The right's sickening idolatry of Ronald Reagan

Could someone who wasn't a kid in the '80's shed some light on the origins of the admiration Ronald Reagan seems to command in the average right winger? Why was he, and not, say, Nixon or GHW Bush, given the status of ultimate conservative icon?

From what I gather, he was not an enaging public speaker. While maintaining a tough stance on the Soviet Union, he actively engaged Communist China and had his fair share of unsuccesful or laughably insignificant military adventures - Lebanon, Grenada, Libya come to mind. He did preside over a mid-80's economic revival, but his policies also largely contributed to the following recession and left the nation permanently crippled with an absurd deficit.

My personal guess is that the old asshole and his wife managed to channel enough of the selfishness, bitterness and sexual repression prevalent in middle America to give self-worth to a lot of otherwise clearly disfunctional, sociopathic people. As such, he is revered not so much as a politician or a leader, but as a father icon. A cult guru of sorts.

But I wasn't really paying attention back then, so I didn't catch the vibe.

But why Ronnie? Why pick someone so odious?

created a cult of personality.

I wish Raygun would live forever. we could force feed him a diet of prunes and Taco Bell. Then, after the revolution, we could sentence every Repuke, neocon freeper to a life of changing Ronnie's diapers.

Conservatives think that Reagan won the cold war all by himself. That alone is enough for near deification. Also the small military actions in Grenada and Lybia were successful even though Lebanon was a complete disaster. People also remember the economic boom after the economic doldrums of the Carter era - not remembering that they were fueled in part by the deficit spending. Then again reagan got off the hook because Tip O'Neill (sp?) wasn't exactly preaching the ways of fiscal restraint.

Tip O'Neill was trying to protect the New Deal, which Reagan would have enjoyed dismantling.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

about how the country changed when Reagan went into politics. It's starts in California where he was governor and ends with his policies as president, which have brought us to the crisis in domestic policies we have today, homelessness, welfare to work, deregulaltion of industry, the health care crisis and the beginning of the destruction of social security and medicare all started with Reagan attacking everything that had been put in place before and changing them when he could. What he couldn't change, he poisoned minds against those programs, so that others would take up the banner and eventually accomplish his mean-spirited policies.

Maybe some young talented writer needs to step up to the plate. I am sure Vidal would be happy to mentor this writer. It's the only way to turn the tide of the cult of Reagan once and for all. His worshippers really need to have the truth presented to them in ways they can understand.

of any writer who attempts to put out a book that strips away the facade that is St. Ronald. He is and was the new right's poster boy.

Remember the woman who wrote about sex. I can't remember the name of the book. It was hot in the early seventies. Because she feared her family would be harrassed, she called herself "Q". She kept her identity secrect for a long time and finally was outted a few years later. By that time the sensationalism had blown over. Somebody has got to do it.

If I were a writer, I would do it, but I don't have the credentials or access to the documentation one would need, but I would take a chance on the repercussions. Most people appreciate reading the truth and those that don't get silenced by the majority who do. If there was a real danger of repercussions someone would have shot Kitty Kelley by now.

Has Kitty's new book about the Bush's come out yet?

I really don't read Kitty's books. What I meant was that if Sinatra didn't put a contract out on her, I doubt if anyone else will.

That seems to be the staple of conservative, new-style I should say, not merely fiscal or religiously conservative, thought. I think that's what Reagan exemplified so well, giving political and social currency to beliefs that can best be described as sociopathic or at least at odds with social, as opposed to hermitic, existence. And sadly that's not an uncommon trait.

I don't think Reagan deserves much of the credit that the Repukes give him, although I don't think he deserves as much blame as we give him. There were homeless people well before Reagan got into office, and the number kept going up through the Clinton years and are still going up. Health care was also a problem for many years before Reagan, although it wasn't a big political issue. Social Security's flaw was in the basic design, even if you forget about the raiding of the trust fund that has been going on since Reagan's time, as the ratio of workers to recipients decreased, it spelled doom for many years, it just wasn't a problem until recently. Reagan didn't do anything to fix these issues, but he didn't cause them either. I do agree that the deregulation was a huge problem, and Reagan does deserve the blame for that.

