Nothing
In the musical A Chorus Line, one of the dancers sings about her clash with an acting teacher. Some time later, when the instructor dies, she tries to have an emotional response to the news and finds that she feels nothing.
This was my reaction Saturday afternoon when I learned Ronald Reagan had passed.
I realize this puts me in the minority. Even now, the television screens are filled with tributes to the fallen giant. Everyone from CNN to Fox News to E! wants their slice of the exquisite corpse. Over the past week, there has been more commentary on his achievements than there were achievements.
I was no Reagan fan. Indeed, I hold him responsible for much of what is wrong in American politics today. If nothing else, you can draw a direct line from Reagan to Bush 1 and Bush 2, and that alone should be worth a few years in purgatory.
At the same time, I find no joy in his passing. I know from personal experience that Alzheimer's disease is one of the cruelest fates a man can suffer. Because of his illness, Reagan lost any power he might wield - except as an icon - at least 10 years ago. So except for the bump in ratings, his death doesn't really mean anything. On this hand, my response to the news was, "It's about time."
But the sadness of the man's fate does not decrease my distaste for the President.
Ronald Reagan transformed me from an independent voter, raised by Republicans, to a staunch Democrat. Recent tributes have observed that Reagan "reshaped the Republican Party in his conservative image." (AP) This is offered without irony. This new image includes pandering to religious groups with such policies as the "war on drugs" and a rabid anti-abortion stance, deregulation for big business and tax cuts for the wealthy, and talking about smaller government while dramatically increasing spending, especially for the military. Over the course of his eight years in office, it became apparent that the Republican Party, at least on a national level, was not pursuing any policies that were to my benefit and actively opposed much of what I believe.
When Reagan tried for the presidency in 1976, I said that if he won I would move to Canada. He did not and neither did I. In 1980, the choice between Reagan and Carter so befuddled me that I joined nearly six million of my fellow Americans in voting for John Anderson, a Republican running as an Independent. I don't regret that vote. Though I find Jimmy Carter the greatest former president of my lifetime, his presidency was uninspiring. Since that time, I have unswervingly voted for the democratic candidates for national office. I held my nose and voted for Mondale and Dukakis - and even Clinton, the first time out - merely to vote against Reagan and Bush. (Note: I voted for Clinton the second time out, as well as for Gore, but did not hold my nose.) (Note 2: I rarely vote a straight Democratic ticket in state and local elections. On a local level, I find that candidates are more willing and able to support their individual beliefs, rather than hewing to the party line. Thus, so am I.)
The greatest myth of Reagan's presidency is that he brought an end to the Cold War. Giving Reagan credit for ending the Cold War is like saying George Washington is responsible for the French Revolution, simply because he happened to be in office at the time. In fact, this comparison is more apt than I intended. The success of the American Revolution did, I am sure, inspire both individuals and politicians in France to strive for a change in their system of government. In the same way, Reagan's rhetoric may have hastened changes in the Soviet Union that were already underway. But neither Washington nor Reagan made those changes happen. Crediting Reagan with ending the Cold War denies all recognition to those within Poland, Germany and the Eastern Bloc for determining their own end.
It is my contention that the Cold War, as such, was pretty much over by the time Reagan took office. (The Soviet Union was still intact, but that'll come later.) If any American president is to be credited with ending the Cold War as we knew it, it is probably Richard Nixon. (My readers may find this an unpopular stance.) His meetings with Brezhnev and Mao served to defuse much of the tensions that had existed between the nations, and led to reductions in nuclear arms. All three leaders apparently agreed that there was no point in fighting each other when each had his own nation to plunder. Had Reagan won the presidency in 1968, when he first ran and the Soviet Union was still strong, there's a good chance the Cold War would have heated up. As it is, by the time he took office in 1981, I doubt that anyone in this country still felt the threat of nuclear aggression.
Reagan's tactic for ending the Cold War was to escalate it. In general, engaging in saber rattling ("Evil Empire," "The bombing will start in 15 minutes") during a time of relative peace is not an effective strategy. In this case, though, the Soviet bear was so weakened that there was little fight left in it. Their economy was already in a state of crisis, and forcing the Soviets into an arms race was a sure ticket to collapse. In this way, Reagan played his part in the destruction of the Soviet Union, if not the end of the Cold War. That it also led to an international monetary crisis and an eventual bailout by the IMF that the US is still paying for is just frosting on the cake.
Reagan's single minded desire to destroy the Soviets led to a series of ill considered choices. One was the decision to provide money and artillery - 65,000 tons annually by 1987 - to the mujahideen "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. We all know how well that turned out. The notion that he sold conventional and biological weapons to our ally, Saddam Hussein, is not completely accurate. In truth, the Reagan administration gave Iraq roughly $40 billion worth of arms, nearly all of it on credit. We also sent billions of dollars of food to keep Saddam from forming an alliance with the Soviets. Of course, we also sold arms to Iran, so it's all okay. The proceeds of that sale, as we all know, went to the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Nicaragua. That the Contras engaged in what would be considered terrorist acts today, often targeting civilians, or that the World Court in the Hague had forbidden the US to aid the Contras, is forgivable because the legally elected Sandinista government was perceived as Communist.
