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: 03-23-2003
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 5:49pm

The pressure he placed on them was a large reason for their collapse.


It might have been the last straw, but it was not the major reason for collapse.


iVillage Member
Registered: 06-11-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:12pm
"It must be nice to be perfect AND odor free."

~John Candy as Dell Griffith, Planes, Trains and Automobiles

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:17pm
It's one week for crying out loud. Some people have too much time on their hands to complain so much about such a little thing as what they get to watch on tv. He died, he was a US President, give up a week for at least that? Geesh, too many people are having a kiniption (sp?) fit over a funeral service that went publically announced and moarned. Don't worry, the media and news will go right back to bashing Bush and the war very soon, I promise ::rollseyes::
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:19pm

Why should anyone attempt to discuss what they feel he did wrong in the very week of his passing? Inappropriate at this time don't ya think? A funeral or service for the dead is not a time to complain or surface what the man did "wrong" in is life. Get real people!

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:26pm
So you are basically saying it is ok with you that whomever feels deemed necessary, should have the right to speak ill of your loved one's, perhaps your husband, son or daughter right when he/she passes? How about expression of all their faults during what is supposed to be dedicated to the good the person did and the good the person was? Since when did a funeral ceremony open the doors to negative comments and feelings of what one thought wasn't done right while that person was alive???
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:33pm
Why are you only interested in the "truth" right now? When he just died? If it is just a funeral of a person to you, then why are you bringing up politics? It's just a person according to you. The ratings are high for a reason...it's called interest and many of those interested obviously disagree with you and your post's expression of lack of respect for a "person". Are you bored right now or distracted by Reagan's death, that you ar more interested in posting negative articles about Reagan rather then Bush? Or are you going to go back to that obsession when this publicity fades away? I guess I expected more from a board moderator!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:38pm
I'm not speaking 'ill' of him personally...just 8 years while he was the President.

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:41pm
Do you actually need an answer to this question? Here's a scenario for you...your husband just dies and it is at his funeral loved one's and those who respected him are lined up to express why they feel he was so great. Then there is the line that has all those who have felt "wronged" by him and want to speak the truth about his wrong doing's in their opinions....is that appropriate? They just want to speak the truth!
iVillage Member
Registered: 06-04-2004
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:43pm
Yeah and they'd be just as dispicable, does it make it any more respectful if it were those who loathed clinton?? Nope! They would be viewed just as tasteless and disrespectful as those on these boards now.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 9:44pm

Why should anyone attempt to discuss what they feel he did wrong in the very week of his passing? Inappropriate at this time don't ya think? A funeral or service for the dead is not a time to complain or surface what the man did "wrong" in is life. Get real people!


Oh, but it's a time to tell untruths about his accomplishments...or aggrandize them beyond what they were?


Pages