Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Reagan dies--Liberals genuflect
Y'know, I guess it's just pretty darn impolitic, maybe even "PC" to quote Rush, to dishonor the dead. It sure seems that way as we watch the misnamed liberal media fall all over itself to glorify Reagan's legacy while glossing over the major disagreements and failures of his tenure.
For the record, I was a college student in DC during much of the Reagan Administration and I simply hated the man. I couldn't even bear to watch him on TV. His policies intentionally gutted the social safety net and began the process of transferring the wealth of government from the lower and middle classes to the upper classes and large corporations. Despite stirring common-man rhetoric and libertarian anti-government notions, government actually grew during Reagan's tenure. The only thing he managed to do was to redirect the benefits of the state(welfare, if you will) from the bottom 2/3 of the country to the upper 1/10.
He supported illegal wars in Central America and was involved in a B-movie script scenario that became broadly known as the Iran-Contra scandal, the conclusion of which (after mastermind Bill Casey's very timely death) left one to choose between a vision of President Reagan as either a) acting in a blatantly criminal manner, or b) utterly incompetent. To his credit, I lean toward the first conclusion. So much as been made of his anti-Communist stance during the numerous tributes over the weekend--many of his supporters agreed that when it came to a few things, one being the Pinkos, he was always in charge and on top of his game--always. Such posthumous analysis practically indicts Reagan in playing a major role in the scandal, although that is conveniently swept under the rug here in eulogy season.
Hey, look, when I die I too hope that people will overlook my faults in favor of my contributions as well. But that's as much of a nod as I'm willing to give him.
As I listened to NPR (what passes for liberal media), I noted their consistent evenhandedness, as is their way. I wonder how Bill Clinton will be portrayed by Fox News (or its even more-rabid future successor) when he finally passes. My guess is it will be a lot more about stained dresses and cigar tricks than budget surpluses and booming economies.
Hell, even after FDR died those dyed-in-the-wool anti-New Dealers were opening champagne and dancing in their mansions. And this was during the Second World War!! Imagine if liberals did that in this day and age, should W. pass suddenly. They'd be locked up faster than you could say "Cheney's in charge--all Democrats are hereby deported to Guantanamo."
So I'll neither celebrate Reagan's legacy nor dance on his grave. I will note the tragedy of Alzheimers that robbed him and his family of their last years together. We all die alone--he did so years ago, and that is a tragedy that we should all acknowledge.
Y'know, I guess it's just pretty darn impolitic, maybe even "PC" to quote Rush, to dishonor the dead. It sure seems that way as we watch the misnamed liberal media fall all over itself to glorify Reagan's legacy while glossing over the major disagreements and failures of his tenure.
For the record, I was a college student in DC during much of the Reagan Administration and I simply hated the man. I couldn't even bear to watch him on TV. His policies intentionally gutted the social safety net and began the process of transferring the wealth of government from the lower and middle classes to the upper classes and large corporations. Despite stirring common-man rhetoric and libertarian anti-government notions, government actually grew during Reagan's tenure. The only thing he managed to do was to redirect the benefits of the state(welfare, if you will) from the bottom 2/3 of the country to the upper 1/10.
He supported illegal wars in Central America and was involved in a B-movie script scenario that became broadly known as the Iran-Contra scandal, the conclusion of which (after mastermind Bill Casey's very timely death) left one to choose between a vision of President Reagan as either a) acting in a blatantly criminal manner, or b) utterly incompetent. To his credit, I lean toward the first conclusion. So much as been made of his anti-Communist stance during the numerous tributes over the weekend--many of his supporters agreed that when it came to a few things, one being the Pinkos, he was always in charge and on top of his game--always. Such posthumous analysis practically indicts Reagan in playing a major role in the scandal, although that is conveniently swept under the rug here in eulogy season.
Hey, look, when I die I too hope that people will overlook my faults in favor of my contributions as well. But that's as much of a nod as I'm willing to give him.
As I listened to NPR (what passes for liberal media), I noted their consistent evenhandedness, as is their way. I wonder how Bill Clinton will be portrayed by Fox News (or its even more-rabid future successor) when he finally passes. My guess is it will be a lot more about stained dresses and cigar tricks than budget surpluses and booming economies.
Hell, even after FDR died those dyed-in-the-wool anti-New Dealers were opening champagne and dancing in their mansions. And this was during the Second World War!! Imagine if liberals did that in this day and age, should W. pass suddenly. They'd be locked up faster than you could say "Cheney's in charge--all Democrats are hereby deported to Guantanamo."
So I'll neither celebrate Reagan's legacy nor dance on his grave. I will note the tragedy of Alzheimers that robbed him and his family of their last years together. We all die alone--he did so years ago, and that is a tragedy that we should all acknowledge.
Comments:
Post a Comment
