Reagan - Not a Lovefest

[Kensington]

This is today's column by Leonard Pitts, a columnist for the Miami Herald:

Media's picture of Reagan era is incomplete


The Reagan Revolution began in **************** in Philadelphia, Miss.

Philadelphia, a speck of town north and east of Jackson, is infamous as the place three young civil rights workers were murdered in **************** for registering black people to vote. Now here came Ronald Reagan, Republican presidential aspirant, opening his campaign at a fair that for generations had served as a forum for segregationists, and offering thinly veiled support for their cause.

''I believe in state's rights,'' he said.

His death this week has to it, as you might expect, a sense of national moment. Flags at half staff, long lines snaking into the Capitol to pay final respects. His widow weeps, his supporters grieve and I'd have been content to leave them their space, to watch it all in respectful silence.

Except that it's getting kind of deep around here, if you catch my drift. Any deeper and we'll all need hip boots.

UNCRITICAL TRIBUTES

I refer, in case my drift goes uncaught, to the fulsome media tributes that have attended the former president's death. Not just fulsome, but uncritical, bereft of balance, lacking perspective. If all you knew of Ronald Reagan is what you saw on newscasts or read in the initial coverage from USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post or The Miami Herald, you'd think him a cross between Wilford Brimley and John Rambo, a twinkle-eyed grandfather with a fondness for jelly beans who single-handedly saved America, kicked the Commies in the butt, and maybe even found a cure for the common cold while he was at it. You'd never know about what he said in Mississippi.

It's hardly uncommon to speak well of the recently departed. And there is certainly much about the former president's tenure that merits celebration. He restored ''can do'' to the American lexicon, his vibrant optimism a jolt of adrenaline after the dour Carter years and the criminality of the Nixon gang. He pushed communism to the breaking point. He famously called the Soviet Union what it was -- an empire of evil. He changed the political landscape.

But my point here is that some of us also knew another Reagan, and he is conspicuous by his absence from much of this week's coverage.

Some of us remember his cuts in federal lunch programs for poor children and his claim that ketchup is a vegetable.

Some of us remember his revival of the old canard that Martin Luther King was a communist.

Some of us remember Americans dying by the thousands from AIDS while their president breathed not a word.

Some of us remember finding homeless people sleeping under freeways.

And some of us were there when the cities imploded, rent by a cheap and insanely addictive new drug called crack. It turned our mothers into prostitutes, our fathers into zombies, our children into orphans, our communities into killing fields. We looked to the White House for help and received in response a ruinous ''war on drugs'' and this advice from the first lady:

``Just say no.''

HISTORY REWRITTEN

To the degree those things are missing from their analyses, news media have embarrassed themselves this week. They have rewritten history and slapped on a happy face.

It's not an issue of respecting the deceased. It is, rather, an issue of telling the whole truth, fulfilling our obligation to write history's first draft. Imagine analyzing a recently departed Bill Clinton and leaving out Monica Lewinsky or memorializing Richard Nixon and forgetting Watergate. That would be what this is: dishonest. Lies of omission.

So let me say this for the record: Some of us watch these proceedings with the sober respect you'd have for any loss of life, but also with dry eyes. The media have sold us a fraudulent version of history. Everybody loved Ronald Reagan, it says.

Beg pardon, but ''everybody'' did not.

I agree.

I waited out the week of "mourning in America" & found myself moved by certain aspects of the multiple ceremonies, namely when Patti Davis spoke at the California service. I found the entire state funeral fascinating from the eyes of how historical it all is. But do I look back on the Reagan era with dreamy eyes?

Hell no.

I realize a large number of fish here were either not born or still in diapers during the Reagan/Bush Sr. years (eighty-one thru eighty-nine), & it would be easy to read the papers & watch the shows about him & think he was a gentle cowboy with a firm hand who made America what the founding fathers meant it to be. Plenty of people who were alive & mature enuf in age to understand what was going on during his term thought he was a great president.

But plenty of us did not!

I am a bit tired of people getting wrapped up in the sticky sweet love affair of Ronnie & Nancy. While it's nice for the two of them that they were very much in love, most of their children were estranged from them at one time or another due largely in part to their exclusionary relationship & how they made it clear to the kids that they (the children) were second to the marriage.

