Keep Reagan's Record in Balance.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Keep Reagan's Record in Balance.
67
Thu, 06-10-2004 - 9:57am

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29859-2004Jun9.html


The good that Ronald Reagan did is not being buried with his bones tomorrow, as Shakespeare's Mark Antony predicted of Caesar. Reagan's good is being disinterred and magnified. It is being raised to new and unrealistic heights that will live on, and hang heavily over his successors, in public expectations.


This is not to begrudge the 40th president the thunderous applause that has come from politicians, journalists, historians and citizens to mark Reagan's final bow. Ill should rarely be spoken of the dead. But it is puzzling how these assessments of Reagan's accomplishments have improved so dramatically and uniformly in the 16 years since he left office.


Perhaps this is how contemporary history is made or, in the electronic era, mismade and distorted. Reagan's growing reputation as the great victor in the Cold War who made Mikhail Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall depends on looking at Reagan and his times through the light cast by subsequent events.


The craving by Americans for uncluttered heroism -- for what is seen in retrospect as the order and clarity of the Cold War -- also powers this yearning for a near-mythical transformation of Reagan's death into a moment to sweep aside the dread and anguish of the wars in Iraq and against al Qaeda.


Yes, winners always write the history. But it is dangerously easy today to make the leap from that news footage of Reagan speaking at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to concluding that he came to office with a master plan to make victory in the Cold War inevitable. As one television executive said to me not long ago, "Today history is what we say it is."


To one who covered many of the key international events of that day, Reagan seemed in fact to come late to a realistic view of the Soviet Union and the world, and -- like most presidents -- to have improvised furiously and not always successfully in foreign affairs.


It is also easy in today's elegiac mood to forget how unpopular Reagan was abroad for most of his presidency, even among his peers. France's Francois Mitterrand once sputtered in rage at me when I asked about his ideological conflicts with Reagan over Soviet policies. Kremlin officials expressed private delight at Reagan's election because they would be able to "roll him."


That is no skin off Reagan's record. He was more right about the evil and the fate of Soviet imperialism than Mitterrand, Gorbachev and most other leaders of the day. He was far from the amiable dunce portrayed by his knee-jerk critics.


But the opposition that Reagan stirred should not be airbrushed out of the final photograph of his times. Nor can we ignore the fact that the analysis and policies that brought some breakthroughs with Moscow originated more with George Shultz at the State Department than at Reagan's White House.


The Wall collapsed a year after Reagan's successor had been chosen and had started to alter policies toward Moscow. That collapse was due more to the struggle in the 1980s of the citizens of Poland, Hungary, East Germany and other satellite nations than to new actions by Washington. Nor should we minimize the contribution that a half-century of common dedication by U.S. and West European citizens and their military forces made to the final collapse of the Soviet empire.


There were important costs that came with Reagan's undeniable successes. His confrontational style used in getting much-needed Pershing 2 missiles deployed in Europe helped prematurely end the career of West Germany's highly competent chancellor, Helmut Schmidt.


U.S. support extended to guerrillas to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan has blown back in the form of al Qaeda and extreme instability in Central Asia. U.S. help to Saddam Hussein in Iraq also boomeranged. Iran-contra was not as great an aberration at the Reagan White House as it is often painted today.


The commentariat has made many of the right points about Reagan's uplifting personality and all the good and the fascinating that will live after him. Even if he was not a great president, he lived a great life from which we can all learn.


But if we airbrush and prettify history for the small screen and the front page, and ultimately for the books to come, we will not learn the most important lessons about mistakes that can be avoided. Let Reagan be Reagan, warts and all, for all time now.


The Man, the Myths
Don't believe everything you hear about Ronald Reagan.


http://slate.msn.com/id/2102060/


Gorby had the lead role, not Gipper.


>"In the collapse of communism he deserves credit not as an instigator, but an abettor. Best Supporting Actor."<


Quote from.........


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040610/COMARTIN10/TPComment/TopStories


Op-ed: REAGAN'S SHAMEFUL LEGACY


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=7&u=/ucru/20040608/cm_ucru/reagansshamefullegacy

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:43am
"Will I watch the funeral tomorrow? No. Not out of disrespect to him or his family but just because it means little to me. What is shameful in that? "

It is shameful because the death of one of the most influential presidents of our time is going to be laid to rest and it "means little" to you. I will watch Clinton's funeral should I be alive when the time comes. If nothing else you respect the office of the President and if you don't that alone is shameful.

"6697.8

This article may help balance your perspective."

There is nothing balanced in this article. It is a typical horror story of war. War is hell. Wishing Reagan a place in hell and posting an article with this content lacks taste. I can find as many articles with people extolling the virtuals of Reagan. Does that help deal with fact? No. I'm sorry for the people's suffering in this article but it is no reflection on Reagan. I wonder how many similar articles exist with Kennedy and

Vietnam.

"6697.10 "

"In parts of the world he's considered a war criminal."

So is the pope. Your point? Those who dislike your policies will not speak well of you.

This is the type of people who turn my stomach, how disgusting and common.

"activists in San Francisco will hold a mock funeral of their own in honor of what they say are Reagan's Central American victims."


Regardless of your beliefs about Reagan and his policies to post articles that write the following, shows a complete disregard for common decency. Shame should be felt but I'm sure its not.

"Reagan Was The Butcher of My People"

"Reagan in fact was an international outlaw."

"Did God die or something?"

"I hope hell has a VIP lounge for him to suffer the torture and terror he imposed on us."


I think this sentence is the only reason people on this board feel free to post this sort of classless dribble.

"Reagan has been the bane of liberals from the start."

Jim




iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 10:37am

You don't get it...I wouldn't watch Clinton's funeral either.


iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 10:55am
***********************

"You don't get it"

You are right, I don't.

