political and cultural figures during the 1980s. Great reading!
-
My Analysis: Reject It At Your Own Risk
The point here is what the hell is next?
Here is a significant question: why was the nation forced to settle for Reagan?
What gave him all that prestige among a new generation of predominently white, established, and traditional Republicans--before the explosion of the fundie vote?
The current analysis misses the point. Reagan got to where he got and the conservative movement accomplished what it did due to the defection of the anti-war generation from the political process. Almost all subsequent developments are explained by this fact--including the near death of liberalism, and capitulation of the liberal wing of the Democratic party.
The generation may have ended the war and changed the consciousness of the voting public one way or another, but it sure as hell lost everything else. Yeah, the Berlin wall fell, a hero is born (and I believe credit is given where it is due) but for the rest of it ole' Dutch was for his own--or the "own" he so fervently wished to be.
The limitations of rejecting an accurate analysis is becoming more evident as time goes on and new developments grow out of it--such as Obama--the re-birth of 60's idealism in a new generation.
The Clintons' especially have suffered from the misinterpretation. I believe that if they had been given more of a choice in their positions if the 60's generation had participated, it would be a very different America today.