The whitewashed tribute of the cute old couple is of little comfort to the poor children whose school lunch programs were cut & who were told "Ketchup is a vegetable".

It's of little comfort to the people who stood by & watched arms traded to our enemies & a tired old man standing there saying he didn't know.

It's of little comfort to the myriad of families around the country, mine included, who watched their family members suffer with AIDS & waited for our president to even UTTER the word "AIDS", yet he didn't, much less take action to help.

It's of little comfort to people who want nature to remain vital & not mowed over in the name of "progress", yet Reagan said "Trees cause pollution".

It's of little comfort to people who wanted genuine help for all classes when it came to drug-addiction, yet were told to utter a Miss Manners phrase ("just say no!") & it would all go away.

I respect that he was our president & he died & there were plenty who thought he did no wrong. However, there are plenty who thought he damaged the country day in & day out for nearly a decade, actually more considering it was his vice-president who then had four more years to continue many of the same policies.

As Mr. Pitts said, not everybody loved Reagan.

[shortstop]

Thank you Kensington. I am one of the :fishy who was too young to really know what happened. I had a conversation with my uncle about this subject and he told me that there was more to his tenure than what the TVs were now saying. It's amazing how truly two faced the media is. I am all for respect and I do respect his death, but I think that there's been quite enough TV coverage on him. I can't help but think that the Republicans are feeding off of this, it being an election year and all????
Anyway, there is good and there is bad, and the media is supposed to be unbiased and show both sides.

[ribbon]

I too was moved by what Patti, Michael and Ron had to say.
I also find the planning of the funeral fascinating. I didn't realize it had been going on since he was shot in MCMLXXXI :zoinks. I was really disappointed to hear that Margaret Thatcher taped her eulogy several months ago :zoinks, there's something eerie about that to me. The whole funeral seemed overproduced to me.

As for his politics, there wasn't much if anything I liked about them. I did find Nancy Reagan's just say no campaign to be an adequate first step in conquering the substance abuse issues in the country. There wasn't a big recovery movement back then and it was a start. There certainly wasn't the literature or wide spectrum of IP and IOP options. As for aftercare, it was AA or noway. As a country and world we've evolved since then and become more educated on treatment and I suspect (and hope) in another twenty some years we'll even better at prevention and treatment.

[Kensington]

I found the "just say no" approach to drugs as grounded in reality & useful as telling someone with an ed to "just say no". Hey kids, anorexia got ya down? Just say no! :confused

No one will ever address the supply of drugs until they understand the demand for drugs. Nancy's plan was simplifying every user out there into one neat category - whether it's the guy who smokes pot on the weekend or the guy who knifes you to get money to sustain his crack addiction - then further reduced all people who use or abuse drugs into people who just have a little problem saying "no".

I kept waiting for her to go further & insist they just say "no, thank you!", so as to sneak a little etiquette lesson in.

[ribbon]

I agree, Kensy. It is very simplistic and one dimensional. The truth is that in reality abstinence from substance abuse and recovery from EDs is about not giving into the behaviors, but to the sufferer it's a lot more complicated due to the underlying issues etc.

[Kensington]

Ribbon, you said you liked the "just say no" campaign, so I'm unsure of what you mean by then saying it's "simplistic and one dimensional".

On another note, I emailed Leonard Pitts telling him how much I enjoyed his column today & was surprised he actually wrote back! For anyone who enjoys columnists in your paper, he is always worth reading.

[IthinkIcan]

No person is perfect, and, as such, no president. Certainly President Reagan was not exempt. I feel, however, that he governed in a time of extremes. The eighties were the time when AIDS came to the forefront, substance abuse was first addressed and a prevention plan implemented (the point of "just say no"), the Cold War, communism, it goes on and on. I truly feel much was accomplished in this time. To address a couple of things you said.

"I am a bit tired of people getting wrapped up in the sticky sweet love affair of Ronnie & Nancy. While it's nice for the two of them that they were very much in love, most of their children were estranged from them at one time or another due largely in part to their exclusionary relationship & how they made it clear to the kids that they (the children) were second to the marriage." Kids should be second to the marriage! I do realize it is a matter of balance and the way that this is played out. Not knowing the children's stories or the parental response to them, all I know is there are two sides to a story, temperament, personality, life situations. To blame the ide of children being second to a marriage is errant. If a marriage isn't placed first, then there is no foundation for the kiddies and nothing left once the kiddies are gone. They were birthed out of that love and need to be cared for out of a continued partnership in that love.

