Skip to main content

Should We Honor Reagan?

Today, an article was posted on CNN.com by David Frum discussing how to honor President Ronald Reagan on his 100th birthday next year.

There was no talk regarding whether or not Reagan is actually someone who deserves honoring.  I suppose that one could argue that a two-term President deserves memorializing just for the part they played in history.  In that case, I can't wait to witness the national firestorm that will arise in thirty-six years when the second President Bush hits his 100th birthday.

Frum's suggestion for honoring Reagan is so laughable, I almost thought I was reading an Onion article.

He believes the best way to memorialize Reagan is to have a museum in Washington commemorating the victims of communism.  It'll be (appropriately) titled--"The Ronald Reagan Museum of the Victims of Communism."

Now, this is puzzling to me in many ways.  For one thing, naming a museum for the victims of communism after an American President when America has never actually been under communist rule, just seems ludicrous.  It almost insinuates that Reagan did more than anyone else to fight communism.  It also suggests that categorizing the victims of communism is a simple task.  It's not like honoring the victims of a war, and no, the Cold War was not a typical war fought in a typical way.

The second, perhaps more generational aspect to my argument against any sort of Reagan memorial is this:  To me, Reagan nostalgia is, like any nostalgia, covered in sentimentality.  As such, it tends to glaze over the less positive aspects of Reagan's Presidency.

Whenever I bring up my distaste for the deceased President, I always hear that I shouldn't have an opinion because I was just a child when Reagan was in office.  I would argue, however, that my distance from Reagan makes me more qualified to judge him.

People who remember Reagan's two terms in office seem to forget the destitute economic climate (Reaganomics, anyone?), the perpetuation of 'Greed is Good,' the insensitive comments towards HIV and AIDS along with the delayed government response to the epidemic, and the fact that more than any other President (even our last one), Reagan was a flag-waving Nationalist who sold weapons to terrorists and then got off scott-free when he reminded everyone how much he loved his country.

And someone wants to honor this man with a museum celebrating him as a communist hunter?

Why not just erect a statue in Washington D.C. where he's holding a stake, or driving it through the heart of a Kruschev?  The whole thing just seems so sensationalized to me.

Sometimes it seems like Americans take the things they should be embarrassed about--like electing the wrong guy, and rather than admit fault, they puff out their chests and try to make it a source of pride.

The man has an airport named after him, along with his obligatory Presidential library and a large spot in our history books.

Isn't that enough?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A List of People Who Can Go to Hell Now That I Can't Have Elizabeth Warren

So today was a rough day for everybody who isn't a @#$%-ing #$%hole. Let's just start there. If that upsets you, by all means, go straight to hell. This entire rant is going to be exactly what it sounds like. I am mad and I am going to exercise my right to BLOG ABOUT IT LIKE IT'S 1995, SO BUCKLE UP, BUTTERCUP. I really don't even know where to start, so let's just jump right in with the first person who comes to mind. Bloomberg, go to hell.  You really didn't have anything specific to do with today, but you can just go to hell for spending an ungodly amount of money on literally nothing.  I mean, you could have lit millions of dollars on fire and at least warmed the hands of the homeless, but instead, you made tv stations across the country that are already owned by Conservatives rich, so kudos to you and go to hell. Amy Klobuchar, I STUCK UP FOR YOU AMY.  I got into FIGHTS on SOCIAL MEDIA while DEFENDING your sorry, self-interested ass.  You know

Theater and the Outbreak

After last week's interview, a representative from a theater that recently experienced the results of opening too soon reached out to speak with me. I want to thank this person for coming forward in the hopes that it'll change some minds about what's safe and what isn't when it comes to the performing arts. Here's the interview: ME:  So this wasn't a full production or-- THEM:  No. It was us trying to do a little something for friends and donors. ME:  Who is 'us?' THEM:  The board of _____. ME:  And how long have you been on the board? THEM:  Three years. ME:  What was this going to be? THEM:  There's a, uh, beautiful park here in town, and we wanted to do an outdoor performance of a Shakespeare as a benefit, because, as you know, theaters are having a hard time right now paying the bills. We checked with the local government and the health department for the state to make sure we were doing everything the way we needed to in order to keep everyone s

People You Know Are More Important Than People You Don't Know

This post is in response to arguing with people--straight and gay alike--about a certain celebrity, whether or not she's an ally, if she's pandering, if pandering matters, and whether or not I'm an asshole. The last part is probably an enthusiastic "Yes" but let's reflect on this for a bit anyway without actually giving more time to an argument about a person none of us know, which is a crucial part of what I want to talk about. People you know are more important than people you don't know. I realize it's tricky in an age where we've never been closer or more engaged to our celebrities to keep in mind that we do not know them, they are not our friends, and while we may love them and stan and feel like we're attacked when they're attacked-- That is not true. That is not real. They are in no tangible way connected to us. Now, as someone who is obsessed with pop culture, I get that it's a little hypocritical for me to be making