People defend these poor choices by saying things were done during the Reagan presidency that he didn't know about. And this is a good thing, how? This is the defense Kenneth Lay used to explain why he is not responsible for the financial shenanigans at Enron. I realize that if you are the CEO of a large corporation - and the President is the CEO of the huge corporation that is the federal government - you are not able to keep up with all the day to day operations of your organization. No one loves a micromanager. But you should have enough of a "broad strokes" feel for the place to sense when crimes are being committed. If nothing else, you should inspire you managers to not commit any legal or ethical transgressions without your approval. At the very least, you need to recognize that any such transgressions committed on your watch are your responsibility. The buck does stop here.
But while Reagan had no control over what was happening in the White House, he had complete control over what was happening in the rest of the world. Thus, no credit need be granted to Mikhail Gorbachev, who, with his lovely daughters Glasnost and Perestroika, radically transformed the Soviet Union from a weak socialist state to a weak capitalist one. Coca Cola had more to do with the death of Communism than Reagan. Gorbachev's policies led to the rest of the Eastern Bloc nations turning democratic throughout the late 80s. By the time Reagan famously announced in Berlin, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," Gorby had made so many changes that he might as well added, "while you're at it." People point out that Reagan made that statement in 1987 and two years later, the wall came down. Saying the first caused the second is akin to saying that people who voted Reagan would die in this year's Dead Pool brought about his eventual demise. In the same way, I suppose Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement, which was organized before Reagan's election, had nothing to do with the political changes in Poland. And Václav Havel, who spent five years in prison for his political activities, had nothing to do with bringing free elections to the Czech Republic.
It drives me crazy.
But this is more than left wing Reagan bashing. The idea that Reagan ended the Cold War single handed is the same US-centric notion that says we can transform the Middle East through military might. It supposes that we have the power to remake the rest of the world in our image. It further imagines that we know what is best for the rest of the world. I would say history refutes both points.
I understand why people took to Reagan. It's nice to hear it's morning in America. It's comforting to have grandpa in the White House. Especially when grandpa has a big gun.
Considering the timing, I expect the upcoming Republican National Convention will be "all Reagan, all the time." I'm not sure this is a wise strategy. The shadow cast by Reagan reveals just how tiny George Bush is. All his macho posturing is but a poor reflection of Reagan's natural confidence. Reagan got away with overblown platitudes because you knew no matter how crazy he was, he believed them. When Bush spouts platitudes, you wonder who scripted them. Bush may be a cowboy, but Reagan played one, and did it better.
This was my reaction Saturday afternoon when I learned Ronald Reagan had passed.
I realize this puts me in the minority. Even now, the television screens are filled with tributes to the fallen giant. Everyone from CNN to Fox News to E! wants their slice of the exquisite corpse. Over the past week, there has been more commentary on his achievements than there were achievements.
I was no Reagan fan. Indeed, I hold him responsible for much of what is wrong in American politics today. If nothing else, you can draw a direct line from Reagan to Bush 1 and Bush 2, and that alone should be worth a few years in purgatory.
At the same time, I find no joy in his passing. I know from personal experience that Alzheimer's disease is one of the cruelest fates a man can suffer. Because of his illness, Reagan lost any power he might wield - except as an icon - at least 10 years ago. So except for the bump in ratings, his death doesn't really mean anything. On this hand, my response to the news was, "It's about time."
But the sadness of the man's fate does not decrease my distaste for the President.
Ronald Reagan transformed me from an independent voter, raised by Republicans, to a staunch Democrat. Recent tributes have observed that Reagan "reshaped the Republican Party in his conservative image." (AP) This is offered without irony. This new image includes pandering to religious groups with such policies as the "war on drugs" and a rabid anti-abortion stance, deregulation for big business and tax cuts for the wealthy, and talking about smaller government while dramatically increasing spending, especially for the military. Over the course of his eight years in office, it became apparent that the Republican Party, at least on a national level, was not pursuing any policies that were to my benefit and actively opposed much of what I believe.
When Reagan tried for the presidency in 1976, I said that if he won I would move to Canada. He did not and neither did I. In 1980, the choice between Reagan and Carter so befuddled me that I joined nearly six million of my fellow Americans in voting for John Anderson, a Republican running as an Independent. I don't regret that vote. Though I find Jimmy Carter the greatest former president of my lifetime, his presidency was uninspiring. Since that time, I have unswervingly voted for the democratic candidates for national office. I held my nose and voted for Mondale and Dukakis - and even Clinton, the first time out - merely to vote against Reagan and Bush. (Note: I voted for Clinton the second time out, as well as for Gore, but did not hold my nose.) (Note 2: I rarely vote a straight Democratic ticket in state and local elections. On a local level, I find that candidates are more willing and able to support their individual beliefs, rather than hewing to the party line. Thus, so am I.)