The whitewashed tribute of the cute old couple is of little comfort to the poor children whose school lunch programs were cut & who were told "Ketchup is a vegetable". Cuts happen, and they are never popular. The idea that ketchup is a vegetable is ridiculous! I remember even the children (I was one then) joking about this. Worse yet is that it remains a standard. This isn't Reagan's fault. What are we doing about it? What did Bush do? Clinton?

It's of little comfort to the people who stood by & watched arms traded to our enemies & a tired old man standing there saying he didn't know. Agreed.

It's of little comfort to the myriad of families around the country, mine included, who watched their family members suffer with AIDS & waited for our president to even UTTER the word "AIDS", yet he didn't, much less take action to help. I can't imagine how hard this was, yet seeing that my dad was on the AIDS Task Force I do realize their concerns about mass hysteria and other concerns. They were getting so much conflicting data, even in the lab. My dad is still not comfortable with some of what he learned versus what was taught, neither is a professor I knew who was part of this whole deal. It doesn't excuse it, but I think to not consider that this was a new thing and something people were so fearful of and something they wanted to protect people from a fearful and chaotic response, it does make some sense. I think it is easy to forget. Remember, however, how people with HIV/AIDS were treated when the news broke. They became lepers to many. The kids weren't wanted in schools. I could see where he might have FELT justified in some of his fears." In reality I think the eighties was a time of change.

It's of little comfort to people who want nature to remain vital & not mowed over in the name of "progress", yet Reagan said "Trees cause pollution".

It's of little comfort to people who wanted genuine help for all classes when it came to drug-addiction, yet were told to utter a Miss Manners phrase ("just say no!") & it would all go away. True that, and it did not address the issue for substance abusers. The literature, however, pointed out that it was a prevention program. The target was school-age children. Experimenters/dabblers. More needed to be done. More STILL needs to be done. Addiction and substance abuse are STILL misunderstood by many!

I'm not saying he was the end all, but I could point out bad things about each president. And some of these things would be much harder to defend.

If the argument is about balance in the media, I think there is a time and place for that. There is a time for mourning and eulogizing. He was considered a great man by many (I haven't watched ANY of it). The media will return to their normal scathing ways :winky you can be sure of it.

[battgyrll]

:hugon Kensy :hugoff

I was young when he was president (okay, I had just been born :ugh) but I know my history and let me just say that i have been waiting to say all of these things since he died! I guess it isn't polite to speak ill of the dead or whatever, but come on. Yes, it's sad that he died, yes it is sad that he had Alzhiemer's, but that doesn't make me a fan of his politics or his presidency.

I'm really glad that we are finally "allowed" to talk about him in a way that doesn't make him seem almost godly.

Again, it is sad that he died (becuase it is sad when anyone dies, and I am sure his family is mourning), but not all of us liked him very much, even those of us in diapers.

:bat battgyrll :bat
Sara

[Marigold]

:starsKensington:stars,

Thankyou for this post!
Thank god for some balance re: Reagan.

I'm so sick of all this eulogizing and so forth.

I couldn't stand him as President. I couldn't stand his "cowbody" mentality.

I even hated his voice and how he sounded and came across.
The "Gipper" indeed.
Please.
As for Nancy....about the only thing I admired her for was consulting Astrologers...which is a bit batty but funny and also interesting...
Her "Just Say No" campaign was a crock.
Drivel.
Stupidity.
An insult.

I read Patti Davis's words about her father's last moments - and they moved me.
But enough is enough!
He's been whitewashed to the extreme.
-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

Kensington said: Ribbon, you said you liked the "just say no" campaign, so I'm unsure of what you mean by then saying it's "simplistic and one dimensional".

