I Me My Mine!
Even before Nancy Reagan had a chance to complete her ordeal of allowing a nation to mourn her husband, some people wrote about Reagan's colossal failures.
I'm not talking about media pundits, either. These are "normal" people online. Even some friends of mine.
Some of these complainers were not old enough to cross the street alone when Mr. Reagan left office, yet they felt justified in making pronouncements that included calling Reagan a "bastard" and claiming that they "hated" him.
I wondered why someone too young to have an informed opinion on the subject might feel that way, and it occurred to me that the sharpest critic was the child of a union lackey. This person was echoing the disgruntled sentiments of someone invested so deeply in the liberal "You Owe Me" culture that only a hateful reaction would suffice.
I read some of the arguments to support disapproval and was amazed that zero credit was given for the positive aspects of Reagan's service. Failure to stop apartheid in South Africa was more important than contributing to the demise of Soviet communism. Of course, apartheid ended, but that's not the point! Failure to cure AIDS was more crucial than doing a lump-ectomy on a 70% tax bracket. Of course, these same people spent the tax rebate they got from Mr. Bush without complaint, but that's different, somehow. (They were too young to spend anything from the Reagan cuts, but their parents probably spent any money they enjoyed from that, and probably griped about it as they did so.)
It dawned on me that, as a rule, the grumblers (without even the grace to withhold their "historical" opposition until after some of us were finished grieving) were upset that their personal favorite issues were not addressed by Mr. Reagan. Mr. Clinton, by contrast, was a champion of these touchy-feely, domestic, hand-out issues.
Interestingly (to me), Mr. Clinton gutted defense and intelligence ... contributing to the environment that made the September 11th attacks such a resounding success for the terrorists.
This post is NOT an attack on Mr. Clinton. This is a laser-pointer indicating that no president has the time, energy and clout to address all grievances, foreign and domestic. Every president has to prioritize and go with what they are good at, or care about the most. Clinton enjoyed being the maternal "Here's baby's pacifier" president. Reagan enjoyed being the paternal "Here's the belt, Mr. Gorbachev, and don't make me use it" president.
While I was personally, deeply disturbed by much of Mr. Clinton's conduct, I recognize that he did some important things for the benefit of the nation. He was also a charming and influential speaker. While Mr. Reagan is called "The Great Communicator," I feel that Mr. Clinton had similar clout in that area. His persuasiveness was different, somehow ... more on the level of a personal "seduction" of sorts, but not in a bad way ... but equally as powerful, I think.
The people I know who personally insulted Mr. Reagan, and, by extension, me, are upset that Reagan did not pander to their selfish demands, or the selfish demands of their parents (or teachers?)
Reagan's 80's were the most productive and prosperous times for me, personally, as a working adult. Because of this I am inclined to favor the man and his presidency. Some people suffered under his tenure, and I suppose their bias is equally understandable. If I had been a union "titty-baby," a South African tribal militant or someone terrified of AIDS, perhaps I would have felt the same way. As it was, however, I was an employee with dreams of becoming an entrepreneur.
My dreams are alligned toward producing more than consuming. I feel that this makes my opinion less-selfish, but I admit I am biased in this way.
I'm not talking about media pundits, either. These are "normal" people online. Even some friends of mine.
Some of these complainers were not old enough to cross the street alone when Mr. Reagan left office, yet they felt justified in making pronouncements that included calling Reagan a "bastard" and claiming that they "hated" him.
I wondered why someone too young to have an informed opinion on the subject might feel that way, and it occurred to me that the sharpest critic was the child of a union lackey. This person was echoing the disgruntled sentiments of someone invested so deeply in the liberal "You Owe Me" culture that only a hateful reaction would suffice.
I read some of the arguments to support disapproval and was amazed that zero credit was given for the positive aspects of Reagan's service. Failure to stop apartheid in South Africa was more important than contributing to the demise of Soviet communism. Of course, apartheid ended, but that's not the point! Failure to cure AIDS was more crucial than doing a lump-ectomy on a 70% tax bracket. Of course, these same people spent the tax rebate they got from Mr. Bush without complaint, but that's different, somehow. (They were too young to spend anything from the Reagan cuts, but their parents probably spent any money they enjoyed from that, and probably griped about it as they did so.)
It dawned on me that, as a rule, the grumblers (without even the grace to withhold their "historical" opposition until after some of us were finished grieving) were upset that their personal favorite issues were not addressed by Mr. Reagan. Mr. Clinton, by contrast, was a champion of these touchy-feely, domestic, hand-out issues.
Interestingly (to me), Mr. Clinton gutted defense and intelligence ... contributing to the environment that made the September 11th attacks such a resounding success for the terrorists.
This post is NOT an attack on Mr. Clinton. This is a laser-pointer indicating that no president has the time, energy and clout to address all grievances, foreign and domestic. Every president has to prioritize and go with what they are good at, or care about the most. Clinton enjoyed being the maternal "Here's baby's pacifier" president. Reagan enjoyed being the paternal "Here's the belt, Mr. Gorbachev, and don't make me use it" president.
While I was personally, deeply disturbed by much of Mr. Clinton's conduct, I recognize that he did some important things for the benefit of the nation. He was also a charming and influential speaker. While Mr. Reagan is called "The Great Communicator," I feel that Mr. Clinton had similar clout in that area. His persuasiveness was different, somehow ... more on the level of a personal "seduction" of sorts, but not in a bad way ... but equally as powerful, I think.
The people I know who personally insulted Mr. Reagan, and, by extension, me, are upset that Reagan did not pander to their selfish demands, or the selfish demands of their parents (or teachers?)
Reagan's 80's were the most productive and prosperous times for me, personally, as a working adult. Because of this I am inclined to favor the man and his presidency. Some people suffered under his tenure, and I suppose their bias is equally understandable. If I had been a union "titty-baby," a South African tribal militant or someone terrified of AIDS, perhaps I would have felt the same way. As it was, however, I was an employee with dreams of becoming an entrepreneur.
My dreams are alligned toward producing more than consuming. I feel that this makes my opinion less-selfish, but I admit I am biased in this way.
posted by Author | 5:39 AM
2 Comments:
I think if we had a President who was perfect in every way, some people would still find something to grumble about. Or whisper that he or she was hiding a terrible 'secret'.
Too true, Randi!
It was the first and only Third Party president elected who said you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time.
Post a Comment
<< Home