With all this Reagan talk, I am reminded of a Star Trek episode...

Reading some of the Obama-Reagan threads, it seems that there is enthusiasm for using Reagan's method of appeal in a good cause. What is overlooked is that the misty, hackneyed Chris Matthews fantasy of Ronald Reagan's appeal has nothing to do with Reagan's actual appeal. The Reagan myth... hopeful, optimistic guy who made everyone feel good... was constructed in the mid 1980s, starting with some matyrdom mythology when he was shot, then becoming fixed fake-history between the validation of the 1984 landslide re-election and the onset of Iran-contra.

Reagan was a scary man before he became senile. He wasn't America's favorite uncle, he was a noted extremist, and often described with that word... the guy who wanted to blow up the world. Reagan was the guy who said in the 1960s (I think while running for governor of California), referring to student anti-war protesters, "If they want a bloodbath, I'll give it to them."

Reagan's real appeal, the appeal that ultimately crushed Carter in 1980, was classic nationalist militarism. The optimism was nostalgic in character, not the actual optimism one finds in ages of progress. It was the sentimental, delusional optimism of an old bore telling embellished war stories, or of someone who has crawled inside a bottle of booze... let's pretend it's the 1950s when we didn't have all these problems. And the problems? Women... blacks... hippies... Iran. (Boy is that eerily familiar.)

When Reagan was running it was a fad to wear T-shirts that said "FUCK IRAN," or with a picture of Mickey Mouse in an Uncle Sam uniform flipping he bird, and saying, "Hey Iran!" And it was widely accepted that all black people were on welfare, and were pretty much the problem. That was the environment. We were humiliated abroad, and in the midst of a profound backlash against the 1955-1975 hard charging civil rights era. People felt that abortion and pornography and mixed marriage were ruining America. The Reagan Democrats were all white people who decided to go over to the the racist side for a while. (Forced integration of schools was a major social flash-point, and not in the south as much as in cities like Boston.)

It was a classic breeding ground for the iron triangle of militarist nationalism, social conservatism and racism.

Militarist nationalism and traditionalist reactionary nostalgia and nostalgia for segregation... these things go hand in hand. They form the basis of the right-wing political style. They are a powerful mixture. That kind of nationalism is not, however, a transferable commodity. It can not be harnessed for good.

Reading of the admiration for Reagan's ability to move the country, I am left to think that some folks believe Reagan could have moved the country in either direction. That is not how it works. You can't give people a hard-on by cutting the military. You cannot comfort people who reject social progress by offering more of the same.

If anyone on our side really wanted to co-opt the emotional methods of nationalism they would quickly find that it doesn't work without the hate. The people most turned on by the Reagan era were not turned on by wholesome pride and optimism. They were turned on by a resurgence of racial pride, not national pride. It became cool to be white. And they were optimistic that the tumbling collective prestige of white people could be reversed.

Reagan's rationale for tax cuts was that we could make up the lost money by cracking down on the looting of the treasury by idle blacks. He spoke of "welfare queens" who had a fleet of cadillacs, and laughed their asses off at all the hard working white people whose money they misappropriated to blow on drugs and jewelry. It was a well developed fantasy of resentment of the poor, including the bizarre idea that the poor had more money than all us "good" people who do all the work. And AIDS? Something gay people cooked up to try to murder all us straight people.

If we are to harness the awesome power of Reagan's political style, which wretched minority will we blame for all of society's ills? Because that famous Reagan optimism doesn't work without a scape-goat. Welfare Queens, Iranians, homosexuals? What "evil empire" will give our lives meaning, as participants in a Manichean slug-fest for all the marbles?

So I am left thinking of the Star Trek episode where the historian tries to run a planet just like Nazi Germany, which was a pretty dynamic mode of social organization, but without all the bad stuff. In short order the society develops all the bad stuff of Nazi Germany because it's built into the system.

Which episode are you meaning?

Just curious. Im a trekker.

