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]

actually indymedia is not that influential on the antiwar movement. churches are far more influential in its organizing and peace groups. if you watch the Oreilly show you get the impression that big marches are attended primarily by 17 year olds with funny frizzy hair, thai dye shirts, and nose rings banging on bongos. anyone who attends knows better. some of the biggest peace gatherings in MPLS for example are held in churches. another big venue is 'middle class' neighborhood homes. university students supplement them along with labor union activists.

Juan Cole has a thoughtful commentary on the significance of Reagan and his policies:

http://www.juancole.com/2004_06_01_juancole_archive.html#108654049412748319

[William Meisheid]

Marc. I considered several things to say but finally decided that if this is an example of your response to Reagan's death, then anything I could say to you would be pretty much a waste of words, "pearls before swine" as St. Matthew so aptly warned. Maybe it would be better just to tell people to read Marc Steyn if they want a decent epitath (http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=70).

By the way. Every death does not deminish us, some actually bring hope into bleak darkness.

[steve]

Perhaps Rios Montt could provide us with some inspiring reflections on the significance of Reagan's reign for Guatemalans.

[GMRoper]

"What the critics forget is that Reagan stuck with this extremely tough medicine and made sure it worked, even at the large personal and political cost of the worst recession since the Depression itself. In addition, the shouting match that still goes on about tax cuts obscures Reagan's truly lasting achievement: his refusal to let inflation any more become an automatic vehicle for higher taxes to finance a larger government. This so-called bracket creep was stopped in its tracks by the indexing of the tax rates... History will be tough on Reagan as more is learned about his occasional sloth and inattention, but this wonderful guy could take the heat back then, and his legacy will be able to withstand more knowledgeable scrutiny far into the future."
Boston Globe columnist Thomas Oliphant.

Wow, who'da thunk it?

[steve]

his refusal to let inflation any more become an automatic vehicle for higher taxes to finance a larger government.

--except for military spending, which could increase at any rate without any serious rationale or accountability. it's called military keynsianism GM, Reagan's legacy. That and declining real wages combined with increased gaps between poor and super wealthy.

[wil]

I'm less convinced this is about a rightish national press (remember the Reagans CBS mini-series?) and more convinced it's about a singular Western ailment: the desire to lionize anyone at the moment they die. Give it a day or two, Marc, and the critical articles will start coming in.

I'm reminded, actually, of a piece a friend of mine published well before Reagan died about this very event. He agreed with you.
http://www.acidlogic.com/revisionist_history_shelter.htm

"Can't you feel it? The eerie, dead calm, and the jaundiced sky? The hot, fetid air mass has already arrived, harbinger of the unstoppable, Empire State Building sized Tsunami of human offal racing toward us from beyond the horizon.

Ronald Wilson Reagan is going to die.

And when he does, anyone who has anything negative to say about him had better keep their clam snatcher stitched shut or they'll get the same free dance lesson Reginald Denny got. Anyone who feels just a little queasy seeing the Gipper's vague, old, dried, apple doll puss up on Mount Rushmore next to Teddy Roosevelt is going to have to keep it to themselves. One little peep that maybe, just maybe, Ol' Dutch doesn't quite deserve to be rubbing jowls with the likes of Lincoln and Jefferson, and the Tooth fairy is going to need scuba gear and rubber gloves for about a month, if you catch my drift. "

[Marc Cooper]

Will u ar e undoubtedly correct. I said above that this is being treated by TV as an audience-building mini-series, commercially not politically motivated for sure. I didnt like Reagan and I still dont,t hank you very much. But this spectacle is also demeaning to him as well. It befits a rock star not an elected official of a democratic republic.

[steve]

Rest assured, once the focus groups tell the networks that better advertising rates can be pulled from Scott Peterson updates than Reagan legacy episodes, Reagan's history.

[too many steves]

Marc: I reread your post, reread the comments, and now read your latest post and finally (no jokes please) I think I get what you're getting at here.

The coverage is too much and way over the top, which is not to say they should add a bunch of negative analysis but rather that they should be more somber and respectful. I agree with that.

Remember though, this is the same media that screams: MARTHA TO JAIL! LACIE PETERSON FOUND! MICHAEL JACKSON DID IT!

They don't do much of anything in a somber, respectful, and thoughtful way.

But, that is why we have you and your ilk (which I mean most positively).

[Mork]

Michael - wasn't meaning to have a go at you in particular ... I had just been seeing it everywhere (NRO, Sullivan, Instapundit) and was curious about what people thought they were trying to achieve.

And I think you're probably misguided if your aim in repeating these things is to promote moderation. When someone who is part of the civilized discourse crosses the line, I can see how it serves a purpose to enforce the boundary by calling them out (although, in practice, I think there's virtually no-one who does this on an equal opportunity basis, which means that it ends up being just another stick with which to beat your enemies).

But a lot of this is going after people who aren't part of the mainstream and have no intention of becoming part of it, and if ignored would have no impact on anyone other than their fellows on the fringe. The only results I see from repeating these things is inflaming passions and legitimizing extremism on the other side.

[steve]

and if ignored would have no impact on anyone other than their fellows on the fringe.

--in america people who opposed the invasion of iraq were considered 'on the fringe' too in these blogs, even though they constituted the majority. even thomas friedman admitted as much at the time.