Ronald Reagan is gallantly slipping into eternity. Let the beautification begin. The nations longest living ex-president is to be fairly lauded for bringing revolution to American politics and helping the public vanquish our collective memory on the vileness of the Watergate years. He led an extraordinary comeback of a political party that had nearly fallen off a cliff in the mid-seventies to over a decade in the White House. He rebuilt our military power for the first time since WWII and slay our mortal enemy the Soviet Union. Or he seemed to, which in the manner of the political revolution he epitomized was the same thing.

But I remember coming of age during that time and I am not so warmly nostalgic as some. I can sense the great media empires preparing to roll out tribute in a fashion not seen since the death of Princess Diana and I wait for it uneasily. I recall the maudlin, avuncular prose that infused virtually all his public utterances. Through the prism of Peggy Noonan’s public relations and the Republican Party’s packaging, he was forever wistfully extolling an America that was half shining myth and half hokum. It was certainly the smart play. Had he been forced to try to appear urbane and possessing of a keen, probing intellect, no one would have bought it.

As power coalesced around him and his political career went stratospheric, some complained that he was simply a semi-trained actor acting a part and the performance wasn’t exactly seamless. However, this criticism had no traction, and we all knew at some point that no one was looking for another Jimmy Carter, who was a nuclear physicist naval officer, a brilliantly successful governor, and a failed president.

Rightly or wrongly, during his two terms we began to recognize the Presidency as a team effort. We got to know George Schultz, Michael Deaver, Donald Regan, Howard Meese, Howard Baker, and even George H.W. Bush as vital contributors to power. Even the First Lady was commonly thought to possess enough juice that she was not to be crossed. Has there been any other presidency where we were so comfortable with the thought that the man-in-charge wasn’t really in charge?

He laid a wreath at Bitburg Cemetary in Germany when there were so many reason’s not to; he fired hundreds of unionized air traffic controllers; he presided over the dismantling of the Midwest economy; he did little as our national debt zoomed to 4 trillion except introduce the idea of the Laffer Curve; to distract from a damaging debacle in Lebanon, he took us to war with Grenada, one of the world’s tiniest sovereign nations, in one of the most laughably senseless displays of power ever; he testified that he couldn’t remember anything about Iran-Contra, where what was contravened was the directly expressed will of Congress (we now devastatingly know why his memory had so conveniently faded).

Ronald Reagan playfully pretended that America was a booming franchise of Dixon, Illinois main streets ran by Rotarians who were always staunchly ready to defend traditional values. As Governor of California he had stood up to Hippies and malcontents expressing dangerous, new ideas and beaten them back with the help of batons and tear gas. Although he was never a military veteran, we can all collectively recall him in the uniform of an officer in a few on-screen moments bravely vanquishing his foe and it substituted nicely for the real thing.

When Nixon died all the living Presidents gathered and sat together as Bob Dole provided a eulogy whereby he called the terminally flawed Republican standard bearer a “great American” and burst into tears. As John Steinbeck once wrote, “no one knows how greatness comes to a man.” Greatness came to Nixon in a ham fisted and inelegant manner. It came to Ronald Reagan effortlessly.

Upon his death, we can name large public works projects after him, christen air craft carriers in his name, pay tribute with dozens of Ronald Reagan public schools, and poets can follow his bathetic muse. He wasn’t a scheming fixer with an ironclad will to prove himself like Nixon. He wasn’t an innocuously smooth career politician like Bush 39. He wasn’t the First of His Class like Clinton. He was a lifeguard, an actor, a corporate spokesperson, he “paid for this microphone”, he was the modern day definition of noblisse oblige. We can miss him without missing his brand of politics, as it is here to stay.

I just posted what I could of his death, and will try to write more later. For now, I think the bar may just be open, so that I can toast him properly. God help anyone who runs him down around me right now.

Gotta address Obelus up there…

Firing the Air-traffic controlers. I’m not sure if you are condemning that, but it happened in the first days of his Presidency. Hindsight showed it to be, knowingly or unknowingly, brilliant. It established to many, including overseas, that this guy would kick ass and take names when necessary. Leadership with minimal hand-wringing.

“Dismantling the Mid-West economy” – As opposed to what? How many times can we prove that protecting such entities from “dismantling” is the road to ruin? That very act set the stage for a twenty year economic performance the to this day stomps all over the ones busy “protecting” industries.

“National Debt”? What debt? The one virtually gone by the middle of Clinton? Funny thing is, Clinton didn’t cut spending, except military, and even that by not much. So how could those numbers possilby balance? Ummm, higher revenues maybe? Like Laffer said? If Reagan gave us the Laffer Curve, another reason to bless him. (BTW – State budgets today are now inching into the black…. Because of higher revenues two years after major tax cuts. Hello.)

