2
   

An Intellectuals appraisal of Reagans legacy

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 04:55 pm
The Reagan mythology clouds men's minds so that I suspect it may be a full hundred years before his true position in history can be assessed. I hope they don't put him on Mt Rushmore between now and then. Dynamite is expensive and no need to jeapardize the other presidents up there.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 06:23 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
The Reagan mythology clouds men's minds


Love it. "The Shadow", right?
0 Replies
 
doglover
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 07:14 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
The Reagan mythology clouds men's minds...


Women's minds too apparently... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 07:22 pm
PDiddie wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I think the complaints from the left are nothing more than political posturing at this point and will set the precedent for the next time. I hope there are no liberals that complain when the conservatives make similar complaints later... It's the left that has set the tone...


Wrong again.

See Wellstone, Paul, for an example of how conservatives can vilify a memorial service without precedent.

We will never see the kind of courtesy shown to Reagan by Democrats when Clinton or Kennedy or anyone else you despise passes.

Guaronteed.

You should get this right. A lot of Conservatives really liked Wellstone mostly because he wasn't a nasty partisan. He was pretty widely respected in the same way Lieberman is. He could get along with Republicans, as well as Dems. The "service" was ROUNDLY criticised because Democrats booed Republicans, who came to pay their respects.

It wasn't just Republicans who were turned off by the bizarre Democrats, who behaved so uncivilly. I think Wellstone would have been very embarrassed.

You won't see Republicans booing Democrats who attend Reagan ceremonies. Decency.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 08:12 pm
Telling the truth without blinders on does not make one bitterly partisan, just because one disagrees with the conservative slant. I for one voted for Reagan the first time around, because I had always loved him from early childhood. But that first four years disillusioned me so, I had to go for the truth over the image, ultimately. You who call someone a hatefilled partisan or whatever, don't always know the whole story, because these forums don't have enough room for everything to be told. I didn't want to turn against the man. It was reality colliding with myth and reality won.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 08:47 pm
Actually, I think that Reagan may now become a figure like Christ, where anything that puts him into questions is seen as heretical.

PS. I'll be expounding on this as well as posting some links to some "dissenting opinions" (Rall, Goodman, Nation, etc) over the weekend.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 09:48 pm
NeoGuin wrote:
Actually, I think that Reagan may now become a figure like Christ, where anything that puts him into questions is seen as heretical.

PS. I'll be expounding on this as well as posting some links to some "dissenting opinions" (Rall, Goodman, Nation, etc) over the weekend.


I would not call Rall a dissenting opinion.
Everything he has said has been designed for one thing,to cause the Reagan family as much pain as possible.

Whatever happened to the philosophy of "if you cant say anything nice,dont say anything at all"
Doesnt that apply,or has the left decided to ignore that?

But,to quote Secretary of War Ed Stanton..."now he belongs to the ages"
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2004 09:50 pm
We shouldn't have to accept fairy tales.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 04:52 am
edgarblythe wrote:
We shouldn't have to accept fairy tales.


You summed the reasoning behind all the criticism of this week long orgy of remembering Ronald Reagan in those simple seven words. good job.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2004 05:40 am
I have yet to read Rall's comments, but if he at least mentions:

1. How Reagan's actions may have set the stage for the current "War On Terror"

2. How his repealing of the "Fairness Dotrine" lead to the creation of AM-Radio nation and created a kind of "Sheepdog Media" to keep the Busheep in line.

I'll say the article made some points, despite Ralls tendency to go "Over The Top A Bit"
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 03:03 pm
It's one page back - the right has so much problem with it because they can't handle fact:

Quote:
REAGAN'S SHAMEFUL LEGACY

Tue Jun 8, 8:02 PM ET

By Ted Rall

Mourn for Us, Not the Proto-Bush

NEW YORK--For a few weeks, it became routine. I heard them dragging luggage down the hall. They paused in a little lounge near the dormitory elevator to bid farewell to people they'd met during their single semester. Those I knew knocked on my door. "What are you going to do?" I asked. "Where are you going to go?" A shrug. They were eighteen years old and their bright futures had evaporated. They had worked hard in junior and senior high school, harder than most, but none of that mattered now. President Reagan, explained the form letters from the Office of Financial Aid, had slashed the federal education budget. Which is why the same grim tableau of shattered hopes and dreams was playing itself out across the country. Colleges and universities were evicting their best and brightest, straight A students, stripping them of scholarships. Some transferred to less-expensive community colleges; others dropped into the low-wage workforce. Now, nearly a quarter century later, they are still less financially secure and less educated than they should have been. Our nation is poorer for having denied them their potential.