***********************

***********************

"To me, it's just a body"

If this is true then why do this:

"I would much rather attend the funeral honoring the sacrifice of one of our young soldiers"

***********************

"Besides, respect is earned not granted just because of someone's political office"

Another point of disagreement. Seems to me the President of the US deserves respect. I would have respected Clinton as President, not Clinton the man.

***********************

"why posting articles by those who were harmed by Reagan's presidency is 'shameful'"

It has to do with timing. I would discuss the truth about Reagan's administration but this is an inappropriate time to do so. It is even more inappropriate to post inflammatory remarks about his character during his funeral. Does common decency need to be explained? *Sigh* In today's society I guess it does.


I'll be glad to continue this debate later, but the funeral is starting. In order not to be a hypocrite, I will not continue this discussion until my President is airborne in root to his grave.

Jim

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 11:12am

For when you return:

***********************
"To me, it's just a body"

If this is true then why do this:

"I would much rather attend the funeral honoring the sacrifice of one of our young soldiers"


Because they HAVE earned my respect.


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 11:43am

>"Can you deny that they are trying to deify him (or make him a 'saint' as was mentioned by another poster)?

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 12:01pm
Have you noticed the title of this thread?

<>

Yes, this information is all over the TV and newspapers, this thread is an attempt to balance the reporting.

Sorry, you didn't appreciate the effort.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 12:10pm
<< Can you deny that they are trying to deify him (or make him a 'saint' as was mentioned by another poster)? All any of these posts is pointing out is that he ISN'T the "GREAT" President that the hype is portraying he was.>>

This week long eulogy to Reagan and Bush's push to get out the good news reminds me of a song from the "King and I": Happy, happy thoughts. As if thinking only happy thought eliminates the truth. BTW, when is truth inappropriate?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 12:26pm

>"reminds me of a song from the "King and I": Happy, happy thoughts."<


LOL Good one!


(Guess what I'm going to be singing to myself all day?)

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 12:38pm

Here's a Reagan thread were one can post accolades. You might find it more to your liking........


http://messageboards.ivillage.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=iv-elinthenews&msg=6673.1&ctx=128

cl-Libraone~

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-18-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 1:18pm
Ok the service is basically over until CA so…

***********************

“Because they HAVE earned my respect. I think that would be obvious. And yes, it's still just 'a body'...of someone who really did something to protect my 'freedoms' as an American.”

Our soldiers deserve our respect; you will not find a greater support of our military than I. However, Reagan did far more to protect our freedoms as Americans than any single soldier could do. The great thing about Reagan was he did it without firing a shot.

***********************

President Clinton earned my respect (still wouldn't watch the funeral)...Pres. Reagan did not. As men, I can't say much because I have never met nor do I know either of them.

How someone like Clinton could earn your respect as a President and Reagan could not does not surprise to me. When someone is driven by an ideological bent, it is easy to dismiss those with whom you disagree.

In my view Clinton did little to earn my respect. He was a man consumed with personal gratification and ensuring he had a legacy that would be remembered. Clinton was intent on magnifying himself with little concern for others. Reagan said it best “Politics is not a bad profession. If you succeed there are many rewards, if you disgrace yourself you can always write a book.” When does Clinton’s book come out? Clinton’s policies will have little or no lasting effects on our country. What great contributions did he make to the country or the world?

In comparison, Reagan was not concerned with self-aggrandizement. On Reagan’s desk sat this quote: "There's no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." He sent Carter to receive the Iran Hostages even though Carter failed miserably trying to get them back. Those hostages came home because of Reagan. Reagan’s accomplishments have had lasting effects for the country and world. Most Historians place Reagan in the upper 1/3 of all presidents, some as high as the top 5. There is a general consensus that Reagan brought pride back to the country and an optimistic view of this country. He won re-election with all but 1 state. He left the office with a higher approval rating then he entered and higher than any president since those polls were taken.

An inability to respect Reagan for no other reason than his love of this country and its ideals shows one’s inability to see beyond the veneer of their political hatred of all that is conservative.

***********************

Gee, and here I thought being honest and upfront was the decent and truthful thing to do.

When people post negative opinion or topics about a man that are open to debate on the day of his funeral is in poor taste. There is nothing wrong with the truth, again it is timing. Why this needs to be explained is almost mind numbing. Would you walk up to his family, friends, and supporters at his funeral and say “I don’t respect that man”. Of course not, it lacks taste. Posting such hateful things the day of his funeral is a disgusting thing to do, regardless of how “true” someone thinks it is.

***********************

I didn't post any inflammatory remarks about his 'character'.

My comments regarding those posts are directed at the poster. However you did post “I will say this...Ronald Reagan is the reason my mother became a Democrat! ROTFLOL!” Rolling on the floor laughing out loud is inappropriate when such a solemn event is under way, at least in my book.

***********************

And why do you keep dodging the GOP's part in all of this?

I’m not dodging the idea of the GOP and their role in the Reagan funeral. If you define deify as “To make a god of” then yes I would disagree with you. If you define deify as “To idealize; exalt” then I would say yes they are deifying him and rightly so.

***********************

All any of these posts is pointing out is that he ISN'T the "GREAT" President that the hype is portraying he was.

Well I believe he was a great president, certainly in my top 5. But these posts do little to discuss why he isn’t a great president. They include venomous characterizations of him, personal attacks, and flat out lies. The jovial context of the posts indicate no respect or compassion. Having love and respect for others that liberal profess should have kept such “happy” posts reserved, at least until the man is buried. His family is grieving, his friends are grieving, the nation is grieving. To disregard this time of mourning to take shots at the man is of the lowest caliber of human decency.


Jim

Pages