“Invaded Grenada to distract from Lebanon” – Please. The invasion took place 36 hours after the attacks in Lebanon. The forces had already been underway for days, set into foce soon after maniacal Marxist Hudson Austin killed not-so-maniacal Marxist Maurice Bishop and turned anti-aircraft guns onto crowds protesting his coup. It is just patently false to say that Lebanon played a role. And Grenada, absurd as it seemed, was in fact the first historical reversal of a Marxist regime, a reversal brought about by a determined US President…. come what may. What seemed absurd to you, and even to me…. was definitely NOT seen that way in Marxist capitals and guerilla camps all over the world. Hisory records that specifically. Grenada was FAR from “senseless”. It was the first baby-step of the earth-shaking Long March that would end in Berlin less than a decade later.

As for your conclusion, I would simply say that it is not lost on us that the list of “intellectually challenged” Presidents is also a Republican role call. The only exception being the Machiavellian and corrupted Nixon. (Bush, Reagan, Eisenhower.) Leadership is not about being Manhattan witty or academically brilliant. It is about, possibly mostly about, sizing up your opponents, adversaries, and stone enemies, and having the will to overcome them. Something the Democratic Party would to well to….um… go back to school on.

Ummm, higher revenues maybe? Like Laffer said? If Reagan gave us the Laffer Curve, another reason to bless him.

(BTW – State budgets today are now inching into the black…. Because of higher revenues two years after major tax cuts. Hello.)

The Laffer Curve is to responsible budgeting what Laetrile is to chemotherapy, superficially more pleasant and ultimately fatal. I recommend Brad DeLong.

As to Reagan, I would agree with Mondale that in his first term he did something positive for the national spirit, although I remain very skeptical of the particulars. Given the retroactive discovery that he was probably losing his mental faculties even in his first term, the policy specifics didn't originate with him anyway.

"Given the retroactive discovery that he was probably losing his mental faculties even in his first term"

You cannot provide a credible cite in support of that calumny and you know it. If you become any smaller, you may disappear, which wouldn't be a bad thing at all.

There's a really amazing essay by a man who lived with a mother suffering from Alzheimer's Disease. It was included in the book, The Best American Science Writing 2003 (even though it was apparently written in 2002). It's called The Melody Lingers On and its by Floyd Skloot.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~skloot/MelodyLingers.htm

Here's the beginning:

At 91, deep in dementia, my mother no longer remembers her life. Thoughts drift as though in zero gravity, bumping occasionally against a few stray bits of memory, but nothing coheres. Her two husbands, her late son, all the cousins and community acquaintances who filled her days, her ambitions and achievements, her travels and yearnings–almost everything has floated away from her grasp, mere debris.

"Was I happily married?" she asked last week, when my wife Beverly and I took her out for coffee and snacks. Before I could answer, she added, "Oh how we somthinged on the hmmm hmm we were wed. Dear, was I ever on the stage?"

I nodded and said, "on the radio too."

"I was on the radio?" She smiled, closed her eyes and sang "Birds gotta swim, fish gotta fly, da-dada-da one man da-da die." Then she lifted a fragment of blueberry muffin and said "Was I ever on the stage?"

It’s not just her distant past that’s gone. What happened two minutes ago is as lost as what happened during the twenty-seven years she lived in Manhattan, the twenty years she lived in Brooklyn or the forty-four years she lived on Long Island. Now that she’s in Oregon, she doesn’t know she ever lived elsewhere. Sometimes she believes her Portland nursing home is a beachfront hotel, just as she sometimes believes I am her late brother.

What’s become apparent, though, is that she still knows songs. She retains many lyrics, snatches that may get confused but are easily recognizable, and when the lyrics are missing the melodies remain. She loves to sing, sings on key and with zest, and I can’t help wondering why song has hung on so tenaciously while her life memories have not.

Rick,

Go to the nearest gerontologist you trust and watch with him a tape of the second Reagan-Mondale debate. You know, the one where RR lost it and started a meandering closing statement about driving the Pacific Coast Highway, on and on until long after his time was up and the moderator cut him off. Then ask the doctor: are you surprised that this man died of Alzheimer's?

The Reagan spin machine managed to make us remember this debate only for the brilliant, well-rehearsed bon mot about not using Mondale's youth and inexperience against him. I guess the Mondale campaign was too beholden to votes of the elderly to counter this.

Then go look at his deposition in Iran-Contra, immediately after he left office. Perhaps all those "I can't remembers" to incidents in which he was known to have been present were true, and not a brilliant smokescreen.