My dad loved original trek, and i grew up with TNG (i even had the lunchbox that has dr. polansky on it). I love all of the trek franchise, and had fun at the trek experience thingie in las vegas!

Also, Tasha Yar bought me popcorn at a film festival once!

:silly:

"John Meredyth Lucas has said that he was inspired to write this episode by thinking about how the Nazis might have motivated people outside their natural base to join the party. He felt that an appeal to efficiency would have been their strongest card."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterns_of_Force_%28TOS_episode%29

This is what I've been thinking but couldn't articulate. Reagan made it acceptable to be cruel. Do any of the people talking about Reagan actually remember the 80's and the whole "greed is good" mentality?

Reagan was a racist who encouraged racism. He was a militaristic nationalist who made it cool to be a war monger.

MKJ

or just picked up a line here and there.

I know how extremely well you write....so I know that you appreciate context.

so watch context:
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

Obama needs to stop pumping them up. He should focus on policies that Americans can now embrace.

especially when Obama discusses the type of Veep he would choose, Jim4Wes.

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/VIDEO/80115026&oaso=news.rgj.com/breakingnews

It won't bite ya! :loveya:

I listened to around half of it.

I tried to be general in my observations, because I am really criticizing a view I have seen expressed here in discussions ABOUT Barack, more than anything Barack has said himself.

We often pine for a progressive Rove, a progressive Rush Limbaugh, a Democratic Reagan. But much of the efficacy of those people is inexorably tied to ugly aspects of human nature.

Nobody would listen to a Rush Limbaugh who told the truth. The appeal of Limbaugh is the wicked thrill of believing lies because they feel good. The fact they are lies is part of the mode of persuasion. Believing lies is an ACT; an act of allegiance, and an act of WILL. It constitutes, in a demented way, 'fighting back.'

My observations are, I hope, more a critique of the emotional core of right wing movements than of anything particular about Senator Obama. At this point, I have no interest in persuading or dissuading anyone from voting for anyone. I will be perfectly happy if Barack ends up as President.

But it would be nice if everyone held onto some core, and not be swept up in reflexive admiration for Reagan's political style out of some silly candidate tit-for-tat dynamic.

i just don't happened to be enthralled with either of them. and yes, obama needs to stop his triangulation silliness. he's done it on vietnam and baby boomers, and he's done it with religion and and homophobes. and now he's doing it with reagan. next he'll be quoting "the bell curve."

to the error of suggesting we need a Reagan in the Democratic party.

was a lot of hype from desperate Republicans and a fickle media mixed with the ever so treacherous efforts of Bush campaign officials to keep the hostages in captivity.
To disregard these factors is to revise history, really.
More significant in the long run is the coverup by Democratic Senators and Congressmen as to how Bush's personal lawyer passed a multi-million dollar check to the Iranian go between to seal the deal until inauguration day. I call that subverting democracy and enabling the return of the traitors offspring to public office and beyond. We're lucky just to have these facts, lets not discard them and do more dirty work on behalf of the Bush family empire.
Carter era economic woes are a product of honest economic policy that we long since abandoned with the advent of voodoo economics and lying officials testifying before congress like Stockman and so forth. The good old days...

the thing is they desperately wanted someone new, and they saw that Reagan was some sort of RW maniac but accepted it anyway, eyes open.

About 15-20% of the country moved hard in the last two weeks, essentially saying, I'm so fed up I don't care if he's a senile racist whacko.

RW leaders usually arise in crisis. And they are seldom exactly what people want. But there has to be some level of RW wickedness in the zeitgeist.

of what Bush did. The coverup of the results from the "October Surprise" investigation by the Democratic Party in the early 90's was just as big a betrayal of the public interest. Its as if neither party desires an informed electorate participating in a fair election.

They're ripe for it.

:evilgrin:

In all reality, Reagan was a fuckhead. I turned 18 in 84 and I despised Reagan and everything he stood for. None of what came down the pike after that was a surprise. Not Iran/Contra, nor anything else.

He's a terrible model for anything.