I lived through those years and most of what has come out of Reagan's deregulations, trickle down economics and property tax cuts have emanated from him and his camp directly.

Between the end of the depression and 1978, the only homeless were those who wanted to be. There was always inexpensive rentals and shelter space available.

The Jarvis Ammendment which was the brainchild of Reagan when he was governor of California, although he didn't get it passed himself, had the effect of throwing thousands of people out in the street who were in mental care institutions and old age homes and other special needs homes. The resulting stress on the shelters and charities put people on the streets who never were there before.

The tax bonanza raised the price of real estate so high that only the upper middle class and rich could afford to be homeowners putting stress on the rental market and raising the prices of once affordable rentals. Other states quickly adopted similar ammendments and that's why we have a permanent third world population of homeless today. Thanks so much Ronnie.

So I don't really remember the 70's first hand. So your saying that all the homeless people in the 70's were homeless by choice? And that the tax implications of Reagan's Jarvis Ammendment (which was passed by referendum 4 years after Reagan left office) is solely his responsibility, and the people of California are completely blameless in this? My argument isn't that Reagan wasn't a bad leader, it's just that he seems to be held solely responsible for this stuff that lots of people had more than just a hand in.

was President, Reagan. If you grew up knowing only this, then it would seem normal to you. By those who preferred to be homeless, I was referring to hobos and migratory workers and even they had places to live if they chose to. Even skid row bums had flops they rented for a few dollars a night or a salvation army shelter they could go to if they didn't want to spend the night in a doorway.

In the sixties the hippies maintained communes and crash pads in the poor sectors of cities, so if you were a college kid back then you could sling on a back pack hitchhike around the country and always find a place to crash and something to eat.

Reagan changed all this. No he wasn't alone, they never are, but he was the mouthpiece and should be held responsible for convincing people to vote for him by telling them tax cuts would benefit them by trickling down. This was a Reagan mantra and you can't accredit the birth of this phrase and movement to anyone but him. It states that only a few people should own most of the property and wealth for income and profit and it will trickle down to the rest of us in jobs and the money spent. Well, the rich don't spend their money if they don't have to and wealth doesn't trickle down to anyone but their heirs.

I'm sorry, I know what your getting at, but I can't resist. If rich people don't spend their money then why is it that people associate rich people with multiple houses, yachts, Gulfstream jets, expensive dinners, wines, cigars, cars, limos, manicured lawns and the $500 t-shirt. I do agree that this is not how trickle down works, though. I also agree that Reagan should be held responsible, I just think that for some to solely blame him misses the real problem, and if society doesn't understand the problem, it will never get fixed. Reagan was able to direct the argument in a way to get people to go along with him. If anyone wants to actually fix the problem, they'll have to reframe the argument to get popular support on their side. Reagan didn't force people to go along with him, he made is pitch (based on poor logic) and the people went along with him over and over. He seemed to be somewhat popular at the time among many americans (a larger percentage then even Clinton enjoyed) so I'm saying that we must also look to each other to shoulder some of the blame.

I used to own a restaurant and it was the bottles of beer I sold in the bar that paid the rent and payroll, not the expensive bottles of wine. Rich people need to be taxed on their wealth because they use more of the infrastructure than we do so they need to pay for the privilege. Republican meddling in the way business has been done in California as created a state on the verge of bankruptcy that is the fifth largest economy in the world. We need to go back to taxing the properties of the rich.

I'm all for 2% taxes for a first home, but second homes, vacation properties, out of state home owners and commercial properties need to be rolled back to the pre-Jarvis ammendment rates. I mean Michael Jackson pays only 2% property taxes for Neverland Ranch in once of the most expensive communities in the West? Come on.