Did I mention he once failed to recognize the only black member of his own Cabinet?

It's not really a question of what I think of his politics; I'm told it only became clear in retrospect that my liberal father-in-law (whom I never met), who had been deemed eccentric, had actually become mentally impaired long before it was admitted.

OTOH, one can look for example at the transcripts from the summit at Reykjavik in '86, and its clear that Reagan could still hold his own in a complicated argument about nuclear arms levels and SDI. We all know how RR's story ends, now, but Andrew's anecdotal evidence about Reagan's mental deterioration during his 2nd term just isn't particularly strong.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/

>>Reagan played a leading role in the global demise of an empire that had slain over 40 million people in its bloody history, and of an ideology whose democide count has topped 100 million.

We need to consider this carefully. Certainly the Soviet Union was exactly as bad as described. What I'm suspicious of is the extent of the US role in its collapse.

Much is made of the inefficiencies of the Soviet command economy. Indeed, this is one of the primary reasons to have rid the world of the Soviet system. If this was the primary cause of its collapse, then Reagan just happened to be the guy in charge when the containment policies of Nixon, Ford, Carter, etc. came to fruition.

A Carter Anecdote For You: Many people consider Carter to be a wimpy peacenik. Few remember that he was the one who started the Afganistan situation. He and Zbignew sent in the Islamofascists to destabilize Afganistan six months before the Russians invaded. Right or wrong, it was certainly not wimpy or peacenik.

Rumor has it that Reagan hammered the nail in the coffin by cutting a deal with the Saudis to drive up oil production -- the resulting price decrease hurt the Russians' ability to get hard currency. Anyone have any insight on this?

Star Wars is also an interesting notion. Clearly the Soviets saw it as the last component of an offensive US nuclear strategy that would at long last make a decisive US nuclear first strike feasable again. (The Soviets were right.) What is less clear is the extent to which this hastened their collapse, as well as the risks involved.

These folks seem to think that Reagan was quite instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of Eastern Europe.

"Ladies and gentlemen, if it had not been for the Reagan defense buildup, if the United States had not demonstrated that it is willing not only to stand up for freedom but to devote considerable sums of money to defending it, we probably would not be sitting here today having a free discussion between Russians and Americans."
-- - Boris Pinsker, Soviet Economist.

"American policy in the 1980s was a catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet Union."
-- Oleg Kalugin, former KGB general

"[Reagan administration policies] were a major factor in the demise of the Soviet system."
-- Yevgenny Novikov, former senior staff member of the Soviet Communist Party Central Committee

"Reagan was the main author of the victory of the Free World over the Evil Empire."
-- Marian Krzaklewski, head of Solidarnosc in Poland

The Washington Post also carried a story that Reagan enthusiastically authorized a plan that slipped flawed software and equipment ot the Soviets (who believed they were stealing it from us) that led to one of the largest pipeline explosions in history. That one explosion further crippled their economy.

History is pretty clear that the US and Reagan was instrumental in briging about the collapse of the USSR.

Great quotes Jimmie.

BTW - T.J. up there is of course quite correct that it was Carter and Brzinski who began to battle the Soviets in Afghanistan. Credit where due. Let's also keep that fact in mind when the weenies pop-off with, well, "the Republicans created Osama". Which is quite idiotic. Arabs crated Osama as much as Russians created Stalin. To ally with for convenience is not to"create". And such alliances, as with Stalin, have been the way of the world since time began.

T.J. also derserves comment on the Saudis. From page 238 of "Reagan's War" by Peter Schweizer, we learn that:

The Saudi family felt they were "surrounded by Soviet advisors" in Yemen, Ethiopia, Iraq, and Syria, and shaken by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Reagan offered major upgrades to Saudi-US military capabilities, in return for high oil production.

That Reagan, Schults, Meese, Weinberger, and Casey (CIA) all agreed that lower oil prices would not only help the US, but be a devastating weapon against the Soviet economy.

That that, combined with turning the screws on Europe to put the kaibosh on a Soviet - Western Europe pipeline were major factors in cold war victory.

Thus, as one who is perfectly willing to rage about the Saudis at any time, it is worth considering the complexity of the Saudi-US relationship, and that for every dirtbag Wahabbi, there likely exists a Saudi who can and will do us a lot of good.

Obelus, I kept hoping that you'd acknowledge that Reagan worked to end a political system that enslaved a good portion of humanity and slaughtered millions. But, alas, you obviously don't value these things.

"Much is made of the inefficiencies of the Soviet command economy. Indeed, this is one of the primary reasons to have rid the world of the Soviet system."