Spock:Captain, I never will understand humans.
How could a man as brilliant,
a mind as logical as John Gill's, have made ...
such a fatal error?
Kirk: He drew the wrong conclusion from history.
The problem with the Nazis ...
wasn't simply that their leaders were evil, psychotic men.
They were, but the main problem,
I think, was the Leader Principle.


Yours was the best post I read on DU in years - and not just because I am a trekkie.

Earlier in the Bush administration I have thought of Cheney keeping Bush drugged in a cabinet and trotting him out to make pathetic speeches when needed.

More than once, I have expected Bush to pause during a speech and silently mouth, "help me..."

Still, judging the drugged, out there look he had during those 'outings" - I can see the suspicion.

Reagan is how we got where we are today, how the fundies became such a powerful and insidious political force, how much of the progress of the previous decades was totally dismantled or undermined.

My son asked me last night, "Who was the worst President before Bush?" I said Reagan. He said, "Worse than Nixon?" I said, "Yes, because he changed politics in America and America itself for the worse, screwing everyone but the wealthy and corporations, all with a 'cute' little smile on his face and 'charm'."

(I'm sure there are others before my time, but I felt the personal awfulness of Reagan.)

genetically grow on it.

The "smile", the cocking of the head, the flush of the rouged cheeks.

Reagan was an old whore long past his prime, but Amerika ate his schtick up because it recognized the vileness within.

I remember when he was Governor of California. His policies led to cut-backs and the diminution in many academic departments at the University of California and the end of many outstanding academic careers. And there were his policies to cut the funding for mental health in the State, resulting in a dramatic increase in the homeless problem, as thousands of mentally ill were pushed out on the streets. It was a disgrace. I also remember Reagan when he didn't even hold political office but had radio spots on right wing radio shows, in which he always ended with the words "This is Ronald Reagan, thanks for listening". One time he opened the newspaper's want ads and made the case that the jobless simply were lazy, because there were plenty of jobs for telephone solicitors or janitors available. I know from personal experience that even those jobs were hard to land at the time and there was plenty of competition.

I knew several Reagan Democrats in the day. I can say anecdotally that I know that they weren't racists. They were responding to what they perceived as Jimmy Carter's weakness, whether mistaken or not.

But I agree with you that Reagan is not a model that any candidate should promote in any way, even if they believe that only the positive aspects can be copied without the negatives. If Obama admires certain aspects of him, then that's disappointing to me, and I am tending towards Obama in this campaign. I never understood the Reagan worship to begin with.

Not really.

and wiping away the good things he had to say about the Clinton admin in his own book. Further it is about appealing to the independents since he has a caucus and primary coming up that is open to independents. Lastly, it uses the Reagan myth to do it. :puke:

they were willing to accept some of the tainted fruit in their desire to try something new.

And, of course, there are types of racism. A person can be too evolved to be tolerant of white-black racism, yet eagerly embrace the jingoistic substitute forms. At the time it was completely acceptable to rip on muslims, much as it is today.

Arabs, Iranians... and today, Mexicans, of course.

I am sympathetic to people who voted for Reagan because the societal stresses of the late 1970s were really something, and Carter was so hated. I think my father's only non-Democrat vote in his life was voting for John Anderson in 1980

Carter's pollster, Patrick Caddell, on the other hand, still stands by his figures, which reflected a close race right up until the weekend before the election. On the Saturday before the election, four days after he had come off second best in the debate with Reagan, Carter was about even with Reagan, insists Caddell. But by Sunday night, he says, Carter's campaign had collapsed. Caddell's reason: the hostage issue was again in the news and again unsettled, thus reviving the public's frustration with Carter as a whole. Caddell's data shows Carter suddenly dropping five points behind by Sunday night, with another five-point collapse by Monday night.
The public opinion industry has christened Caddell's thesis the "big bang" theory of the campaign: 8 million voters moving to Reagan in 48 hours. To a large extent, most public opinion researchers support this theory, although many do so with major qualifications.
Says TIME'S pollster Daniel Yankelovich: "There is every reason to assume that is what happened. When people are conflicted, they procrastinate. And that's what they did in this election."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,924541-2,00.html