They were by no means the hardest-hit victims of Reaganism. Reagan's quack economists trashed scholarships and turned welfare recipients into homeless people and refused to do anything about the AIDS (news - web sites) epidemic, all so they could fund extravagant tax cuts for a tiny sliver of the ultra rich. Their supply-side sales pitch, that the rich would buy so much stuff from everybody else that the economy would boom and government coffers would fill up, never panned out. The Reagan boom lasted just three years and created only low-wage jobs. When the '80s were over, we were buried in the depths of recession and a trillion bucks in debt. Poverty grew, cities decayed, crime rose. It took over a decade to dig out.


Reagan's defenders, people who don't know the facts or choose to ignore them, claim that "everybody" admired Reagan's ebullient personality even if some disagreed with his politics. That, like the Gipper's tall tales about welfare queens and "homeless by choice" urban campers, is a lie. Millions of Americans cringed at Reagan's simplistic rhetoric, were terrified that his anti-Soviet "evil empire" posturing would provoke World War III, and thought that his appeal to selfishness and greed--a bastardized blend of Adam Smith and Ayn Rand--brought out the worst in us. We rolled our eyes when Reagan quipped "There you go again"; what the hell did that mean? Given that he made flying a living hell (by firing the air traffic controllers and regulating the airlines), I'm not the only one who refuses to call Washington National Airport by its new name. His clown-like dyed hair and rouged cheeks disgusted us. We hated him during the dark days he made so hideous, and, with all due respect, we hate him still.


Not everybody buys the myth that Reagan won the Cold War by demanding that Mikhail Gorbachev "tear down this [Berlin] wall" or bankrupting the Soviet Union via the arms race--Zbigniew Brezinski's plot to "draw the Russians into the Afghan trap" by funding the mujahedeen, Chernobyl and covert U.S. schemes to destabilize the ruble had more to do with the end of the USSR. Gangsterism replaced the ossified cult of the state, millions of Russians were reduced to paupers, revived radical Islamism in Central Asia and eliminated our sole major ideological and military rival. That increased our arrogance and insularity, left us in charge of the world and to blame for everything, paving the road to 9/11. (Reagan even armed the attacks' future perpetrators.) Anyway, the Cold War isn't over. In which direction do you think those old ICBMs point today?


The lionizers are correct about one thing: Reagan was one of our most influential presidents since FDR, whose New Deal safety net he carefully disassembled. He pioneered policies now being implemented by George W. Bush: trickle down economics, corporate deregulation, radicalizing the courts, slithering around inconvenient laws and international treaties. On the domestic front, he unraveled America's century-old social contract. What the poor needed was a kick in the ass, not a handout, said a president whose wealthy patrons bought him a house and put clothes on his wife Nancy. National parks were to be exploited for timber and oil, not protected. The federal tax code, originally conceived to redistribute wealth from top to bottom, was "reformed" to eradicate social justice.


Bush also models his approach to foreign policy on that of the original Teflon President. Reagan elevated unjustifiable military action to an art. In 1983, anxious to look tough after cutting and running from Lebanon, Reagan sent marines to topple the Marxist government of Grenada. His pretext for invading this Caribbean island was the urgent plight of 500 medical students supposedly besieged by rampaging mobs. But when they arrived at the airport in the United States, the quizzical young men and women told reporters they were confused, never having felt endangered or seen any unrest.


In a bizarre 1985 effort to free a few American hostages being held in Lebanon, Reagan authorized the sale of 107 tons of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, at the time one of our staunchest enemies, with the proceeds to be used to fund rightist death squads in Nicaragua--something Congress had expressly forbidden him to do. Evidence strongly suggests that Iran-Contra was at least his second dirty deal with Islamic Iran, the first being the October Surprise, which delayed the release of the Iranian embassy hostages until after the 1980 election was over. Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) eventually admitted to "trading arms for hostages," yet avoided prosecution for treason and the death penalty.


Reagan, like Bush 43, technically served in the military yet studiously avoided combat. Both men were physically robust, intellectually inadequate, poorly traveled former governors renowned for stabbing friends on the back--Reagan when he named names during McCarthyism. Both appointed former generals as secretaries of state and enemies of the environment to head the Department of the Interior. Both refused to read detailed briefings, worked short hours, behaved erratically in public appearances, ducked questions about sordid pasts, and relied on Christianist (the radical right equivalent of Islamist) depictions of foes as "evil" and America, invariably as embodied by himself and the Republicans, as "good." Based on intelligence as phony as that floated to justify the war against Iraq (news - web sites), Reagan bombed Muslim Libya.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 04:31 pm
Yezzir, Bill.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jun, 2004 05:17 pm
Edit (Moderator): Solicitation removed.

That has to do with me reading DaVinci Code.

I'll at least post the article and let the "Busheep" bleat at it;)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/25/2019 at 02:31:53