I used to own a restaurant and it was the bottles of beer I sold in the bar that paid the rent and payroll, not the expensive bottles of wine. Rich people need to be taxed on their wealth because they use more of the infrastructure than we do so they need to pay for the privilege. Republican meddling in the way business has been done in California as created a state on the verge of bankruptcy that is the fifth largest economy in the world. We need to go back to taxing the properties of the rich.

I'm all for 2% taxes for a first home, but second homes, vacation properties, out of state home owners and commercial properties need to be rolled back to the pre-Jarvis ammendment rates. I mean Michael Jackson pays only 2% property taxes for Neverland Ranch in once of the most expensive communities in the West? Come on.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I really wish i hadnt' seen that photo just before lunch!

first and foremost. He played his role well. He always managed to "look presidential" even though he had no clue what his handlers were doing behind his back. He was engaging to conservatives... he "spoke their language". While Pres. Carter was telling America to be prepared for hard work and sacrifices, Reagan was espousing how great America was... "the shining city on the hill" and the "morning in America" speeches where by just electing him, all our problems would be solved for us. And from a right-wing view point, they were. Reagan was the sham that conservatives want to believe in.

In the early 50's he was the only "name" hosting a show that was not a comic. And he sold soap (Borax) and GE items.

And Western ethics/love/patriotism was the weekly theme.

When he turned informer of the attendance at progressive/socialist discussion meetings (which included as attendees folks calling themselves communists in the 30's) so as to destroy the careers of "liberals" and "Jews" in movie management and unions, his testimony to the House Un-American Activities committee was rewarded by General Electric Corporation with a 40 year promotion of all things Reagan on NBC.

Not that we have a right wing GOP controlled media, they just act like they are.

...scandal didn't touch him (oddly). And now he's going kind of tragically...

Irony abound. My wife, whose grandfather succumbed after years of fighting Alzheimers openly professes no sympathy, since good old Ronnie cut funding for Alzheimers research.

That goes right up there with naming an airport after him after he broke an air traffic controller strike and then naming the largest federal building ever built after he professed a love of small government.

And there is a sick society trying to name everything that doesn't move (and a number of things that do) after the old fucker. I believe it is the Ronald Reagan legacy project.

I have even noticed that some GOPers are now calling their Lincoln day dinners Lincoln-Reagan Day dinners. I hope they go ahead and transition to simply Reagan day dinners, because the modern GOP deserves no tie to Lincoln (or TR).

Yes, Reagan did win two terms of office, and he did pick up a lot of Democratic votes (the so-called Reagan Democrats). However, I understand that the claim that he was the most popular president of recent times doesn't stand up when you look at the actual numbers.

On top of that, despite his status as "The Teflon President" (Pat Schroeder's term), he did have an amazingly corrupt administration, setting records for indictments that were equaled only by the Harding administration, from what I've heard.

At any rate, do talk to people about their experiences in the '80s. It was an extremely messy era -- utter chaos in the Middle East, hostage-taking, hijackings, terrorist attacks, tremendous suffering for farmers and factory workers in the U.S., etc.

Between the post-Watergate Democratic leadership, who thought the "country can't survive another failed presidency" (or more specifically removing two elected Republican presidents in a row from office for corruption would spark some kind of civil war), and the start-up of the modern Republican Spin Machine and pressure on increasingly corporatized media owners for their patriotic support (and the resulting marginalization of hard investigative reporting in favor of talking-head infotainment), it's a wonder he didn't get away with more.

...a time when RW nuts were convinced this nation was mere inches away from complete destruction from a one-two punch of internal leftist radicalism and Soviet adventurism (and don't forget the internal leftists were "on orders from Moscow"). They loved Reagan's simplistic jingo rhetoric.

And there were enough other problems (oil crunch, inflation, rising taxes, crime, etc.) and in some areas people had beefs with liberals (sometimes legitimate, sometimes not, often semi-) to tip the balance in his favor. You had a great mass who thought he was better than the other guy, combined with a mobilized base to push through thier own agenda. (This was also when political PACs and donation-driven politics was getting really established).