At the time I liked the concept of the campaign and the idea about it, not per se the advice just say no but the idea of our first lady going on tv ads to promote substance abuse prevention. Looking back, with the knowledge I have gained since JUST SAY NO came out, in particular how much more into the forefront substance abuse treatment and research has become in society, my own education and my recovery, I now see just saying no as being one dimensional. At the time it was a good first step considering that substance abuse was much more of a taboo topic in the early eighties, a that there was less research on the genetic link etc. We now have the increase in literature and treatment facilities and the onslaught of the internet making it easier to reach out anonymously through forums, email and searching that were not available widely at the time Nancy began her campaign.
Does that explain my thinking better? (not that you'll necessary agree with it :winky)

Marigold said: :As for Nancy....about the only thing I admired her for was consulting Astrologers...which is a bit batty but funny and also interesting...

:muhaha :muhaha :muhaha

[Feak]

Things were a little different here in the :uk, and I was a little annoyed at all the news programs talking about the bad stuff to do with his presidancy even before the funeral :zoinks It bugged me. As many :fishy know, I'm very left wing, I'm eighteen but have heard a lot about the Reagan/Bush era through my favourite band REM, who talked a lot about it, and from my Godmum who's also very left. But still, I didn't see the need to frankly bitch about him so close to his death, now is different, it's not so close, but before he was even buried I thought that was in very bad taste.

I guess the broadcasting was different in the :usa though, here it seemed to be pretty balanced, even to the point of poor taste as I thought.

Ribbon said:
I was really disappointed to hear that Margaret Thatcher taped her eulogy several months ago , there's something eerie about that to me.

Hun, she has altzheimers (sp?) too, as well as having had a stroke. She's been unable to do speaches in puplic for a long while, due to her shakey voice and speach, and loosing track, forgetting, and getting confused halfway through, to the point where it was degrading for her. She taped in before because of her own progressive illness, and because she would not have done justice to the eulogy had she stumbled through it live.

:love Claire

[ribbon]

Feak said:Hun, she has altzheimers (sp?) too, as well as having had a stroke. She's been unable to do speaches in puplic for a long while, due to her shakey voice and speach, and loosing track, forgetting, and getting confused halfway through, to the point where it was degrading for her. She taped in before because of her own progressive illness, and because she would not have done justice to the eulogy had she stumbled through it live.

I knew she was unwell, but not that she also had alzheimers. I wasn't as much questioning HER actions as those of the funeral planner who suggested them. Do you know that the newspapers have prewritten obituaries for famous people so that if they die it's ready for print :ohboy. I think that's tacky, even if it makes good business sense. It just seems wrong.

note to self for when I die: make sure everyone knows i don't want my obituary written until a doctor pronounces me dead. request that no one, no matter how sick, prerecord an obituary--- their silent presence or kind thoughts are more then enough. :winky

[shortstop]

I agree that there is supposed to be balance in a marriage, and that the marriage on some level, comes first. However, that isn't always true.
I think the problem is that as a couple they ostricized their children, it wasn't a family. It was a marriage and then some kids, too.
I think the other problem was that the kids saw a man that was kind and loving to a country but not like that at home.
I had a teacher say that of course Reagan would look good in the eyes of most Americans becuase of how horrible the Carter admin was. It was inevitable. So basically, no matter who was in office they would look good because of how bad the previous admin was. I thought that was an interesting thought.

[IthinkIcan]

I believe it is always true, WHEN there is balance. When a marriage or family is dysfunctional, then everything is out of balance. What you described as a possibility in their marriage, quite possible and common, is not something I deny, rather I was merely opposed to the idea that there is something wrong with the marriage coming first and children second.

I've seen a number of VERY healthy marriages and families that have based themselves on the premise I spoke of. My parents were one such couple. :sarcasm Did I like it when I was little and my parents would stress the importance of their marriage and spending time together? Did my sister or I ever feel left out? Yes. They were not, however, ridiculous about it. They usually had a date night a week or every other week. They valued their time after our bedtime. They would go on small "vacations" together, or even go away for a night to a hotel together. They worked at keeping their marriage strong, their relationship alive, and we did benefit from that. By the time we were pre-teens we knew that, even if we would whine, "ewwwwwwwwwwww." They've been together almost thirty-two years.

My sister and I are trying to emulate some of their ways. Our husbands are starting to see the value in it. Since my husband and I have done this, our marriage has improved tremendously. We've been together eleven years. I was only eighteen when we married; the odds were stacked against us.

