MidEast Report

REAGAN
I came of political age in the Reagan Era, so he will always occupy a special place in my consciousness, though I'll never mistake this for admiration. He talked a good game about freedom, but supported some of the foulest, most inhumane tyrannies on earth. He raised political dishonesty to incredible new levels with made-up stories of welfare-queens, pollution-causing trees, and tax cuts which actually increase government revenues.

Reagan was right that Communism was a destructive, inhumane ideology that required active opposition. He was not the first to realize this, indeed his opposition to Communism rested on international institutions and agreements that were developed and written by liberal Democrats. This fact will probably not be mentioned as conservatives rend their clothes and pour ashes on their heads.

I recognize that Reagan's strident anti-Communism did, to some extent, give moral support to the Eastern European dissidents who did the real work of defeating Communism. It's also inescapable that his belligerent rhetoric entrenched and empowered Communist hardliners, thus making the work of those dissidents more difficult.

As you prepare to face the "moral clarity" brigades in the coming weeks, don't forget that Reagan illegaly sold arms to terrorists, Iran, and then funneled the proceeds to terrorists, the Nicaraguan Contras. Is that morally clear?

From around the web:

Nick Confessore:

As for Reagan's legacy, it should have been clear then, and is increasingly clear now, that for the most part Reagan the president was more popular than Reaganism the politics.

Eric Alterman:

To me the most astounding thing about Reagan was his ability to convince the many members of the media and much of the country that his fantasies mattered more than reality did. In this regard, I think we can point to his presidency as the moment the country went off the rails in terms of a willingness to address its real problems, rather than the ones we wish we had. The news is more nonsense than normatively significant national problems, and while there has always been some of this, I think with Reagan we hit a tipping point. Listening to Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts wax nostalgically about how wonderful it was that Reagan made stuff up and a bunch of silly journalists had the temerity to (briefly) call him to account, brought back an almost physical wave of nausea as I involuntarily experienced the beginning of the period when facts and truth ceased to matter to their alleged guardians.

Juan Cole:

Reagan's policies thus bequeathed to us the major problems we now have in the world, including a militant Islamist International whose skills were honed in Afghanistan with Reagan's blessing and monetary support; and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which the Reagan administration in some cases actually encouraged behind the scenes for short-term policy reasons. His aggressive foreign policy orientation has been revived and expanded, making the US into a neocolonial power in the Middle East. Reagan's gutting of the unions and attempt to remove social supports for the poor and the middle class has contributed to the creation of an America where most people barely get by while government programs that could help create wealth are destroyed.

Christopher Hitchens:

The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump. He could have had anyone in the world to dinner, any night of the week, but took most of his meals on a White House TV tray. He had no friends, only cronies. His children didn't like him all that much. He met his second wife—the one that you remember—because she needed to get off a Hollywood blacklist and he was the man to see. Year in and year out in Washington, I could not believe that such a man had even been a poor governor of California in a bad year, let alone that such a smart country would put up with such an obvious phony and loon.

Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns, and Money takes apart Andrew Sullivan's claim that Reagan conservatism was somehow less bigoted and intolerant than Bush conservatism.

Meanwhile, in National Review's the Corner, which was always a bit of a Reaganoid circle-jerk when the Gipper was alive, is now shading over into something resembling cyber-group-necrophilia:

Jonah Goldberg:

It's fun and worthwhile to point out that liberals and leftists detested Reagan not too long ago. But what's more important than any gotchyas on their hypocrisy is the fact that many of these folks may now be sincere. The fact that America seems largely united in its admiration for Ronald Reagan is a sign of his success in changing the country. It's funny, today there's this tendency among liberals and not a few conservatives to talk about FDR as if he was this great unifying figure. He was for a majority of people, but he was also one of the most deeply reviled and detested political figures in American history, including among a great many people we would call liberals and leftists today. For good or ill, it's a sign of FDR's success at bending the society to his will that we now think he was some sort of revered demi-god when he was in the Oval Office. It is an astounding tribute to his accomplishments that today -- less than two decades after his profoundly controversial presidency -- a majority of Americans, including the elite, are on roughly the same page about his greatness.

Roughly on the same page, huh? Maybe Goldberg is attempting to pay special tribute to Reagan by presenting his own fantasies as fact. Fitting indeed.

It may be inconvenient for conservatives to remember this, but there was a similar show of decent respect, sentimentality, and nostalgia when Nixon died (or rather, when he was delivered to Hell by the Devil's own personal giant rodent-drawn hell-carriage), but that didn't mean that people didn't still remember Nixon's mendacity and criminality.

One bright side to Reagan's passing is NOONAN! NOONAN! NOONAN! That's right, in the wake of the Gipper's departure, former Reagan speechwriter and All*Star conservative fluffer Peggy Noonan has been making the talk-show rounds, dutifully performing her singular brand of hagiographic fellatio for anyone who asks. This is the moment for which she's been preparing since Reagan left office. I had the distinct pleasure last night of switching back and forth between Peggy on Meet the Press, Peggy on Hardball, and Peggy on C-SPAN! That woman is hilarious.

Here's a great example of Peggy's brand of goofballery, regarding Elian Gonzales (remember him?) and the rumour that the boy had been aided by friendly dolphins as he floated in the sea:

From the beginning it was a story marked by the miraculous. It was a miracle a six-year-old boy survived the storm at sea and floated safely in an inner tube for two days and nights toward shore; a miracle that when he tired and began to slip, the dolphins who surrounded him like a contingent of angels pushed him upward;

And some of us, in our sadness, wonder what Ronald Reagan, our last great president, would have done. I think I know...Mr. Reagan would not have dismissed the story of the dolphins as Christian kitsch, but seen it as possible evidence of the reasonable assumption that God’s creatures had been commanded to protect one of God’s children.

Now, this is funny in two ways. First, there's the admission by Noonan that Reagan would have taken seriously the idea that magical dolphins helped young Elian to stay afloat. Second, there's the assertion by Noonan that this belief in divinely guided Roman Catholic dolphins was a good thing, something that revealed, yet again, Reagan's greatness. Keep it coming, Peg.

posted by Matt Duss @ 12:09 PM