The greatest myth of Reagan's presidency is that he brought an end to the Cold War. Giving Reagan credit for ending the Cold War is like saying George Washington is responsible for the French Revolution, simply because he happened to be in office at the time. In fact, this comparison is more apt than I intended. The success of the American Revolution did, I am sure, inspire both individuals and politicians in France to strive for a change in their system of government. In the same way, Reagan's rhetoric may have hastened changes in the Soviet Union that were already underway. But neither Washington nor Reagan made those changes happen. Crediting Reagan with ending the Cold War denies all recognition to those within Poland, Germany and the Eastern Bloc for determining their own end.
It is my contention that the Cold War, as such, was pretty much over by the time Reagan took office. (The Soviet Union was still intact, but that'll come later.) If any American president is to be credited with ending the Cold War as we knew it, it is probably Richard Nixon. (My readers may find this an unpopular stance.) His meetings with Brezhnev and Mao served to defuse much of the tensions that had existed between the nations, and led to reductions in nuclear arms. All three leaders apparently agreed that there was no point in fighting each other when each had his own nation to plunder. Had Reagan won the presidency in 1968, when he first ran and the Soviet Union was still strong, there's a good chance the Cold War would have heated up. As it is, by the time he took office in 1981, I doubt that anyone in this country still felt the threat of nuclear aggression.
Reagan's tactic for ending the Cold War was to escalate it. In general, engaging in saber rattling ("Evil Empire," "The bombing will start in 15 minutes") during a time of relative peace is not an effective strategy. In this case, though, the Soviet bear was so weakened that there was little fight left in it. Their economy was already in a state of crisis, and forcing the Soviets into an arms race was a sure ticket to collapse. In this way, Reagan played his part in the destruction of the Soviet Union, if not the end of the Cold War. That it also led to an international monetary crisis and an eventual bailout by the IMF that the US is still paying for is just frosting on the cake.
Reagan's single minded desire to destroy the Soviets led to a series of ill considered choices. One was the decision to provide money and artillery - 65,000 tons annually by 1987 - to the mujahideen "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. We all know how well that turned out. The notion that he sold conventional and biological weapons to our ally, Saddam Hussein, is not completely accurate. In truth, the Reagan administration gave Iraq roughly $40 billion worth of arms, nearly all of it on credit. We also sent billions of dollars of food to keep Saddam from forming an alliance with the Soviets. Of course, we also sold arms to Iran, so it's all okay. The proceeds of that sale, as we all know, went to the Contra rebels fighting to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Nicaragua. That the Contras engaged in what would be considered terrorist acts today, often targeting civilians, or that the World Court in the Hague had forbidden the US to aid the Contras, is forgivable because the legally elected Sandinista government was perceived as Communist.
People defend these poor choices by saying things were done during the Reagan presidency that he didn't know about. And this is a good thing, how? This is the defense Kenneth Lay used to explain why he is not responsible for the financial shenanigans at Enron. I realize that if you are the CEO of a large corporation - and the President is the CEO of the huge corporation that is the federal government - you are not able to keep up with all the day to day operations of your organization. No one loves a micromanager. But you should have enough of a "broad strokes" feel for the place to sense when crimes are being committed. If nothing else, you should inspire you managers to not commit any legal or ethical transgressions without your approval. At the very least, you need to recognize that any such transgressions committed on your watch are your responsibility. The buck does stop here.
But while Reagan had no control over what was happening in the White House, he had complete control over what was happening in the rest of the world. Thus, no credit need be granted to Mikhail Gorbachev, who, with his lovely daughters Glasnost and Perestroika, radically transformed the Soviet Union from a weak socialist state to a weak capitalist one. Coca Cola had more to do with the death of Communism than Reagan. Gorbachev's policies led to the rest of the Eastern Bloc nations turning democratic throughout the late 80s. By the time Reagan famously announced in Berlin, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," Gorby had made so many changes that he might as well added, "while you're at it." People point out that Reagan made that statement in 1987 and two years later, the wall came down. Saying the first caused the second is akin to saying that people who voted Reagan would die in this year's Dead Pool brought about his eventual demise. In the same way, I suppose Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement, which was organized before Reagan's election, had nothing to do with the political changes in Poland. And Václav Havel, who spent five years in prison for his political activities, had nothing to do with bringing free elections to the Czech Republic.
It drives me crazy.
But this is more than left wing Reagan bashing. The idea that Reagan ended the Cold War single handed is the same US-centric notion that says we can transform the Middle East through military might. It supposes that we have the power to remake the rest of the world in our image. It further imagines that we know what is best for the rest of the world. I would say history refutes both points.
I understand why people took to Reagan. It's nice to hear it's morning in America. It's comforting to have grandpa in the White House. Especially when grandpa has a big gun.
Considering the timing, I expect the upcoming Republican National Convention will be "all Reagan, all the time." I'm not sure this is a wise strategy. The shadow cast by Reagan reveals just how tiny George Bush is. All his macho posturing is but a poor reflection of Reagan's natural confidence. Reagan got away with overblown platitudes because you knew no matter how crazy he was, he believed them. When Bush spouts platitudes, you wonder who scripted them. Bush may be a cowboy, but Reagan played one, and did it better.
posted by John Bliss at
12:42 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home