June 11, 2004: Lose One for the Gipper
So I come back from another jaunt to Little Rock, Arkansas, surviving the flight from hell, arriving home, weary, worn out, and in desperate needs to have some Thai food delivered ASAP. Ahhh, relaxation, and off the shoes go. Feed the cat, and then change out of clothes that now have the stench of travel and re-circulated air, and into a comfy pair of sweats. Call a couple of girl friends, invite them over, and then wait for them and the food to come as I turn on the TV. Oh shit, not again. There it is: never-ending, coast-to-coast, funeral march. Now, it is all finally just about over, as the sun sets over the west and we all wistfully recall for once last time the wonder and joy that was America just a few short years ago under the man, the myth, the mannequin . . . Ronald Wilson Reagan. Somebody get be a bucket.
I guess you would not be shocked to find that I was not a great fan of Ronald Reagan. This enshrinement that is a parading around as a funeral procession is leaving me scratching my head while I shake in disbelief and ask for a little perspective. It is true that the America he inherited as President was a country in moral crises: not only had we been held hostage by Iran, a country we once held in our own back pocket, but the echoes of Vietnam, the realities of gas shortages, skyrocketing interest rates, increased in racial tension, plus a new deadly disease called AIDS, and you find Reagan inheriting a country in dire need of direction and leadership. Reagan stepped into that void. Was he a great President? To many people he was. Should he be enshrined on Mount Rushmore? Wait, I cannot stop laughing, oh my stomach hurts . . . OK, I am almost done, one more giggle . . . in a word; No. To me, to have your likeness placed on our Mount Rushmore means that you led the entire nation, every one of its citizens. While Ronald Reagan and his fans can claim many things, this legacy is not one of them.
We seem to have very short memories, us Americans. We forget the simple things like the separation of church and state, the rights of free speech, the lessons of McCarthyism; we also have the keen ability, as do many nations, to engage in revisionist history: remembering only the good and glossing over the bad. The bad stuff does not make for a good eulogy or TV broadcast. Who wants to talk about Iran-Contra, death squads in Central America, James Watt, Ed Meese, Oliver North, the explosion of the drug trade during Reagan’s Administrations (didn’t seemed to flow pretty freely into a country that was strong enough to defeat an evil empire?) when you can show whimsically sound bites of he being funny, with snappy one-liners and that affable grin. To many, Ronald Reagan did some very good things. To many others, he did some very bad things.
Here is another truth that many are not saying: Ronald Reagan was a hero to many, yes, but to a great extent these where white, mostly Christian Americans, who feared how the world around them was changing. For a short period of time, he allowed them to close their eyes and imagine a world that they wanted to live in: he made things simple; he made things jolly; he made someone else responsible for the poor in their city or town: their poverty, their plight, their suffering – it vanished. We are a shining city on a hill, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
Don’t believe me? Well, just think about all of the white faces lining the streets and rotundas to pay the respects to our 40th President. The only people of color I saw had to be there: they either served in his Administration, ala Colin Powell, or currently serve in the armed forces and had no choice but to be there. Many of the problems that plague our country today can be linked to policies and practices instituted under the Reagan Administration: the fiscal abandonment of our cities and public schools, the decaying infrastructure that was left untended in favor of massive weapons programs, the growth in the disparity of wealth between rich and poor; foreign policy that imposed its version of democracy on weaker countries such as Nicaragua and El Salvador, while funding governments with weapons and money who satisfied our short-term strategic needs; politicizing medical research to the detriment of those suffering. Hmmm. Maybe George W. Bush is right – he does have a lot in common with Ronald Reagan – thrown in an oil cartel or two, state-sanctioned torture, and a man who ca n barely speak a coherent sentence without referencing note cards, and I think I could be convinced.
But when you scratch the surface, you see that for all of Ronald Reagan’s flaws, George W. Bush does not even deserve to walk in his shadow. Ronald Reagan would never have gotten us into this mess in Iraq. Ronald Reagan worked with the international community, and was able to achieve some diplomatic victories that George W. Bush could only fantasize about. I do not think Ronald Reagan would have supported the Patriot Act, nominated John Aschroft as his Attorney General, and moved to stifle public debate to the point of where criticizing your government was tantamount to treason. And here is another thing Ronald Reagan would never have done: he would not have begun to blur the lines between Church and State as George Bush has. While Reagan was apparently a very religious man, he left his religion in his heart, and did not insert it into his political agenda.
It is very scary for me to say, but given the choice between Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, I would take Reagan in a heartbeat. Ronald Reagan, like him or not, at least looked and spoke like a world leader. I swear, sometimes I think George Bush is in a giddy, childlike stupor when he meets other world leaders or speaks in front of dignitaries. When he met the Pope, the look on his face was like some girl meeting Justin Timberlake. When he is with Tony Blair, we pray that Bush keeps his mouth shut and lets Tony Blair to the talking. Like him or not, Reagan inspired confidence. Bush does not. Like him or not, Reagan was respected and detested around the world. Bush is only detested. Like him or not, Reagan did in fact compromise on tax cuts when he saw the damage done by spiraling deficits. Apparently, Bush will not. Like him or not, Reagan served in active duty when called to the military. Bush . . . . Like it him or not, Reagan at least strengthened our military at the cost of our infrastructure. Bush is weakening our military capabilities by spreading them too thin, while at the same time financially abandoning our cities, our towns, our roads, and our schools. .
As November grows near, I can just see George W. Bush draping himself in the memories and the legacy that is Ronald Reagan and asking us to win one more for the Gipper. I do not think the Gipper would appreciate this request. No, I was not that fond of Ronald Reagan. But, I would hazard to guess that if he could see the mess that George W. Bush has put this country in, he would not be pleased. He would look to that shining city on a hill, and find that all but its richest citizens have been outsourced, deployed, demoralized and dehumanized; sent to that other place that has always existed, but that we try to avoid; a place George W. Bush never visits but seems more than willing to send others to: that stinking slum in the city’s sewers. Ronald Reagan, like him or not, could never have wanted this. So George, come this November, why don't you really do something to honor Ronald Reagan's legacy, whatever that may be: Lose one for the Gipper.