This is a rather strange comment. There is good reason to believe it is false, or at least incomplete. Many marxist states continue for decades with inefficient economies. Cuba and North Korea come to mind. All that is required is the will and tools to beat slaves into submission. (Indeed, Kim Jong Il seems willing to starve his own people to death if his continued rule requires it. Such is the ultimate expression of practical marxism.)

Notice the last sentence quoted, though: economic efficiency is said to be one of the reason "to have rid the world of the Soviet system". As if economic inefficiency itself is an agent. As if the world must be rid of marxism simply because it is inefficient. There is no sense that ending slavery is a moral good, that it takes men and women to fight against it, and that failing to act would amount to condonation.

Slur Reagan all you like; he at least, unlike many modern leftists, recognized the dehumanizing brutality of marxism, and was willing to oppose it because of that.

I've spent half of the afternoon with one burner simmering in the backbrain trying to think of something nice to say about the man. I agree with those who think that death is serious enough to be respected by positivity instead of carrying grudges. Here's what I came up with.

He was a leader of the American people. Even though I do not like the direction he took our country, I cannot ignore the fact that he was not a politician in the sense of one looks at the polls every day, senses which way the herd is going and tries to get out in front of it - he did not let public opinion shape the direction he was going but rather he shaped public opinion toward a vision that he had.

We haven't had enough like that - we could use a few from time to time.

In a positive light, he took a bullet in the job as President, and no one should have to take a bullet in that job. But as I recall, the time he said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!", Gorbachev was doing everything he could to do just that and open up the Soviet Union. It's kinda like when Pat Boone had a hit with "Isn't That A Shame" when everyone was already dancing to Fats Domino's "A'int That A Shame."

Has anyone here seen this:

http://jakking.typepad.com/daily/2004/06/ronald_reagan.html

Any comments/analysis/opinions on the accuracy or veracity of this piece would be appreciated.

Thanks.

As for me? Well,I grew up under his administration, and remember loving the guy.

But nostalgia’s one thing. What about his record, with the presumed “20/20 vision” of hindsight?

Interesting analysis, obelus. I seem to recall Gorbachev as a dictator and heir to a marxist tyranny working desperately to maintain his grip on power. But I guess you could be right: he could be the good dictator. After all, marxist states need be neither feared nor opposed, if only they were run by good tyrants. That's what marxists profs teach, so it must be right.

Poor Reagan; a simple man who disagreed with the prevailing wisdom.

TNRO has a somewhat scathing obit up:

[JK: link deleted. This is not the time or the place, and I have no wish to direct traffic there under the circumstances. Frankly, I think posting that link shows astonishingly poor judgment - and that's the kindest thing I can say about it.]

To elaboprate on my comment in shamrock66's submission...

Yes, they do have a scathing obit. As noted, I do not wish to have my blog direct traffic to it at this time.

I believed that Sen. Paul Wellstone was a fool, and a poster boy for most of what's wrong with liberalism in America, but it would never have crossed my mind to pen anything remotely resembling this immediately following his death (and indeed, you can use the blog's search function to see what I did write). The same was true for Pierre Trudeau, a leftist in Liberal clothing who did immense damage to Canada during his long tenure as Prime Minster. Immediately following his death is not an appropriate time to give voice to that when dealing with an elected public servant. There will be plenty of time later to debate these questions.

The Bobster seems to get that - and thank you, Bobster. Obelus tries to follow suit - and can't, instead adding more weight to Mark's reply. Andrew Lazarus' posts could have gone in an interesting and human direction, but ended up diminishing him instead.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course - I would have nothing good or nice to say if Noam Chomsky were to drop dead, for instance, or Johnny "Taliban" Walker for that matter. But a democratically elected leader in a free country, who did not betray that office or use it for personal enrichment... no, that's not an exception. No matter what side of the aisle they sit on.

When Bill Clinton is shot dead by someone's jealous husband at age 80 (which, you've gotta admit, sounds like a fine way to go), you'll hear the same spiel from me.

And Reagan has very considerable achievements to show from his leadership, achievements that should give anyone who believes in freedom no shortage of kind things to say.

Of course, as Mark notes, one must first see freedom as a good thing.

[ JK: for posting these right after my explicit warning above, "Anon" will stay anonymous, because I've just IP banned him.

Kos almost manages to sound human for a minute there, but then he talks himself out of it. Epenthesis doesn't even try. My wish to direct traffic to either of them for these writings at this time is zero.]