Basically, the wingers had the warped view (and now have a mythological view) that the country was headed straight to hell/down the toilet/towards the overthrow of All We Hold Dear, but by the Grace of God, Ronald Reagan single-handedly pulled us back from the brink and restored us to the Great Nation We Always Were.

pretty much sums it up.

Anger that they didn't clean up the Presidency in 1976 - the Bicentennial year - ultra patriotism, the like only surpassed by the blithering idiots who wave the flag while cheering the naked dogpile.

Reagan was able to be elected after the Repubs pretty much were nailed for Nixon.

Was the now well-known deal Reagan's team made with Iranians made public during his years? I wouldn't expect the media to widely publicize these things, but the hostage thing does come up a lot, even tough it was a total sham designed to get Carter out of the White House and secure the Iranians a modicum of US support or non-intervention.

...but not enough to take it out of "conspiracytheoryland", and by then reporters who didn't follow the White House line were finding themselves out of work or being diciplined by their employers in one way or another.

The big obstacle towards investigation is that Gary Sick, Carter's principle aide on the hostage crisis, didn't believe the rumors (the Iranians were perfectly capable of scuttling any deal and releasing the hostages during Reagan's inauguration out of sheer spite towards Carter). It wasn't until a decade later when he found out that some of the rumors were true that he made a push, and by then the Republican Spin Machine was in place and any hope of a full and honest investigation was long past.

???

Sometimes I think that his vegetative state is a boon to the republican myth machine. Were he still active, he might put the odd foot in the mouth or generally be too visible to treat as an icon - naming an aircraft carrier after a truly living president would've been hard, methinks.

So he's as good as dead. The sickening paens and editorials that are sure to follow his death make me shudder, however.

Check this out:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze6y3jf/stats.html

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if he croaked about now....

The networks would be all Ronnie, all the time for a few days

the old western republican party that was john birch-barry goldwater influenced. bush was forced on reagan during the convention reagan and his crew wanted no part of bush`s crew because they thought that bush and his crew were one-worlder`s and represented the anti-christ. he was not in control of anything past the day he was conveniently shot. reagen became a figure head for what we have today-fascism and personally i doubt he even had a clue that it happened. as my dad used to say-"ronny`s just a big dumb mick`"

Seriously, how many things in this country are named after JFK and FDR. The right simply wants to have an "icon" they can hold out the same way.

Too bad they chose such a horrible one to use.

It's not impossible that they picked the most odious right-wing president to stick it the libruls who kept naming places for "socialist" FDR and "race traitor" JFK. The intensity of the right's hatred for these two men matches that of their love for old Ronnie.

...what they forget to mention is that FDR and JFK both died in office.

I've actually cooled a few RaRaReagan jets by pointing out that "If you REALLY want his name on things, you have to kill him. Are you willing to do that?"

Good one. Seriously, worshipping a living president is a little bit too North Korean for my tastes.

The problem for the right is that there has not been a good RepubliCON president since Teddy Roosevelt. Ike was okay, but nothing special. And, neither Ike nor TR are exactly wingers... Bush I, Ford & Nixon can't really be done... Harding, Coolidge & Hoover led to the Great Depression... Not many choices.

It was because he won. Everybody loves a winner, if he's on their side, anyway.

There is a war going on in America. It is between the certain and the uncertain. One the one side you have those that recognise what a complex world we live in. They see the problem as one of struggling together with their fellow citizens in learning how to make their way through this complex life. The strive together to figure out the fairest way for everyone to succeed.

There there are those that want nothing to do with this struggle. They are certain they know what to do. They are certain they have the answers. They are certain that our uncertainty is a threat to their way of life.

After Richard Nixon the republican party was in trouble. Nixon had damaged the party beyond recognition. He had lead it out of control and nearly crushed it. They were determined never to let this happen again. The trouble was they had to win another election to do anything about it. To this end they needed something to counter the Democrats liberal base.

