Reagan, Roi?

Every death diminishes us. And it is only fitting that on the day of his demise, a former U.S. President be afforded a modicum of respect and dignity. But after scanning the broadcast and print media coverage of the first 5 hours after Ronald Reagan’s death, I now know what it must feel like to live in a monarchy with a state-run press.

Reagan was a deeply polarizing, constantly controversial and fiercely partisan figure who, for better AND worse, has left a deep imprint on our national politics. But 99% of the coverage I have seen so far is fit for a King, not for the President of a democratic republic. It has been fawning, submissive, uncritical, obsequious, saccharine sweet, often just plain stupid, universally infantile and it deeply insults the intelligence of the American people.

It’s been a tight race so far to find the worst single moment of coverage. Judy Woodruff’s witless piece on CNN that celebrated Ronnie and Nancy’s love affair against a background of tinkling piano music was ahead by a length until… until I read this poor excuse for journalism in the Washington Post by Reagan court hagiographer Lou Cannon. Cannon’s most astounding single line:

“Mr. Reagan's commitment to freedom was matched by an abhorrence of nuclear weapons.”

On the first count:
This is the same Mr. Reagan who never met a right-wing dictator he didn’t embrace?

On the second:
This is the same “anti-nuclear” Mr. Reagan who, over global protests, deployed mid-range nuclear missiles in Europe, who red-baited the 1982 Nuclear Freeze, who ran up historic deficits by procuring more nuclear weapons and who headed an administration which believed that “with enough shovels” we could survive global thermonuclear war? I thought Lou Cannon retired already. Then again, this obit could have been written while golfing, or napping.

One thing for sure: there aren’t enough shovels in the world to clear away the veritable mountains of baby-talk pabulum being dumped on the American people today. It’s infuriating and embarrassing.

P.S. Reagan's plea to "tear down this wall!" was most certainly one of his more noble public actions. Micah Sifry reminds us, however, of some his darker moments.

Comments

[steve]

Neal Conan could almost match Judy in a fawning contest. Ya'd think he was describing Jesus Christ himself the way he was going on. I have to say this is the "liberal" media that the war bloggers like andrew sullivan, roger, et al. love to go on and on about, very interesting. liberal media indeed!!
my remedy? i listened to neal and watched judy for about 10 minutes each and then turned to Branford Marsalis to move the day along in a more meaningful way.

[Boyd]

Sorry to read you're so bitter, Marc. Especially taken in the context of news coverage in 21st Century America, the coverage I've seen seems to display a fitting respect for such a distinguished President's passing.

I hope that you can work out your problems. It really shouldn't be so infuriating and embarrassing for you.

[Marc Cooper]

Boyd.. thanks for the gratuitous psychoanalysis.. Dr. Melfi may have to do without me! Bitterness? I dont think so. It's simply I have an IQ above room temp and would appreciate some authentic BALANCED reporting.
Given that this is a democracy and NOT a theocracy, Monarchy or dictatorship, we should recognize that our leaders, even our presidents, are but mere mortals.. not infallible gods. And to boot, they are usually elected by about 25% of our eligible population... leaving millions of Americans the option to actually disagree with or even dislike the President. So ... bitterness, no. But I RESENT a submissive media telling us all how we are supposed to feel about and how we are supposed to judge a very polarizing figure. It doesnt feel good.
What we are getting in terms of "coverage" at this moment is but thinly disguised and absolutely commercially motivated audience-building dreck... a bald attempt by the networks to turn Reagan's passing into some sort of unifrying spectacle. My perspective is, no thanks. If you, however, as an admirer of Reagan feel comfortable with his death being used as a means for CNN and the networks to raise their advertising rates, well, then, great.
That said, I appreciate your dissent from my view (if not ur psycholgical speculation) and I find reading your blog enjoyably irritating!

[Boyd]

Marc, it's a shame that you can't see that many people, even those folks who work at network and cable news organizations, are deeply moved by President Reagan's passing.

I'm not so naïve to believe that there aren't those who are doing exactly what you describe. But you miss how moving this event is to a huge proportion of people in our country. And as Margaret Thatcher reminds us, there are many people around the world who enjoy freedom in part due to Reagan's efforts.

I'm not sitting here sobbing, the man was 93 years old, and had been suffering from Alzheimer's for at least the last decade. His passing is no doubt bittersweet for those closest to him.

It just seems to me to be appropriate to remember his efforts and contributions on the occasion of his passing. These things are often maudlin, and can be grating on those who didn't particularly like the man.

I don't know, Marc. I suppose my Texas upbringing along with my naval career have taught me to be respectful when people who are (or were) in my chain of command have died.

