Remembering Reagan
A week's worth of reminiscences and tributes to Reagan. Hopefully it's over and done with.
To some, particularly those who participated in the lionization of the man this past week, I seem cold and cruel toward his death. Maybe I am. I've tried with limited success not to revel in his death. And if the platitudes spewing forth were concerned strictly with the personal, it might be easier. But somehow the political has been invoked far too much, certainly by my taste. And once the political comes into play, the gloves come off.
I cannot in good conscience gloss over Reagan's "accomplishments" as president: massive dismantling and neutering of government social programs, an unfortunate legitimation of "supply-side economics," repugnantly massive defense spending, an unfathomable national debt, the active support of Central American death squads, sowing the seeds of modern strife and terrorism. To sweep this litany of misdeeds under the rug would be to live in bad faith. Not gonna do it -- wouldn't be prudent.
Disrespectful to the dead though it seems, such reflections are no worse than the lengthy procession of politicians -- I can't even say it's just Republicans, since Democrats seem to be tripping over themselves to identify with Reagan (see Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich) -- claiming the mantle of Reagan in an attempt to score cheap points. Frankly, I find it a lot worse to dance on someone's grave in pursuit of personal political gain. All I'm trying to do is speak the truth, even if it's not what a lot of people want to hear at this moment.
And I'm not going the route of Cuba's Radio Reloj, which had the harshest words I've seen so far about Reagan: "He, who should not have been born, has died."
What really irks me, and what I most dreaded when I first learned of Reagan's death a week ago, is the preposterous claim that Reagan, Cold Warrior-in-Chief, deserves credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'm sorry, but it's just not true. Having read fairly extensively in the literature on this era and the history, knowing considerably more than the typical American (especially those who advance such a claim), I can report that the role of Reagan in the fall of communism is regarded as a non-factor. More accurately, he simply isn't mentioned in the relevant literature. At least not by any scholar of renown or merit. Communism fell mainly due to internal factors. If you want to look past the Iron Curtain for potential causes, the Vatican -- not Washington -- is where you should set your sights. The rise of John Paul II -- a Pole -- to the papacy in 1978 did more to undermine communism than Reagan's Cold War posturing, SDI or Western militarism combined. It was the triumphant return of John Paul II to his native land, this time as pontiff, in the late 1970s that encouraged Poles to shed their fears. And it is credited for the rise of the Solidarity movement in 1980-81 that helped precipitate the fall across Eastern Europe in 1989. Or so says the British historian Timothy Garton Ash, was of the most eminent scholars of this period, having spent significant time in Eastern Europe and been witness to the crucial moments in the collapse of Communist regimes in Poland, Hungary, East Germany and Czechoslovakia in '89. I trust Garton Ash. I mean, He was there. He speaks authoritatively.
But beyond having to grit my teeth and elevate my blood pressure at the recitation of this fallacy by many, it alarms me to see the varied movements afoot to more lastingly honor Reagan. Renaming highways, redesigning currency, revamping Mount Rushmore -- this is full-scale cult of personality, the likes of which you'd have to go to North Korea (or perhaps Turkmenistan) to witness in this day and age. Unfortunately, I think the irony is lost on most of the public, and certainly on those anti-Communists trying to promote the personality cult.
Ah yes, anti-communism. Let us not forget that Reagan abused his position as president of the Screen Actors Guild to blacklist the Hollywood Ten. He was a bona fide McCarthyist. May this be an inextricable legacy of his.
All of this does, however, give added relevance to my interest in the history of communism. At least to me. Ecletic and dated it may seem, I still can't help but notice these parallels to the present. Perhaps (well, pretty bloody likely) I'm in a tiny minority of Americans who feel thus, but it's inescapable, the sense I get of being in an environment not dissimilar to life in the Eastern bloc. We face growing state repression and a government in power by electoral manipulation (never forget it was Stalin who astutely noted that "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.") Unfortunately, citing this example, the only solution seems to be a long, arduous and often frustrating journey of living in the truth and refusing to accept the lies that prop up the regime. Eventually, when a critical mass is achieved, the people collectively will stop believing it, and the government will be returned to the people.
