First of all, I was a Reagan youth during his first term, along with Max here. I was 11 when Reagan was inaugurated. I remember the fuel lines of the late 70s, the hostage crisis in Iran, and the sense that I lived in a once great nation that had lost its way. I was comming to really gain an appreciation of American history, and understand true evil in historical terms such as the Holocaust and the like.
Why I personally became enamored with Reagan as a president is that he restored the sense of good and evil to my universe. America was good. We stood for principles that rang true. People would die to escape from Soviet opression and people would die for a chance to live in America. That said everything.
Where I differ from MaxLead is my take on Reagan’s second term. I remember being glued to the television during the Iran Contra hearings. That scandal shed light on how the Executive branch truly functions, although we never really learned everything. I still believe that of the three major scandals in the past 35 years, Iran Contra is the least understood and the most significant. Watergate and BlowJobGate ultimatly were reflections on personal corruption. Iran Contra represented Policy corruption at the highest level. It bothers me more than either of the other two scandals.
We were dealing with terrorists, ransoming hostages with weapons, sponsoring opium trade, dealing with “evil” governments and all in order to finance the war against Communism. I firmly believe that it is the ultimate hypocrisy to sacrifice ones principles in a war of ideology. If you are willing to kill (and in theory, to die) for what you believe, then in sacrificing those principles to ahieve victory, what have you really achieved. You have become something where those principles are meaningless. It was a hallmark of military intervention in the Cold War era unfortunately.
At the very least, Reagan had lost control of his White House. The potential that he was involved is also very real. We have never found out. I am extremely skeptical that a Marine O-5 had as much authority or power as Ollie North seemed to have. I firmly belive he was a willing scapegoat. The fact that he became a hero to so many is one of the more disturbing aspects of 90s polititics to me.
Reagan also reflects the loss in direction of the mid to late 90s GOP to me. In lieu of leadership during the Clinton Administration, the GOP seemed to want to name every other building in DC “the Ronald Reagan Memorial ….” Just look at National Airport.
Reagan was the first President to truly master the Soundbyte. From “There you go again” to “Honey I forgot to duck”, one could always come away from a Reagan speech or press conference with memorable quotes, and they stick, even out of context. He was a master of the televised speach (something that Dubya should return to) and RR was a true master of the press conference.
Reagan was also the last president we had with a true vision for America. Senior Bush never really knew what he wanted to do, and I agree with MaxLead in his assessment of Clinton as a smart man with no principles/vision. Dubya’s administration has a vision, but they aren’t honest about it. Reagan knew where he wanted America to go, and he told us, and he took us there.
Reagan also really did win the Cold War. I’m not convinced that he meant for it to end the way it did. Revisionist history is painting him as a genious who sought to break the back of the Soviet Union, and maybe he was. I’m not sold. But the military buildup of the 80s was good for us, and bad for them, and that’s how we won in the end. So he deserves major kudos for that.
Ultimately I have two memories of Reagan that define him for me.
First was the “there you go again” debate with Carter. Reagan was the consumate smartass who could through a quip out there. The substance of what Reagan and Carter were saying was irrelevant. Reagan disarmed Carter with one line. Not sure if that’s good or bad. I remember watching this at a boy scout meeting oddly enough. Two older scouts got into an argument about that. One was delighted at the tremendous burn on Carter. The other was frustrated because “He (Reaga) didn’t _SAY_ anything.”
Second, I remember the pressconference that ended with Reagan retreating down a hallway and Helen Thomas yelling out to him “did they decieve you Mr. President?” as Reagan looked lost and defeated and scared. It was a sad moment for me. That was the moment for me when it became obvious that the Reagan vision had been lost in the muddle of corrupt policies.
Reagan ultimately was a great and influential president. He impacted and directed great events throughout the globe. I think his legacy is inflated by his political achievements and his mastery of the media of his day. And we’re about to be flooded by sentimental nostalgia. Be prepared for even more buildings named after him.
Ultimately, I think the book is still open on Reagan’s legacy. in terms of his impact on the world, we know what he did. He helped break the Soviet Empire. Unfortunatly his successors absolutely botched the resulting chaos, but that’s not a mark against Reagan. His political legacy is more murky. I’m still not sure what the result of that is. The cannonization of him by the GOP in the last decade of his life was troubling to me.