Fundimentalist Christianity was getting beat down on a regular basis in the arena of public opinion. Science and Society were continuously knocking their foundation out from under them. They were angry. They were desperate. They were certain. They were exactly what the Republicans needed.

After Ford lost to Carter the Republicans set about finding a Candidate intellectually empty enough for them to control but charsimatic enough to sway voters. In keeping with the new allie they were courting he should also be religious.

Ronald Reagan was the perfect candidate. He had the force of character to convince the average voter. His religious zealousness pulled in the fundimentalists. And his absense of any real ideas allowed him to be controled by his advisors including one George Bush.

It was his presense and certainty that caused his supporters to swoon in his presense. Compared to the apparent complex machinations of the left this certainty was a breath of fresh air. Even today many people will vote simply on this image. One of someone willing to take a stand on an issue and not back down.

This rejection of complexity is deeply embedded in our society. Intelligent kids are ostrasized. Overconsideration of matters is frowned upon. Facing the difficulties of our society is stressful for most. Seeing this complexity in their leaders causes them even more stress. Thus they are drawn to those that explain it all. The calming voice. The firm hand. They are drawn to certainty.

They "needed" that one. Also, he was a movie star, albeit a minor one. In Reagan's acting days, especially in the kind of movies he was in, an actor's most important asset was the ability to "buy the bit." An actor who could believe even the most preposterous premises and project that belief to the audience (see Judy Garland in "The Wizard of Oz" for an excellent example) was invaluable in movies like "Bedtime for Bonzo" which were based on silly premises.

He got to be President by an unhappy conjunction of two phenomena. The far right blamed moderate Republicans like Jerry Ford for the party's doldrums in the seventies (couldn't it have been because of Nixon's crimes related to Watergate? Nahhh!!!), and Reagan was their favorite son. Also, the nation was undergoing some harsh restructuring after two decades of purely temporary prosperity after World War II (we were the only industrial nation that hadn't had the crap bombed out of it), plus the OPEC energy crunch, all of which was unfairly blamed on Jimmy Carter. Reagan got the nomination as the right's revenge, and he got elected because he wasn't Jimmy Carter.

His ability to "buy the bit" came in handy as a candidate, but it really became powerful once he got into office. He was able to spin the silliest fantasies and pretend to believe them from the bottom of his heart. He was the President that made lying on television an integral part of the job, because he was so good at it. In this, he changed American politics. Nowadays, you can't get the American electorate to even listen to the truth, about taxes for example. Of course he wasn't the first politician to lie, but he was the first to be universally defended (when called on it by the press or the opposition) on the grounds that he was a nice man who believed what he was saying. Nixon, Johnson, McCarthy, et al, could never have got away with that.

Naturally, the new political standard that lying is perfectly okay (as long as the lie does not somehow involve your penis) is a huge boon to the right. And large sections of the right-middle are still afflicted with cognitive dissonance. They loved Reagan for his charisma and TV charm while in office, and still can't admit what a frickin' disaster he was as President (tripled the national debt, etc.). People in that kind of bind tend to get defensive and cling ever more tightly to their error.

Stalin was a disaster in many ways for the Soviet Union, but there was a cult of personality built up around him for exactly that reason.

The cult of Reagan exists because conservatives know that the was hated by many people and is NOT popular. They know his and their policies are not popular.

But to hell with facts. If they can enforce a cult of Reagan, they think that people will forget what a disaster Reagan actually was.

It is absolutely pathetic.

the interesting here, nancy reagan, not a favorite of mine yesterday did a rare speech saying gotta do the stem cell research. another chink out of the fundie dominence. thinking of the methodist church standing up..........

liberals. They will always love him for that bit of treachery, though they seldom talk about it. He proved he would do anything for Hoover. He's a hero to them for starting the war against liberals, and they made him a god for it. even though he was a horrible bungler who couldn't balance a budget if his life depended on it. It's more important to todays conservatives to hate and destroy liberals than it is to succeed as a traditional conservative.

hence, he received the adulation of very stupid people.