My sis and her husband have been married six years.

I have a lot of extended family that are young and married. We all use these "principles." (some started using them after shaky starts and talking to the happier ones--it does help, perhaps, that we have other young couples to talk to) Does this guarantee marital or family happiness? No, but so far things are going along pretty well. At the ten year mark there were no divorces. Things were going pretty well for those around the five year marks too. The children are loved (it can actually help to recharge) and adored. They know it. They excel at school and are well-accepted.

I have DEFINITELY seen what you have referred to, though, and I have even seen my husband fall into it in our ministry years. I have seen Dave fall into it, a friend of ours we care about deeply, that does so much for everyone and admits to his tendency to mess up his priorities, putting his family much lower than he should. I wonder at human frailties. I guess I'm just slower to judge certain things, things I don't realllllllly know about. I haven't read the daughter's book or a parental response to it. Now, I have an easier time responding to the clear-cut. Having an affair with an intern and then LYING about it. Grr. Perjuring oneself and GETTING AWAY WITH IT! because he's president. Many defend this as his personal business, but it would be no more so than President Reagan's relationship with his children. :winky Something to think about.

[Kensington]

Shortstop said a lot of what I was thinking, as far as how they excluded their children. ITIC, of course I think parents should model a happy marriage to their kids & show them that it's important to nurture your relationship with your spouse/significant other. What the Reagans did was way past that. They themselves said they chose to put the importance of their relationships with their kids way beneath that of their own relationship. Almost all of their kids (not sure about Maureen) were so displaced by this attitude that they were estranged from their parents for long periods of time. There is a huge difference between the healthy parenting role model you brought up vs. what happened to the Reagan kids.

I'm unclear on how Monica Lewinsky got brought into this, but then again I'm not. So often when a conservative is painted in a less than flattering light, the Great Blow Job Argument is brought up. :wacky I'm hoping this thread doesn't get dragged off into a Clinton debate.

I do remember the hysteria that accompanied AIDS in the beginning. But AIDS was in the national eye starting the year Reagan took office, so I can't believe that eight years of "hysteria" kept him from taking a stand. By his last year in office, a lot more people were educated on HIV & not as quick to dismiss it as "the fag disease", tho God knows there are plenty who still do that today.

I do understand that plenty of people loved Reagan & thought he was a great president. My point is plenty did NOT. I had no problem waiting a respectable amount of time while people mourned & paid tribute & all the services took place. However, I did get tired of some people seeming intent on burying all the bad things he did along with the body.

[Marigold]

Kensington said:

"So often when a conservative is painted in a less than flattering light, the Great Blow Job Argument is brought up. I'm hoping this thread doesn't get dragged off into a Clinton debate."

The "Great Blow Job Argument" ...:muhaha...

-Marigold:sun

[shortstop]

You really made me laugh Kensington!!!!! That was hilarious!!!!
:supergrin :yay :muhaha

[Amsters]

so well put Kensington. and so refreshing to read.

on the lighter side of this topic, Doonesbury carried a good cartoon today about less-glorified images of Reagan.

my overall reaction is that it was sad to hear of his death, like it is sad for me to hear of any person's death. I did not personally feel like I was in mourning, however, since I had little respect for his politics. Any grief came from the fact that he was a human being who served his country who died.

[Sylphlover]

Kensington

This is interesting. You see I have thought the things you have typed and what were in the article when he was alive. However, I think that I don't have a right to even think them when he died.

I have this messed up thinking if I think, write or say this stuff aloud when he dies then someone I love will die.

It is really weird. I have death issues. I have issues of people leaving me. So it is like I don't have a voice when someone dies because I just know something bad will happen to my loved ones if I even think of something bad about the dead.

This is hard to post about.. but I just don't understand how others can say things when someone dies that are negative. This is because of my own stuff. I find it admiring that you have your voice even after someone died. :ummm

[Kensington]

Hey Sylph,

A person's death does not erase their life. Whatever they did - good or bad - will be discussed, felt & remembered long after they are gone. The commentary & speculation is particularly true when you get into politics, especially someone as powerful & well known as a president.

