the Hyperion Chronicles
“There I go again”
#302 A Life Remembered
Ronald Reagan’s funeral and national day of mourning is happening today. Last night, when it was announced Ray Charles died, my mother offered that usual line about “one more to come.” (There is an old canard that says death comes in threes.) Since Ray Charles’s last name was actually Robinson, if one more R.R. dies soon I’ll actually be impressed. (Koz offers Ray Romano, Rob Reiner, Robert Redford, Richie Rich, and Road Runner as possible celebrity R.R.s.)
I felt I should comment on it, but I couldn’t think of what to say. For me, I have mixed feelings on writing about Reagan. On the one hand, I wasn’t too politically aware during most of his reign, although I did somewhat come of age then. For another, as far as political analysis, I firmly believe you need to get at least a generation away from a leader before there is any type of objectivity.
Adding to my unease is that fact that in the last few years the new breed of Republican has made it their life mission to rename all things Reagan. It seems like overkill sometimes. On the other hand, Democrats have been mindlessly trashing him with inane party-line propaganda since the man left office, so maybe it all cancels out.
I remember Reagan personally rather flittingly. The 1984 party conventions were the first ones I ever watched. I also watched some of the debates, and remember Reagan’s great line, “There you go again.” Reagan seemed impossibly old to me, but then , so did most politicians. He also seemed to be humoring Mondale, whom even I could see at that young age was out of his league.
I remember the bombing of Libya. That was kind of scary to me, even though, as military endeavors go, it was minor. It seemed like Reagan kept his word. (I later found out this was a defining characteristic of his, like when the Traffic Controllers went on strike and Reagan gave them 48 hours to get back to work, and they didn’t take him seriously, so he fired them all. Say what you want about him; you could trust his word. This is not something his three successors have in common.)
I remember the Iran-Contra scandal, although at the time I didn’t understand it too well. I couldn’t help but feel then that Reagan seemed incompetent, with the number of times he couldn’t recall something. It never occurred to me that he might be lying; Reagan didn’t give off that vibe. Indeed: even his enemies were quicker to believe he was just a moron.
Of course, in the light of current knowledge, and Reagan’s disclosure of Alzheimer’s, it’s difficult not to play revisionist history, and wonder if maybe there was some of that going on the last two or three years of his time in office. I know the detractors will say he was always a moron, but I went back and read some of his speeches and letters from the early days (as well as every book, both for and against, that I could get my hands on). A moron this guy was not. It’s funny how history pegs someone, and we believe it, maybe because we’re too lazy to look deeper. Gerald Ford was arguably the most athletically fit president in history, but one fall on national TV, and Chevy Chase piggy-backing a career off of it, and people think of Ford as a klutz. Most people—especially presidents—are a lot more complicated than that.
The trouble is, when you’re living in the shadow of someone whose power you sat through, how do you judge him without bringing in your own biases? For example: did Reagan’s tax cuts lead to a growth in the economy (and perhaps, the boom in the ‘90s), or just to humongous budget-deficits? Your answer probably depends on which side of the ballot you punch.
What about the hostages? They were released the day Reagan was inaugurated. Some might take that as a sign the terrorists were scared to death that this man—as opposed to his predecessor—would act, and act decisively. Others point to a darker conspiracy; that maybe there was some back-room deal struck.
Communism is another one. Republicans credit Reagan with single-handedly brining down the Evil Empire, while Democrats tend to say it was the luck of being in office, and cast Gorbachev in the hero role. On this matter I am more definitive: no matter what Reagan did wrong or right (and there was plenty of both), on this matter history owes him a great deal.
I think that the presidency is much more than one man could ever do. That’s why it’s so compartmentalized, and there are so many thousands of people needed to fill in roles. No one person can do everything. And, truth be told, you’d probably need a man of massive contradictions to be firm on one issue, and pliable on another.
Reagan came into office as a big idea person. You knew what you were getting with him. He wanted to defeat the Commies, reduce taxes, and make America feel good about itself again.
Reagan did reduce taxes. Whether that worked or not, like I wrote, largely depends on your view of economics, so we leave that debate alone. Reagan also undeniably brought back a pride to America. When I see documentary footage about how Viet Nam veterans were treated, it almost boggles my mind. I cannot fathom how that happened, because the world I live in is far different. Some of that has to be attributed to Reagan. Of course, you could make the argument that feeling good about itself has led America to massive arrogance, but whatever your feelings, it’s clear Reagan brought the pride back.
It’s also clear to me that while there were many factors in play—including historical inevitability, worldwide economic conditions, and a few brave leaders in the Eastern Bloc at the right time—Reagan perhaps had more to do with the defeat of Communism than anyone else. Biography after Biography I read about him pointed to his life-long hatred of Communism, and how it personally affected him. (Seriously, read one for yourself.)
But lots of people hate Communism. What Reagan understood was that all wars are at their heart economic, and this included the Cold War. Reagan came into office saying that the plan of Mutually Assured Destruction (the idea that neither side would attack, because they knew they would be annihilated) was no longer good. He said he would build up the military, restart the arms race, and best of all, initiate STAR WARS.
For those of you a bit younger, STAR WARS was the idea to create a missile-defense shield, so that Russia’s Nukes would get shot down before they got to American soil. Critics immediately attacked the plan, calling it too costly, and saying it would never work.
Maybe they were right. But stranger things had happened, and just the thought that it might work panicked the Soviets. They were already spending 26% of their G.D.P. for defense (as opposed to America’s 6%), and they were still behind. STAR WARS might cost over a trillion dollars before it was done. There was no way the other side could compete with that. I believe this was the final nail in the coffin, as Russia realized they could never win, and if you can’t beat them…
Again, critics vehemently point out that way too much money was spent on these matters, when they should have been spent on social programs. There is no doubt that Reagan didn’t care as much about this, partly to his rabid anti-communism, and partly to his belief that the individual could help themselves more than government ever could.
It’s conceivable that a president more in focus with social ills might have been able to help lessen the poverty gap, or jump on the AIDS crisis before it became a full-blown epidemic. Then again, I remain unconvinced that throwing money at a problem has ever helped all that much, and while it’s easy to say now that AIDS should have been dealt with earlier, at the time no one really understood what was going on.
What’s clear to me is that if we did have a president like that in the ‘80s, regardless of what dent he might have made in those issues, Communism would likely still be with us. Big deal, you say. Oh, how quickly we forget. You think the world is unsafe now? You can’t fathom how unsafe it was during the time of the Soviet Union. The World Trade Center was attacked, and over 3000 people died, but terrorists are not going to be able to destroy the country. We used to live in a time when Russia could. Yes, they’d have been destroyed too, but if some crazy man had decided to start a nuclear war, 100 million, 150 million; 200 million could have easily been killed in one afternoon.
We don’t live in that time now. And while there are many reasons for it, one of the big ones is Ronald Reagan, whom we honor today. And for that reason alone, I offer my salute as well.
Hyperion
Credits
Thanks to Koz
Thanks to Dominique
Motto Explanation
A variant of Reagan’s famous debate line
0 comments:
Post a Comment