To some, particularly those who participated in the lionization of the man this past week, I seem cold and cruel toward his death. Maybe I am. I've tried with limited success not to revel in his death. And if the platitudes spewing forth were concerned strictly with the personal, it might be easier. But somehow the political has been invoked far too much, certainly by my taste. And once the political comes into play, the gloves come off.
I cannot in good conscience gloss over Reagan's "accomplishments" as president: massive dismantling and neutering of government social programs, an unfortunate legitimation of "supply-side economics," repugnantly massive defense spending, an unfathomable national debt, the active support of Central American death squads, sowing the seeds of modern strife and terrorism. To sweep this litany of misdeeds under the rug would be to live in bad faith. Not gonna do it -- wouldn't be prudent.
Disrespectful to the dead though it seems, such reflections are no worse than the lengthy procession of politicians -- I can't even say it's just Republicans, since Democrats seem to be tripping over themselves to identify with Reagan (see Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich) -- claiming the mantle of Reagan in an attempt to score cheap points. Frankly, I find it a lot worse to dance on someone's grave in pursuit of personal political gain. All I'm trying to do is speak the truth, even if it's not what a lot of people want to hear at this moment.
And I'm not going the route of Cuba's Radio Reloj, which had the harshest words I've seen so far about Reagan: "He, who should not have been born, has died."
What really irks me, and what I most dreaded when I first learned of Reagan's death a week ago, is the preposterous claim that Reagan, Cold Warrior-in-Chief, deserves credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall. I'm sorry, but it's just not true. Having read fairly extensively in the literature on this era and the history, knowing considerably more than the typical American (especially those who advance such a claim), I can report that the role of Reagan in the fall of communism is regarded as a non-factor. More accurately, he simply isn't mentioned in the relevant literature. At least not by any scholar of renown or merit. Communism fell mainly due to internal factors. If you want to look past the Iron Curtain for potential causes, the Vatican -- not Washington -- is where you should set your sights. The rise of John Paul II -- a Pole -- to the papacy in 1978 did more to undermine communism than Reagan's Cold War posturing, SDI or Western militarism combined. It was the triumphant return of John Paul II to his native land, this time as pontiff, in the late 1970s that encouraged Poles to shed their fears. And it is credited for the rise of the Solidarity movement in 1980-81 that helped precipitate the fall across Eastern Europe in 1989. Or so says the British historian Timothy Garton Ash, was of the most eminent scholars of this period, having spent significant time in Eastern Europe and been witness to the crucial moments in the collapse of Communist regimes in Poland, Hungary, East Germany and Czechoslovakia in '89. I trust Garton Ash. I mean, He was there. He speaks authoritatively.
But beyond having to grit my teeth and elevate my blood pressure at the recitation of this fallacy by many, it alarms me to see the varied movements afoot to more lastingly honor Reagan. Renaming highways, redesigning currency, revamping Mount Rushmore -- this is full-scale cult of personality, the likes of which you'd have to go to North Korea (or perhaps Turkmenistan) to witness in this day and age. Unfortunately, I think the irony is lost on most of the public, and certainly on those anti-Communists trying to promote the personality cult.
Ah yes, anti-communism. Let us not forget that Reagan abused his position as president of the Screen Actors Guild to blacklist the Hollywood Ten. He was a bona fide McCarthyist. May this be an inextricable legacy of his.
All of this does, however, give added relevance to my interest in the history of communism. At least to me. Ecletic and dated it may seem, I still can't help but notice these parallels to the present. Perhaps (well, pretty bloody likely) I'm in a tiny minority of Americans who feel thus, but it's inescapable, the sense I get of being in an environment not dissimilar to life in the Eastern bloc. We face growing state repression and a government in power by electoral manipulation (never forget it was Stalin who astutely noted that "The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.") Unfortunately, citing this example, the only solution seems to be a long, arduous and often frustrating journey of living in the truth and refusing to accept the lies that prop up the regime. Eventually, when a critical mass is achieved, the people collectively will stop believing it, and the government will be returned to the people.
posted by Alexander Dubcek | 23:25
0 Comments:
Okomentovat
<< Home