If Reagan had not been negotiating with the Iranians behind Carter's back to hold back the release of the hostages, Reagan never would have won the presidency against Carter. (btw The Republicans in the weeks prior to the election were criticizing Carter for talking to the Iranian "terrorists"
about releasing the hostages. Only evil rat bastard hypocrites Republicans would have bought this crap and voted for Reagan. The crossover Democrats were not much smarter to put in nicely. imo)

is a discredited conspiracy theory. Fun to talk about at parties probably.

even if they weren't racist, as you mention, reagan rode into office on a wave of white resentment. he dismantled the civil rights commission and affirmative action, with the blessing of most of his followers. the mood of the country literally changed overnight. and as a black woman just graduating from college and entering the workforce, and i can assure you that reagan's brave new world was not exactly welcoming...for me. i remember the outright hostility i faced, so when people talk about what a rosy, optimistic time that was, i know it's total bullshit.

and the economic policies he started then have all but ruined our country. But you are not painting a full picture of why people voted for him. He was the first president I voted for - and I was an immature voter. But speaking for the republicans in my family, it was a vote for optimism, for hope in a better time. The 70s were deeply troubled economically. There was much talk of how our country would never be the economic power it used to be - that we had entered the twilight years of our democracy and that it was only going to get worse. (which it did because we voted the wrong man into office) Reagan promised a magic pill to fix it all. I swallowed the koolaid and thought that he and his people would be able to fix the problems. "The shining city on the hill" was a very compelling image for a depressed, hopeless people.

Not denying that those other elements weren't there but I don't remember them being said. Not everyone who voted for Reagan was a white supremacist. Some of us were just not critical thinkers and were hoping he was telling the truth.

I really do understand... 1980 was a fucked up situation.

But there has been some shaping of the collective memory over the years. Reagan was a national laughing-stock in 1976 and still considered a lunatic in 1980.

Carter still lead Reagan in the polls before the debate. The fact that Carter was polling something like 29% approval, but was STILL ahead of Reagan gives some idea how little people were going for Reagan's scene. Most people were afraid of him, including a lot of people who eneded up voting for him.

There were, of course, millions of people who saw him as a hopeful figure, but his landslide victory was built on people who changed their vote in the last two weeks, which seems more desperate than hopeful. (Desperate acts can be hopeful, but in the way buying a lottery ticket is hopeful.)

I still kick myself for falling for all that crap. Have to confess I voted that monster twice. Strong koolaid administered by older 'more knowledgable' adults who I trusted to be taking the time to be informed. Iran Contra started to wake me up... Clarence Thomas finished the job. Wish I could say I was born smart but it took a few years for me to wise up.

I remember being pretty upset with Carter over a couple of journalists who were executed on their own video cameras somewhere in South America. Carter did nothing. I don't think he even made a statement. I remember feeling ashamed at our faltering status as a country. What a hugh moran I was! It was something he should have taken a stand on - he wasn't the perfect president. But it's laughable now considering the state we are in.

I turned 18 right after that, and I remember signing up at the post office.

Had to, because you couldn't get student loans if you didn't.

I think he has done some wonderful things for the country and the world and would hate to think of where we would be without his leadership on housing issues and elections. And its amazing the number of books he has churned out. Nice man. But not the best president we ever had.

than reagan...hands down, no question about it. it really puzzles me that so many people talk about hope and optimism for the future with regard to reagan, who was fairly elderly the first time he ran. i never understood his appeal, and i never will.

I think Reagan had better marketing... marketers who were willing to lie and tell half truths. That was the difference.

Watergate merely delayed the process. Reagan was the beneficiary of a white-backlash movement that had been developing for years.

He really was not a very honest man, despite all the fake homespun warmth.

which gave his evil minions the idea that the country would fall for it again. And the country did.

he decided to make his first kickoff campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi - the site of the murder of 3 civil rights workers back in 1964. The theme of the speech was states' rights, so he really didn't even try to be subtle in his effort to continue the Nixon Southern strategy...