And I apologize if I seem to be psychoanalyzing you. I'm certainly not qualified for that. But it seems pretty obvious that you're bitter, and I really don't think any American should be infuriated or embarrassed. I'm sorry if that offends you.

[Marc Cooper]

Im not offended, Boyd. It takes more than that. Im a big fan of civil debate and prefer that over surmising the motivation of others. Thanks for taking the time to sound off.

[steve]

I suppose my Texas upbringing along with my naval career have taught me to be respectful when people who are (or were) in my chain of command have died.

--therein lies the source of confusion you express perhaps. citizens are not supposed to be loyal to a chain of command, at least not in the automatic sense. in a deliberative sense, surely, i.e. as a result of careful thought and balanced debate, discussion of the significance of a person's career, life, etc. citizens can reach conclusions about leaders who have passed on. In slave, feudal, totalitarian societies, on the other hand, the response is (a la a bad soldier) automatic in its loyalty and respect.
The "liberal" media in its performance tonight and what is surely to come for probably a month or so until focus groups indicate a loss of affection for the topic of Reagan over Scott Peterson demonstrates the classic symptoms of 'automatic loyalty'.

[rosedog]

Marc… Terrific rant. (Rants are called for at moments---this being such a moment.) Even NPR seemed to capitulate to a really icky kind of adulatory behavior. Thankfully, Aaron Brown, who was infuriating during the Iraq war, has provided one of the few sane spots in the mainstream press today---at least during the intermittent viewing I’ve done. He’s repeatedly shoved the black and white views aside in favor of shades of grey. “Whatever you think of him, he was the head of state---our state…” he said in closing tonight’s broadcast. Okay. I can hang with that---loathsome though Reagan's politics---and for the most part, his behavior as a father---may have been.

[GMRoper]

Marc, I am qualified to "psychoanalyze" people, but never attempt it in a political sense and dang sure not for free. ;-)

Your objections to the fawning ought to be tempered by the ridiculous BS being slung over at Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. They are getting really VILE.

Perhaps, the reason people are "fawning" (I don't belive that to be the case - but...) is that on balance, people thought he did more good than bad, that he was more positive than negative, that he communicated a vision that most folk agreed with.

I can see how he could be anti-nuke and still put nukes in Germany, the USSR's use of mid range nukes made that "bluff" almost required. Besides, it worked didn't it. You can be anti gun and still use a gun to defend yourself from a very real threat.

Perhaps, and I don't KNOW this, though I suspect it, the reason that many progressives and liberals are angry is that a conservative engendered so much attention and overall kind words from "folks that ought to know better."

[HA]

Marc,

I've never read your writing. But I bet I'm not going out on a limb to assert that you wrote a great deal about Reagan back in the 1980's that time has proven wrong. It must be a terrible thing to be intellectualy trounced by someone whom you believe in your bones was your intellectual inferior.

[too many steves]

What, exactly, is wrong with showing respect for someone on the occasion of their death? There has been and will be plenty of time for a thorough analysis of Reagan's time as President. Now that he has died people who were close to him and knew him are free to speak of their experience - good and bad.

But on the day of his death and until he is buried, can't we just enjoy the good of the man or remain silent if you think there is none?

Wouldn't you want the same when you die?

[steve]

I actually swung over to Daily Kos and found the posts by Kos to be pretty reasonable, nothing 'disrespectful'. Roper seems to be borrowing from the trend that David Brock documents well in his recent book on the Republican Noise Machine. Start a rumor, regardless of truth [reference the recent Soros todo about nothing on CNN/FOX] and push it until it's heard again and again.

here's what Kos actually wrote, compare it with how Roper describes Kos' decorum:

http://dailykos.com/story/2004/6/5/171258/8003

If Instapundit is even 1/10th as respectful on the occasion of Carter or Clinton's death it'd be a miracle. Then again, they were both quite fine Republicans themselves, maybe they'll win more praise than I anticipate from the right blogs.

[Max]

Hi Marc. Nice quote at the top from Huey P. Newton.

[Michael J. Totten]

Steve,

Kos didn't write that. Trapper John wrote that.

Anyway, I agree with you that there is nothing vile on Kos's page. I haven't opened the comments section over there, so I don't know what's inside. Don't care, either.

[Michael J. Totten]

However, Indymedia reports "Hundreds of protesters are cheering upon hearing news that Ronald Reagan has died."

http://sf.indymedia.org/

Jerks.