I do respect your fears about speaking this way. I also respect that some people might feel it's "wrong" to disagree with a white-washed version of a president & I have no problem speaking my feelings on it. It's easy to get lost in the "Well, he had Alzheimers & was sick for ages & his widow suffered", ALL of which is true & ALL of which is very sad & I would not wish on anyone. But he also was the leader of this nation for eight years & left millions with opinions & fallout from what he did.

One thing my t. told me that always stuck with me is that sometimes when someone dies, a person might tend to lionize her or him, when in fact the person had plenty of faults. Sometimes they tend to demonize her or him, when in fact they had some good traits. The most honest way to remember someone is to remember it ALL - good, bad & ugly. How I remember & view Reagan is not how everyone else will. How Reagan was memorialized in a lot of articles & t.v. spots is not how I remember & view him. If you're not comfy expressing something negative about him in this thread, that's ok, too. :happy

[mytots]

While no one agrees with any one President or political figure on everything, esp if you are of a different political party, he was the most loved President in thirty years, since JFK. A vast majority of the US liked him and just wanted to show their respect by honouring him the week of his death.

No one is perfect. But we all try to do what we think is best for the bigger picture, and Presidents are no exception. The thing that impressed this nation that was founded on Biblical principles was his testimony as Christian and i have to say, if i have to choose between someone who spends time praying for those under his leadership and for wise counsel over someone who use his power to get sexual favors, pad his own bank acct., and make sure ppl LIKE him; i'd choose the former. everyone is goign to vote for those whose values line up with their own.
I don't really see the harm in letting his family have their moment and allowing those who supported him to pay respects. It will be over soon enough.

[Vicks]

The only thing I really and truly remember about Regan is something that noone so far has really mentined. And that is:

Mr. Gorbechav take down that wall I rember him as being a very strong force in supporting Gorbechav's intiatives, which eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I am not huge fan of other things that he did, but as with everyone there are good and bad traits. He did some other pretty stupid foreign policy things, but I do credit him for his relationship with Gorbechav.

Vicks

[nikto]

:hugonKensington:hugoff, I came to this a little late, but I wanted to thank you for writing it. I get so alienated by "popular opinion," however I infer it, and the glamorization of Reagan's political and economic legacy scared me. I also think he had very little to do with the fall of the USSR and everything to do with bad fiscal policy, abused intelligence, and shady foreign policy.

This kind of posthumous deification is weird. We can love him and mourn him as a man, a person, but why do we need to spin his presidency?

I think it's wonderful you wrote Leonard Pitts too. I'm sure he enjoyed your encouragement!

Sarah

[Marigold]

I take it you mean Clinton with these words, Mytots:

"over someone who use his power to get sexual favors, pad his own bank acct., and make sure ppl LIKE him; i'd choose the former. everyone is goign to vote for those whose values line up with their own."

Clinton has been and continues to be seen as *bad* for being human whereas he did alot of good as President - and was also very popular, like Reagan.

As for Reagan, he did many things that reasonable people found disturbing/objectionable/unfair and cruel.
Of course, no President is *perfect* - and I wish people would remember that when they judge Clinton.

That's all I'll say on the matter. I have no interest in debating Christian values or Clinton.

But this way of whitewashing Reagan whilst painting Clinton as *bad* is simplistic to me - and inaccurate.
-Marigold:sun

[Vicks]

you know Nixon would have gone down as one of the best presidents we have ever had if the whole watergate scandal had never occurred. As Marigold said - all presidents have good and bad, things that they have done and/or not done.

Vicks

[isobel]

i have also found it bizarre and interesting that this whole reagan love fest erupted after his death. i actually wonder if he wasn't in such a vulnerable state and basically out of commission after his tenure in office, if this all would have occurred? it is much easier to remember only the positives when the person is in such a state of mind. it is much easier to take pot shots at someone who is robust and mentally alert and healthy--afterall, they can defend themselves.

i can't remember if all federal offices were closed for nixon's death. does anyone remember? personally, the the grand scheme of things, while watergate a huge affect on the morale of the nation, people weren't killed over it. there were thousands of deaths due to american involvement with the sandinistas--widespread from nicaragua to a lot of central america. that being said, any loss of life is sad and deserves memorializing--especially someone who was a public servant. however, i still find the "love fest" interesting.

:love isobel

:love isobel