|
Posted on 06/07/2004 6:43:19 AM PDT by GreatOne
I never cared much for Ronald Reagan, the president. But I must tip my hat to Reagan, the myth.
It is Reagan the myth the nation now eulogizes - that political colossus who, his supporters claim, vanquished both the Soviet Union and the liberal welfare state with the certainty of his optimism and the jaunty cock of his head. . .
As for the other towering pillar of the Reagan myth - that he single-handedly slew the Soviet bear - there is little, if any, historical support. The Soviet empire was weak and its economy imploding. The scholarly consensus is that Reagan's defense buildup, far from bringing a robust giant to its knees, perhaps helped to nudge a terminal patient into death. . .
Reagan was said to have a clear-eyed view of America's place in the world, yet he entangled the United States in the Iran-contra scandal, with its dark deals and unsavory alliances. Their legacies haunt us to this day. . .
Reagan was not a great president. He was an American archetype and a fabulous political hero who brought his party out of the wilderness. There was not, and has not since, been anyone better at the inspirational photo-op, an essential ingredient of the modern presidency. And even I must admit that over these next few days of mourning, I'm looking forward to watching the re-runs.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
|
If you insist on staying friends with her, then do so out of pity. Can't you see she's reeling at the outpouring of respect and love Ronald Reagan is receiving. This week will be her personal hell, and she's got to be sick to her stomach that her party, her candidate, and Bill Clinton, are so out of touch with the heart and soul of America.
Don't you get it? We win, we win!!! And your friend confirms it.
I know, because I was one of them. I worked for McGovern in 1972, as hard as any proto-liberal ever did. Yet, I encountered the first bitter and corrupting taste of the yet unnamed "political correctness" and it turned my stomach. I had always been an anticommunist, and had bought the line that liberalism was the best counter to totalitarianism. That is where it all fell apart, in 1975, when I saw the left in the Congress enable the fall of Vietnam, the genocide in Cambodia, and the rapid decline of the entire country. Reagan changed all that, Thank God!
Re: your friend. In this new day of American political polarization, many friendships are strained to the breaking point. The left is forcing the issue, daring the right to defend honest men like Reagan and GWB.
Your snapping point will come. It has already come for many Freepers. Those of us with liberal friends bite our tongue, keep our cool, try to remain calm under relentless emotional attack.
When you do snap, and you will, do so with grace and resolve. Announce that you will no longer stay quiet while hearing your patriotism dragged down with pessimism and sarcasm. This is the Summer for you to speak up.
Stakes are high.
Yeah, yeah, yeah... blah, blah, blah
Just like the Japanese would have eventually surrendered unconditionally without the atomic bombs, the Soviet Union would have fallen eventually without President Reagan....
Let the revisions of History begin...
The left has never viewed communism as a threat. To them, it is the ideal. Haven't you noticed that communism is no longer considered evil? People roll their eyes when they hear the word. The media and left have done an excellent job portraying it as a viable alternative....as a legitimate form of government.
Good Grief. President Reagan had to deal with a pork riddled RAT congress.
Check this out: http://www.presidentreagan.info/reagan_budgets.cfm
"Speaking for myself, I tend to not associate closely with folks who have this level of hate and anger."
Except for that guy "Fury" you hang around with, ha ha ha.
Not me! ;) I don't hate anyone that I can think of. Get angry sometimes, but hate's a pretty strong emotion.
"I did say he had a hand. He nudged the terminal patient into death."
Nice.
"I did say he had a hand. He nudged the terminal patient into death."
Nice.
What an odd, out of touch statement.
My feelings are similar to yours. Whether one believes like Cocco that the SU was bound to crumble (I seriously doubt Cocco thought that), libs like her were infuriated by the idea that the SU was evil. I'm sure many were sad when it eventually collapsed (myself I could scarcely contain my delight at the news of the collapse). I tend to believe the theory that the SU was very weak, but thank God Reagan was in charge and not the idiot I voted for Jimmy Carter. (I didn't follow politics much in those days, and tended to think of myself as a lifetime Dem.) I'll bet many Dems at the time knew that Reagan was right about the SU and the need to build up our defenses, but with foolish pride refused to admit that they were wrong. Well I'll gladly admit I was wrong about Reagan, and I'll repeat again THANK GOD FOR REAGAN!!!
"he single-handedly slew the Soviet"
Rush was talking about this today. He said that Margaret Thatcher firmly believed that it was Reagan, and she told that to Rush.
Exactly! This is absolute nonsense. After our setback in Vietnam, the Soviet Union engaged in one of its most expansionist programs since the end of WWII...invading 10 countries from 1974 to 1979 (AEI statistic). From N. Africa to the Mid-East (Afghanistan) to Central and S. America, the Soviets hand their hands in everyone's pie.
While I will concede that Communism, in general, doesn't bode well for a growing and prosperous economy, the Soviets didn't simply rely on "their" economic system to support their government. This is important as this is something liberals seem to ignore in their attempts to diminish Reagan's accomplishment by claiming the USSR was bound for failure. The Soviets used their expansionism to set up proxy governments that in turn, would be in debt/provide booty and rewards, to the Soviet Union. The USSR was an empire that supported itself in the same manner that every other empire did in the past.
The only thing that stopped them from succeeding and collecting on those debts, was Reagan's aggressive interventionism. If the Soviets had succeeded in setting up these proxy governments, unhindered, they would have had new trading partners that would've coalesced to form an economic bloc (similar, but larger than the Tripartite Pact prior WWII) that would've supported each other, and essentially, paid tribute to the Soviet Union. Fortunately, from Grenada to N. Africa to Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc., Reagan met the Soviets head on with support for insurgents of his own. Liberals, who often whined about the American bully in places like Genada, fail to realize that it was this early intervention that resulted in victory...and ususally without the costs of wasted American lives.
The Soviet system collapsed becasue they were forced at every turn to expend more resources and men because Reagan confronted them at every oppurtunity. Afghanistan literally became the Soviet's Vietnam, as they lost valuable soldiers and resources in that war. Reagan made them spend more because he built up our military, forcing them to do the same. If not for this intervention throughout the world, the Soviets would have spent much less and established new trading partners that would've helped the Soviet Union recover and further prosper. Sorry... the Soviet Union was still a threat and Reagan was directly responsible for its failure.
This can't be emphasized too much. The U.S.S.R. was on the march in a big way. The reason they got bogged down is because they were opposed by us everywhere once RWR took office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.