Let's Talk About Reagan

Recently, Joseph over at the New Oklahoma Democrat wrote a very objective post about the Reagan legacy. Since reading his post and particularly the comments that subsequently followed, as well as some other blogs ranting about the greatness of Reagan, I have decided that yes we should talk about Reagan more.

Personally I like Ronald Reagan. I have no qualms per se about his character or his effectiveness as a president. I was but a child throughout his presidency and was 10 years old when he left office. So my recollection of the “great communicator” is really but a memory of other people’s views of Reagan. I remember when I was in the first grade my class held a mock election and I voted for Reagan, mainly because my dad was going to vote for him. Basically, my primary view of Reagan was what I learned from my parents and so forth. I would imagine it’s the same for most people my age or younger.

Since leaving office in 1989, Reagan has had a sort of mystic commemoration in American memory. He is most widely known for ending the Cold War and almost single handily defeating the Soviet Union. Those elements are both widely stretched in American myth as well. That Reagan single handily did either of the above is ridiculous. There were many players in bringing about the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, such as: Pope John Paul II; the brave people in the occupied countries of the Soviet Bloc that sought to end the tyranny (namely: Poland, "Solidarity"); the late George Kennan- who authored the misconstrued containment policy; Nixon- who has a far greater role than most people give him credit for; Gorbachev- we all know what he did; Yeltsin; George H. W. Bush- who was the president when all came to an end, and who also oversaw the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union, a remarkable task to say the least; the Middle East and last but not least, all the battlefields in which the Cold War was fought by the US and the USSR in order to keep the Cold War from turning hot (i.e., Korea, Vietnam, South America, Grenada, Cuba, Afghanistan and the Middle East, etc.).

Thus, Reagan is in the middle of it all, but not necessarily the only factor in the democratic whirlwind that swept the world in the latter part of the 80s and early 90s. However, a genuine dialogue of Reagan, and the same applies for all historical persons, should include all matters of discussion, not just what the neocons and Republicans want people to remember and/or believe.

My point of contention with the Reagan legacy is in the light that Reagan gets nearly all the credit for all that is good in today’s world, but gets no blame for all the wrong that was dealt during his administration. It’s like Republicans and neocons have cleverly carved out the bad and only allow the good to be discussed. With Clinton, however, it’s just the opposite. If one is going to speak about Clinton and his legacy it must include the blowjob or it’s not considered accurate, or it’s considered biased liberalism. Even when one talks about the peace and prosperity of the 90s, Republicans are quick to point out all the scandals with it. Not with Reagan. To talk about the Reagan mistakes is to supposedly talk down on America.

Things need to change. Things need to “trickle down.” So let’s start at the top.

People blame Clinton- particularly Republicans- all the time for not stopping Osama bin Laden sooner, for giving bin Laden so many chances to escape, and for not dealing with Saddam Hussein forcefully. Clinton’s blamed all the time for the current war on terrorism and why we must fight it now. Yet, no one, especially the Republicans and the neocons, want to blame Reagan who has much more a link to bin Laden and Saddam than anyone.

For nearly a decade, Reagan openly armed, supported, encouraged and funded both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It was the Reagan administration that sold the ingredients needed to manufacture chemical weapons to Saddam in which he used on his own people. During the entire Iraq/Iran war, the Reagan administration supported, armed and funded Hussein, including giving him military intelligence. Explosives used in two American Embassy bombings in Africa in the 90s were traced back to explosives that the Reagan administration gave to bin Laden. If there was ever an American president with links to the two people that have caused so much terrorism and death to Americans today, it is Ronald Reagan.

So why is it that Clinton gets the blame for not stopping either, when it was Reagan that created both? That bin Laden and Saddam would not be who they are today without Reagan is a fair assessment, which I’m sure is open to plenty of debate.

I suppose too many times this week I have heard Republicans and neocons blame the failures of the war on terror on Clinton. I’m okay with talking about all the things Clinton got wrong with both bin Laden, Saddam and whatever else, so why can’t we go all the way to the root of the problem and discuss how bin Laden and Saddam got their power, weapons and money?

The Republicans and neocons can’t have it both ways. If we must talk about Reagan being the “great communicator,” and I wish George W. Bush had 10% of Reagan’s communication skills, then we must also talk about him being the great ally to bin Laden and Saddam, about him being the great arms dealer, specifically with Iran, and about the colossal mistakes Reagan made that we are so dearly paying for today, more so than any other president since him. How soon we all forget, or are forced to.