[Marc Cooper]

Michael.. The Indymdedia people are beyond jerks. They are deluded little ideologues acting out against Mom and Dad.
To my orther respondents:
Just for the record-- I desire no gratuitous trashing of Reagan nor did I expect it. I would have merely hoped that his passing would have been treated as that of a man, not as a deity and that the media act as news agencies rather than as state propaganda bureaus. It's not a lot to ask. Is thisw you will want to see Clinton treated when he kicks? God, I hope not, I would wretch. Anyway, I stand by every word I wrote... the commercial cynicism of the TV networks is appalling.

[Mark Schubb]

"And as Margaret Thatcher reminds us..." ???

It was Thatcher who once said about Reagan -- "poor dear, there's nothing between his ears."

[Randy Paul]

He belongs to history now and as history examines him with the objectivity resulting from the passage of time, I think that history will be a little harsher.

[Randy Paul]

Marc,

I guess there's something appropriate about the hagiography when you consider this quote from John Ford's The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance:

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[steve]

It's not a lot to ask. Is thisw you will want to see Clinton treated when he kicks? God, I hope not, I would wretch.

--in fact you will see quite the opposite, since the media will feel obliged to prove they are not conservative when all the Olin Foundation funded groups harrangue the networks for being 'left wing'. But, then again, it will be fun to watch republicans bashing a great republican like clinton.

[steve]

The Indymdedia people are beyond jerks. They are deluded little ideologues acting out against Mom and Dad.

--yeah, but big deal, they also constitute a small number of the people who show up at antiwar protests in big numbers. in mpls, most of the people out on the streets were with their church groups since that's where the bulk of organizing takes place here.

[dennis perrin]

While I'm neither cheering or crying over Reagan's death, there's much about his vile admin that's being overlooked, forgotten, or in some cases (just wait for FrontPage's reaction) justified. The wreckage of Central America alone should condemn Reagan's rule, but there's also Iran/contra, "constructive engagement" with racist South Africa (which included labeling the imprisoned Mandela as a "terrorist" -- who would say that now?), the arming and training of fanatics in southern Africa (remember Jonas Savimbi?), and our dear freedom fighting friends in Afghanistan like bin Laden, who attacked with US arms co-ed schools, among other soft targets. But it was Reagan's wars in Cent. America that remain with me, since I was active at the time in trying to resist them, and to help those who were being maimed and killed with my tax dollars. I remember talking to Salvadoran teachers and union activists who had to flee their country because their activities put them on death squad lists -- death squads that were backed to the hilt by Reagan's gang (read Mark Danner's account of El Mozote). But, the Reaganites will counter, "We were fighting commie-ism!" Yes. Wanting to be free to organize a union, or to own your land, or to use what natural resources you had for you and yours instead of handing it over to the rich who ran the country, or exporting it to other markets without your say-- yeah, that was a big threat to us here. So 70,000-plus had to die, plus another 60K in Nicaragua,150-200K in Guatemala, and so on.
 
There's so much more (Iran/contra could have its own thread), but the True Believers and their lib friends will hear none of it. They remain transfixed by Gip's "Tear down this wall!" routine. Sorry. I can't admire a guy who calls for "freedom" in Eastern Europe while he's attacking freedom in so many countries. If Osama is still alive, I'm sure he'll shed a tear for the passing of his old comrade-in-smuggled arms.
 
Read Edmund Morris's excellent Reagan bio "Dutch" to appreciate the Full Ronnie.

[steve]

Little matters that escape NPR/CNN/FOX...

http://gotv.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_gotv_archive.html#108653989826959416

[Mork]

I'm continually bemused by the mindset of those who actively seek out the most extreme and unpleasant fringe reactions and then give them publicity.

I just don't understand what purpose this serves ... all I can surmise is that it fills a need for a certain daily quota of outrage and rightous anger.

I mean, it's not like anyone who's genuinely undecided is going to read what some idiot posts on DU or Indymedia and think "gee, I oughta vote for the other guy". And it's not like these people are going to be shamed by the exposure into silence.

And, for that matter, it's not like you can't just as easily find equally odious sentiments expressed on the wingnut sites of the other side every day of the week.

So what does it prove?

[Marc Cooper]

Thanks Mork and Dennis for your posts.

[Michael J. Totten]

Mork: "I'm continually bemused by the mindset of those who actively seek out the most extreme and unpleasant fringe reactions and then give them publicity."

My ears are burning. :)

Yes, I did that in this comments section. (Not on my blog.) I also defended Kos from what seemed to me an unfair charge.

I didn't highlight the Indymedia people because I want or expect anyone to change their voter registration like you imagine. I don't belong to either party, but I have friends and family who are in both. Vote for whoever you want.

All I try to do when highlighting loony behavior on the margins is get people who identify with the margins to moderate themselves at least an iota. Moderation is good. Moderation is your friend.