:kick: and recommend.

How soon people forget. Obama is pandering to the misty~eyed Reagan lovers~~~at the expense of his own party.

everything about the man was an illusion. When he first began running for president, some of his more devout followers moved the illusion further than ever before, calling him a "war hero", (he never left Hollywood, and the war movies were bombs...even his training films were laughed at. then again, he is only one of a few actors that was upstaged by a chimp). Nancy was known for "B" work as well, in fact, she was known far better for the oral sex she willingly performed on anyone who could get her a job, than on any form of talent, (arguably, oral sex can be called a talent).

In any case...the illusion continued, built up by those who felt they knew what the country needed, and hid the darker racist, sexist and misanthropic side of RR. Mention that he walked out on Jane Wyman, (probably a good deal for Wyman), and one was called just about everything under the sun. "Mr. Family Values", had no values when it came to family, except when it came to Nancy, (perhaps that "talent" had something to do with that).

Reagan was not just a bad president, he was a bad person, a bad human being. He was greedy, not too bright, a war monger, (who would never fight), a bully and a man that had little sense of history. All things considered, he was about as poor a person as can be, and yet some insist on building him up to sainthood. "Name everything Reagan!" was the RW rallying call after he died. Well I did name one thing Reagan, and it is still named Reagan to this day, the cat's litter box. I still get a smile from my son when I ask him to "clean out the Reagan, it is really starting to stink"...:D

I love the kitty litter story! I live but a few short miles from the Ronald Reagan Memorial Highway (Formerly Route 88) here in Illinois. I cringe every time we pass the sign. We don't have cats anymore but we do scoop poop for our dog. I think I got me a new name for the scoop!

THANK YOU!

I mean, at least his ranch was a real ranch, and he not only rode horses, he actually did it rather well IIRC.

Just sayin'..... :evilgrin:

the man was a brute with an affable aw' shucks manner, and that's exactly what made him successful and dangerous. There was nothing admirable about the man, and to invoke his name as a reference for anything is disgusting.

I see signs of that in Huckabee, which is why that theocratic bozo is also quite popular.

death squads in central america
dismantling of civil rights progress
trickle down economics
what a great, hopeful, optimistic time :sarcasm:

As an advocate for a smaller and less intrusive federal government, Chiles was also known for his 1970's radio commentaries. His trade-mark sign-on "I'm Eddie Chiles, and I'm mad," created an incredible demand for bumper stickers that read "I'm mad too, Eddie!" Western also featured television commercials telling viewers "If you don't have an oil well, get one—you'll love doing business with Western!" Through these conservative radio commentaries, Chiles became a folk hero in the southwest section of the nation.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Chiles"

My recollection of that time is that the "government intrusion" card was on everyone's mind. Then reagan took government out of the boardroom and put it in everyone's bedroom. Big Brother Bush took over the rest of our homes if not through wire taps then through foreclosures.

The characterization of "Reagan's rationale for tax cuts" is intentional exaggeration. Reagan had many excuses for tax cuts and the need for retributive justice against the poor for the crime of being poor was only one aspect of it.

The main reason was, of course, the "Laffer Curve", a crackpot theory that cutting taxes increases revenue, and absurdity that remains Republican orthodoxy to this day.

It came out later that nobody really believed in the Laffer Curve, and that they fully expected deficits to explode. The real thinking was that to pay off the debt we would gut all social programs.

All Bush is or has ever been is Reagan's decrepit delusions filtered through an even bigger moron.

and I never could "get" the adulation. As far as I can tell, he's the initial perpetrator of all that's wrong the country today. Fuck him.

What really pisses me off about Reagan is he got away with EVERYTHING, and now they want to call him a great president. It just makes me sick.

:applause: thank you so much for summing this all up so nicely...i couldn't agree more.

Hopefully this will put to rest Obama followers' position that his statements were harmless because they're just about "electoral strategy," not policy.

And thank you!

:kick: