![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
The GOP’s Reaganesque Tall TalesPosted on May 10, 2007By Joe Conason Sensing their own smallness, contemporary politicians often seek to puff themselves up by appealing to myth and legend. For Republicans, there is no mythology more appealing than that of Ronald Wilson Reagan, as the party’s presidential candidates eagerly demonstrated during their May 3 debate in the library that bears his name. Those charmless imitators seem to believe that the late president’s image can not only win primary votes but vanquish America’s enemies. As Rudolph Giuliani explained, a Reaganesque glare should be enough to scare the Iranian despot into surrendering any nuclear ambitions: “He has to look at an American president and he has to see Ronald Reagan. Remember, they looked in Ronald Reagan’s eyes, and in two minutes, they released the hostages.” Such belligerent invocations of the old actor are standard fare on the GOP primary circuit. The actual circumstances of American relations with Iran during the Reagan years—and indeed of security policy in general back then—were more complex and less inspirational. The tough gunslinger described by the Republican candidates resembles the real Reagan about as accurately as his movie roles resembled his real life. It was strange to hear him mentioned in the context of Iran, the scene of the worst foreign-policy fiasco of his administration—and the topic that most clearly demonstrates the distance between right-wing fantasy and historical reality. And it was especially strange to hear those words uttered by Giuliani, who wants everyone to remember that he once served as a top official in the Reagan Justice Department, yet seems to have forgotten the criminal case and constitutional crisis known as the Iran-Contra affair. But let’s begin at the beginning. Available evidence strongly indicates that when the Iranian regime released American hostages in January 1981, within hours of the first Reagan inauguration, that decision had nothing to do with fear of the new president and everything to do with a pre-arranged deal. While no proof of that plot has ever emerged, the covert sequel that commenced three years later certainly arouses suspicion. Between 1984 and 1986, the Reagan administration tried to free American hostages in Lebanon from their Shiite captors, not by confronting the terrorists militarily but by negotiating with their presumed Iranian sponsors. By then, Reagan had already retreated from Lebanon, withdrawing the Marines after the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks had claimed 241 American lives. Instead of retaliating against Iran or any of the organizations that claimed responsibility for the Lebanon attack, Reagan approved a secret initiative to “improve relations” with the Iranian leadership by shipping advanced missiles to them. The immediate objective was to get the Iranians to lean on Hezbollah in Lebanon to release a group of six American hostages. National Security Adviser Robert (Bud) McFarlane visited Tehran, carrying a Koran and a cake as tokens of presidential esteem. Meanwhile, the profits from the arms transactions—conducted by private citizens working with White House and CIA personnel—were diverted to finance the Contra rebellion in Nicaragua. These bizarre intrigues breached U.S. law and policy in myriad ways, including repeated violations of the statute forbidding aid to regimes that support terrorism. At first Reagan tried to deny that he had “traded arms for hostages,” then reluctantly confessed many months later, while seeking to blame his subordinates. Although there was much more to the amazing scandal that nearly ended Reagan’s presidency—including the starring role of neoconservatives who have since masterminded another and worse disaster—the basic outline is clear: Terrorists killed our troops, and Reagan responded by retreating from Lebanon, kowtowing to the terrorists’ sponsors, meeting their demand for advanced weapons and pleading for the release of our hostages. It is easy to imagine how the Republicans would have reacted to this kind of behavior by a Democratic president—and how they would recall such behavior today. Words such as “strong” and “resolute” would not leap to their lips. With Reagan, however, myth replaces memory. The truth is that he saved his presidency by ousting the hawks and neoconservatives who had almost destroyed it, and by entering into the unprecedented negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that helped to end the Cold War peacefully. For that momentous decision, he suffered angry public attacks by many of the same conservatives who lionize him today. The macho posturing in Reagan’s name is comical and demeaning, but not without danger. Let’s hope this is all just campaign bluster—and that none of the pretenders who may someday achieve power believe in their own fakery. Joe Conason writes for the New York Observer. © 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc. Previous item: Give Moms Their Due -- They've Earned It Next item: The Good American Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Skruff, May 22, 2007 at 5:26 am # When Reagan is mentioned by either those who love him, or those who do not, there is a HUGE hole in the conversation where the Army-McCarthy hearings should be. Reagan ratted out his friends and submitted testimony which ruined several careers, and proved his yellow-dog run with the pack mentality. I believe if Carter had made an issue of this in 1980, the world would be a different place BUT as mentioned below, the left can’t play in the big sandbox.
By Shag, May 21, 2007 at 6:40 pm # Joe,
By Jim, May 16, 2007 at 1:23 pm # He always has been depicted as larger than life. Though the media has always ignored Bush’s many failures, Bush is alwsys depicted as small in editorial cartoons while Reagan was always larger than life. Bluster and personality has always meant more than substance in American public life. Look at Donald Trump.
By Skruff, May 13, 2007 at 8:06 am # I must say I share the blame I am about to heap of political activists of all stripes. Most folks just want to go about their daily lives, make enough money to pay the rent, and put their children through college, and retire in a sunny-warm place. Iran Contra, NAFTA, The hunger on the horn of Africa are too big for them. The right made a advertising jingle, or bumper-sticker length case for the general vote. AND they got it. I Knew Reagan had won six months before the election when Atwater first unleashed the “It’s morning in America” ads. I hated Reagan and those ads put tears in my eyes.... You have to remember that many of us were out of work during the Carter years...not his fault, BUt definetly his burden. so Massachusetts, the only State to vote for George McGovern, gave Reagan it’s vote twice. Oh, BTW Reagan’s defense build up put Massachusetts back to work… no doubt about that… So the left says they don’t want to “play dirty” well, guess that’s tough for those of us who would like to see a left turn. Politics is a dirty game...we (on the left) better find someone who knows how to play....or....get used to losing market share.
By G. Anderson, May 11, 2007 at 11:07 pm # It’s easy to believe in lies, they are so safe, so comforting. People always vote it seems, for pretty lies, because you don’t have to do anything about them, you just have to believe. This is the legacy of Ronald Reagan, he was a great story teller, nothing more. He told Americans the story that they wanted to hear, that we were good, and the Commies were bad. He made people, believe in America again, and it was so very comforting. His happy talk was so powerful, that even now Republicans, in what could be their darkest moment cling to it, like a child clings to a Teddy Bear during a terrible nightmare. The truth on the other hand, takes some effort, some hard work and some guts. Time will tell, whether or not the Democratic party is up to the task at hand.
By Salvatore R. DeBlasi, May 11, 2007 at 6:34 pm # The aticle left out one very important myth about Ronnie. At their Presidential Convention in Albany (held in Sept. 1984)the N.Y. State Right To Life Party (the most savvy pro-lifers in the nation) did NOT give Reagan-Bush their Presidential-Vice Presidential endorsement--they preferred to leave the line BLANK, despite heavy GOP pressure to tgive the line to Ronnie & Papa Bush.(But how can you report facts you are ignorant of? You’re forgiven).
By kevin99999, May 10, 2007 at 8:44 pm # The myth about Reagan, the old actor who couldnt answer even the simplest of questions, is just that, a myth created by corporate America who was the beneficiary of his administration’s policies. As Cuomo once said, the Reagan’s biggest achievement was that he made us feel good about poverty in our midst. Why is that every Republican administration since Nixon has created a constitutional crisis. Its because they don’t give a damn about constitution, individual freedom or the like though they give a lot of lip service. The Republican party has nothing to offer.
By DennisD, May 10, 2007 at 6:44 pm # Comparing themselves to a president that was mentally less than all present and accounted for says everything you need to know about these cartoon character candidates. If that’s the best GOPeeing on us President they have to call attention to - well we’ve all had a front row view of the worst in the office right now. Eisenhower was their best in the last 50 + years but his name doesn’t score points with the corporate sponsers of these clowns.
By Hank Van den Berg, May 10, 2007 at 5:51 pm # I notice others who have responded are anxious to bash Reagan. True, Reagan was not anywhere near as good a president as he is made out to be, but let’s keep the current administration in focus. The fact is, despite his many mistakes, he would eventually admit a mistake, he could reverse a policy, and he proved to not be a war monger. Let’s stick to the point of the article: The current neocons and Republican candidates are completely misrepresenting Reagan.
