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?
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
Post a Comment