Okay, Baby Doc Bush immediately leaps to mind, followed closely by James Buchanan. But according to Robert Parry, Saint Ronald deserves to be added to that list.
Yep, Ronnie Ray-gun himself, idolized by the teeming millions of mindless sheeple, canonized by wingnut radio, and lionized by a right wing that, if he were still alive, would not really welcome him into that shrinking tent that's become the Rethug Party.
Granted, the very idea of rating Reagan as one of the worst presidents ever will infuriate his many right-wing acolytes and offend Washington insiders who have made a cottage industry out of buying some protection from Republicans by lauding the 40th President.I've been saying for nearly 30 years not that I don't get it when it comes to the glassy-eyed adulation that has been heaped on The Gipper. I always thought it was one of those "emperor's-new-clothes" things, and that eventually everyone would sober up and realize what awful things Reagan did to this country.
But there’s a growing realization that the starting point for many of the catastrophes confronting the United States today can be traced to Reagan’s presidency. There’s also a grudging reassessment that the “failed” presidents of the 1970s – Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter – may deserve more credit for trying to grapple with the problems that now beset the country.
As usual, Robert Parry nails it. Read the entire article -- it's well worth the time.
Posts
6 Comments:
Given their supposed patriotism, I never understood how the Republicans could embrace someone who so clearly hated the US Government. SInce we have a government "of the people, by the people and for the people", how is Reagan's position not anti American at best and at worst, treasonous? Especially since the only alternative we have seen to government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is government by the corporations and for the corporations. It is clear to me that Reagan opened the door to the nearly fascist state of affairs that President Obama found when he took office.
In our country, the citizens control the government, not the other way around, as the Alaskan governor, whatser name, is trying to say. When we don't think our government is looking after our interests, we can elect a new government. Not so a corporate CEO. If you think you have any control over what a corporation does, try appealing an insurance claim.
We need to continue to elect government representatives who will be responsive to the will of the people, and unelect those who don't. I'm thinking that the governors of N. Carolina, Texas and Alaska definitely need to go, and Washington International Airport needs to be reinstated as such. I don't see why we have chosen to honor someone--by naming an airport after him (Reagan)-- who so clearly despised the people (government) he was elected to serve.
Thanks, mrln. As always, well-stated.
I used to fly into DC several times a year for my job (now it's only once a year for the annual AU meeting), and it always galled me to have set foot on that "hallowed ground".
And it's especially galling for Labor, since St. Ronald committed his first overt anti-labor "killing" by firing all of the air traffic controllers.
Most people tend to agree with me and refrain from calling it "Reagan" or even "Reagan National" -- it's still just plain "National" to us and funny thing, the cabbies in DC still know what we're talking about when we say we want to go there...
Jimmy Carter was the first president to take our oil situation seriously--we're getting it from people who don't like us, it's destroying our environment, and it's running out. So, he started making significant moves toward conservation and alternative energy, including putting solar panels on the White House. Reagan came in and reversed all of that, making removing those solar panels the symbolic first act of his presidency, doing everything he could to increase, rather than reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. And, as if that wasn't bad enough, he supported religious fanatics like Osama Bin Laden against the Russians in Afghanistan. Thus, he created the conditions for 9/11, whereas, if we'd continued along Carter's path, using less oil and, thus, decreasing our involvement in the Middle East, chances are 9/ll would never have happened.
Thanks and welcome, yfc. I especially liked the line in your "about me" section: "I'm the kind of doctor who can explain Faulkner to you while you die".
Priceless
Just started reading your blog, and I agree with your points on Reagan. I don't understand why he is deified, and my black and gay friends are equally as shocked. Life for them was not nearly as idyllic and prosperous as Reagan's "sheeple" (love that) would proclaim. Thank you for validating my disbelief.
Thanks and welcome, tg. I hope you'll stop by often and add to the discussion.
--The F Man
Post a Comment