By jbart, May 10, 2007 at 3:00 pm # I always believed that Nixon (the consumate liar and self-proclaimed King)was our worst President with Ron (the bad actor) a close second. As a matter of fact, after Tricky Dick’s landslide victory (good old MA. prevented a sweep) I made the conscious decision to not play the fixed game we call voting. It was the “Boll weavils then” and it’s the same people now. I decided that, after NOT participating since 1972, I was going to get back in to try to help stop the “Idiot” Dubya. I wasn’t crazy about Kerry, but a much better choice than Bush. After that debacle we called a Presidential election (the Reds vs. the Blues)I’ve reverted back. This country obviously doesn’t care about it’s own well being. After the damage that has been caused to American society by Bush & his neocons, I made him my #1. He’s worse than Nixon or Reagan. Action is required before he totally rapes America. Impeachment? Not likely, too much $ to be had. Assasination? Not enough crazies out there for that. BTW...When does Sirhan-Sirhan get out? Anybody know? FYI - Getting weapons is real easy in today’s America. And the Red states have some pretty good deals, I hear. Hmmm.
By THOMAS BILLIS, May 10, 2007 at 10:57 am # When I was hearing the the Republican candidates invoke reagans name so many times in a positive light I thought to myself I may have fallen asleep for eight years and missed the Presidency of this great President Reagan.Well thank God for the internet there was no other Reagan listed as President in the 200 + history of this country.Then it came to me the Republicans are just lying again.Whew I thought those drugs from the 60s were kicking in again.
By Dale Headley, May 10, 2007 at 10:41 am # Ronald Reagan was among the worst presidents in my lifetime (beginning with FDR). The myths surrounding him are just that - myths. The fantasy that Reagan brought down the Soviet Union is nonsense. Most experts on poliical history say that other factors having nothing to do with Reagan’s belligerence caused the collapse, including the disillusionment of the Russian people. After all, it wasn’t Reagan who faced down those Russian tanks. Gorbachev and Yeltsin were the prime architects of the fall of Soviet communism. In fact, most Russian historians credit Jimmy Carter more than Reagan, because his moral and ethical example was an inspiration to ordinary Russians.
By C.P.T.L., May 10, 2007 at 6:07 am # Let us hope that sentences like “Let’s hope this is all just campaign bluster—and that none of the pretenders who may someday achieve power believe in their own fakery,” are just convenient wrap-up sentences to magazine pieces and not representative of common American sentiment. The lesson of George W. Bush boiled down to one sentence is: as shallow as he speaks is as shallow as he is. I’m not hoping a damned thing; I’m calling spades - spades, and Guiliani: a simpleton - because he talks like a simpleton; consistently - like a simpleton. Hope is extended to those who have earned some benefit of the doubt. None of the Republican candidates have.
By James Yell, May 10, 2007 at 5:41 am # Reagan is over hyped and not really a very good president. The criminals in his government are much the same ones in the Bush governments. Reagan had the good fortune to be lucky, otherwise his shallow presidency would be all to apparent. His was the start of turning away government mandates for energy efficiency and developement away from Petroleum. It is thanks to his policies that we are still today so dependant on what happens in the middle east. Let us not forget his haste to de-regulate Savings and Loans, without withdrawing government guarantees which resulted in major fraud and the tax payer making up the lost funds. Let us not forget his haste to leave Lebanon, after a military presence that, if it had been done by a Democratic President would still be trumpeted as an example of flecklessness. Let us not forget that his huge military expendature wasted much money on military play toys, which did not make us safer. Let us remember that the strength of the USSR had been over hyped by the CIA once again for political reasons and a good thing it was in error or Reagan instead of nearly bankrupting the country, bankrupted the USSR in in its knee jerk response to trying to keep up. I don’t believe the Reagan Administration ever wanted the USSR to fall as it was the only thing that made justification for the outrageous waste in the Defense Department. That’s all I can remember, but I am sure there was much more. Oh wait a minute, I almost forgot that exercise in Imperial Arrogance the invasion of Grenada. The only reason that didn’t make a stink was that the British were glad they didn’t have to move against a member of the Common Wealth. Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article