Marxist states are still around because they violate their own dictaes by trading with their capitalist enemies, i.e. engaging in anathemic capitalism, while simultaneously working to overthrow the latter by political-revolutionary means, for Left-based ABSOLUTISM - to Soviet and Chinese Cold War Communists Western Leftists-Socialists and "Communists", to include "Liberals", were nothing more than naive "useful idiots" to achieve [Asia]Communist domination, espec as led by the USSR, and STILL ARE, to be purged or eliminated later as "IMPURE" or "MONGRELIZED", SUSPECT/UNRELIABLE SOCIALISTS!
TO HEAR THE TREASONOUS AND FAKER LYING IMMORAL CLINTONS PRAISE MORALIST RONALD REAGAN WHILE DE FACTO WORKING TO DESTROY THEIR OWN COUNTRY, TO INCLUDE THEIR OWN PARTY/AMERICAN LEFT, AND THE WEST, FOR COMMUNISM AND RUSSIA-CHINA [COMMUNIST ASIA], IS ABSOLUTELY GALLING AND DISGUSTING TO ME - FOR THE LEFT TO WANT ALL AMERICANS TO REVISE HISTORY OR "GO THRU THE MOTIONS" OF PUTTING THE CLINTONS NEXT TO THEIR POTUS PREDECESSORS, EVEN "AMERICA-FIRST" DEMOCRATS LIKE FDR TO LBJ, PISSES ME OFF TO NO END!

Sigh. This is overdue. Time to fire up the Tottenator.

Mr. Mendiola, there's something to the points you make about Communism, and it's an ideology that deserves every kick it gets (and more). But the trollish style is grating to say the least, the content is not at our standards, and the result lowers the quality of the forum.

Soooo, meet our bouncers electron and photon...

Now that the Tottenator is out of its holster, consider this a Soviet-style warning shot in Mr. Mendiola's honour.

As in, "we shoot one guy as a warning to others."

Gorbachev was doing everything he could to do just that and open up the Soviet Union

Obelus, that's a fairly monumental exaggeration of glasnost. More freedom was introduced in the Soviet Union, but the record isn't all as sunny as the public memory thinks. For example, Soviet troops massacred protesters in Tbilisi in 1989, Baku in 1990, and Vilnius in 1991. If that's doing everything he could to "open up the Soviet Union" you need to check your head.

Gorbachev relented in 1989 (after Reagan's speech) and declared that the Red Army would not intervene in the politics of Warsaw Pact allies. This was largely in response to U.S. pressure and a recognition that the Soviets were losing the ability to keep its satellites fimly in orbit.

I think that a lot of the positive view of Gorbachev in the West (Russians have shown in elections they have little desire to have him back) is precisely because of Reagan's willingness to work with him, encourage the positive, and discourage the negative.

Well, 49 states are not permitted to run deficits, so what we see here is that after having had to slash budgets drastically because of revenue shortfalls earlier, they are now somewhat on the rebound.

Really, how many States are actually spending less (even after adjusting for inflation) than they were the previous year?

Here in Minnesota, we balanced our budget by slowing the rate of increase from about 14% to about 7% which hardly seems to qualify as “slash[ing] budgets drastically.”

The American president is an interesting critter -- simultaneously head of state and head of government.

One reason Reagan so deeply touched even many people who disagreed with him politically is that as an actor he understood completely and played brilliantly his role as Head of State. Few presidents have done that well: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, and Reagan, give or take Teddy Roosevelt.

In doing so, Reagan connected with most Americans on a solid personal level and was thus able to effect some of the profound changes for which he is increasingly understood to be responsible.

I had the honor and privlege of serving the last two years of my twenty-five years of military service during President Reagan's first term. He galvanized and restored the military. We had become a demoralized and ineffectual "armed" force. Even before the effects of his increased military budgets resulted in more, better and upgraded equipment, his respect for and understanding of the role the military has in our society caused all of us to promptly stand a little taller and to regain the espirit de corps that had been so lacking during the disasterous Carter presidency. For eight years we were blessed with a president who deeply and truly loved this country and who embodied the very meaning of the word "patriot". He was the epitome
of the collective American myth - Fourth of July celebrations, small town friendliness and neighborliness. A genuine concern for the future of the nation and it's people and a positive vision of our role and responsibility in the world at large. Ronald Reagan had a vision for America, NOT and agenda. He was a statesman as well as a consumate politician. A very rare combination indeed. Thank God we had him when we did, for as long as we did. His loss leaves us and the rest of the world poorer. We shall not see his like again. God bless him.

I am trying to find out the name of the lady who sang "America" during the Ronald Reagan Tribute, June 7, 2004 (approx. 2:55 p.m.). Does anyone know?

Please email me: inspectr over here @bellsouth.net

Thanks~