Don't Believe the Hype
Published June 06, 2004
Ronald Reagan, star of Kings Row, died today. Contrary to popular belief, he was a very good Hollywood actor. Oh yeah--and he was the worst possible thing that could have happened to America in the 1980's. Christine and I spent a few hours watching all of the coverage on CNN this evening, and I was stunned by how much of a free pass the guy is getting. Now, don't get me wrong--I don't think Reagan was "evil" or anything like that. He seems to have been a wonderful man. And anyone that questions his ability as a communicator just can't have lived through the eighties. But when it comes to Republican presidents, I'd rather see an asinine bungler like George W. up there at the podium than a skillful and respected statesman like ol' Ronnie. The thing is--liberal democracies thrive upon acrimonious relations between the parties--we don't need no "eras of good feelings" (Richard Hofstadter's The Idea of the Party System remains the best book on this subject, even though it doesn't seem to be in print!). The exercise of power is always an ugly thing--and anyone who puts a happy face on the most powerful office in the world does our system of government a terrible disservice...
I am a die-hard proponent of free medical coverage for all, free higher education for all, an "economic bill of rights" (which is a very different thing from the "government handout" spin that is put on current "welfare" programs--a decent standard of living, in the richest countries in the world, should be a right), 100% tax on all estates over 1 million dollars, absolute freedom from all restrictions upon the personal choices of adults (legalize all drugs; fuck "family values", etc.), and the recognition of all mammals and birds as persons (not "citizens", of course, that would be absurd...)--and I still have nothing but warm feelings toward Ronald Reagan! The man seems to have led an exemplary American life, and he was correct when he declared that the country hadn't run out of heroes--nor had the voters, in 1980, let go of their desire for one. The pedestal was there waiting for him. And he acceded to it with a smile. That's the horrific thing about the Reagan presidency!
I led off this post with that Mark Gruenwald-era Captain America cover because I firmly believe that it's the most astute bit of pop cultural political commentary the era produced. Captain America was in the White House, for all intents and purposes, from 1981 to 1989. Now, Steve Englehart had written stories about Cap's political views before (and they were somewhat moronic views at that--"bad man in power"="I give up on the country"--what the fuck?), but Gruenwald argued that, in a liberal democracy, heroes shouldn't just be "above politics", they shouldn't have any connection to the government at all! His Cap was willing to sacrifice everything (even his own iconic status) in order to extricate the "symbol of America" from any entanglement with pragmatic arrangements. The "City on a hill" is an impossible ideal, not a fait accompli--any attempt to trap the genie of "America" within the governmental bottle produces intoxication! An America that identifies with its leader (Republican or Democrat) is a danger to itself and others. Our behaviour made the Presidency a necessary evil. (I say "our" because I'm talking about all Western democracies here!) If we deserved a Utopia we'd have achieved it without a leader's help. There are no Utopias. Power exists because of sin. And every president is your enemy. Ronald Reagan made too many people forget that.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't all go out and rent Kings Row!
And, as I'm sure Johnny Bacardi can tell you, Reagan made a lot of films with Priscilla Lane, including one (Million Dollar Baby) that I've never seen--perhaps they'll put it on DVD to take advantage of all the hype? We'll see!
Also: I heartily recommend Peter Delacorte's Time On My Hands, a fascinating time-travel story about a whacko plot to kill the Gipper complicated by the young actor's ingratiating personality.
- Don't Believe the Hype
- Published: June 06, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Culture
- Writer: David Fiore
- David Fiore's BC Writer page
- David Fiore's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Craig,
Well, those are just "counsels of perfection" really! I only threw them out there in order to demonstrate that Reagan's policies are pretty much diametrically opposed to my own beliefs. But I'm happy you seem to have liked the stuff about "hero-worship". That was my main focus with this post.
On the tax: If you're going to fund universal higher education, you're gonna need a lot of money, and seizing the estates of dead millionaires sounds like a great way to do it. Of course, the children of millionaires wouldn't like it, but, well, so what?
I
Dave
I'm not a big fan of Reagan. "At least he wasn't Nixon" is about as close as I can come to praise. I'm sorry for his wife and family, and that's all I have to say about RWR.
Craig, I'd agree with you that "100% tax on estates over 1 million dollars" isn't right, but "it's already been taxed once" is equally incorrect. "Money" isn't taxed, transactions are taxed. I go to work and get paid, I pay taxes. I spend some of that money that has "already been taxed" at Wal-Mart, and it's taxed again! Wal-Mart gives some of it to an employee who pays tax on it. Wal-Mart (hypothetically) pays corporate income tax on their profits. Wal-Mart buys more stuff and the vendor pays taxes on their profits and even more in fees to run the trucks they used to deliver the goods. This money gets taxed every time a transaction takes place, in ratios that balance the government's social engineering desires to encourage some behavior and discourage others and the governments' need for revenue to pay for programs.
So, yeah, talk of "money" being taxed as opposed to "transactions" being taxed is potentially useful to agitate for a particular social policy in the tax policy, but it's a bogus distinction. It's redefining the game in such a way that it can't be played. Hey, it's got some political traction though. There are people who will never, ever benefit from the repeal of the estate tax that are worked up about it.
If you're really opposed to the rate and floor listed, what amount would you suggest?
How about setting the rate here (from my post, "Racial Inequlity vs. Economic Inequality"):
- We should do away with inheritance. Let the money go to the state. Let each person, on achieving adulthood, after having had an education just as good as any other's, set out to make his or her own life/career/fortune. I know it's counter to that parental instinct to provide for one's children. We should strive to be good parents and provide our children with fulfilling childhoods and happy homes. This does not require money--at least, not in a society that does not allow poverty to exist.
Dave, this is an awesome post. An economic bill of rights--I love the idea. But tough luck in trying to get libertarian Al Barger to embrace it. To your given points I would only add the following: down with corporations.
In this country with this president, you are wanting to do away with nepotism. Good luck. But seriously, why would you take away one of the benefits of getting rich? I believe in the familial legacy of passing money. In honor of full disclosure, I feel that I have been priveleged in my lifetime because of my parents. I have no trust fund or anything like that, but my parents did the college thing for me and have helped me at various other times as I get started. Why shouldn't they also be able to help me when they eventually die?
Plus, if you start taxing estates at 100% there won't be any more estates when someone dies. Rich people will buy things for their kids and relatives before they die so that there is hardly anything there when they die and the government wants to take it. The whole thing is ridiculous and I am quite glad we don't live in your world.
Craig said:
"I believe in the familial legacy of passing money. In honor of full disclosure, I feel that I have been priveleged in my lifetime because of my parents. I have no trust fund or anything like that, but my parents did the college thing for me and have helped me at various other times as I get started. Why shouldn't they also be able to help me when they eventually die?"
That's fine Craig--but they wouldn't have needed to help you if the college thing was free, as it should be (to all who prove that they deserve to be there, I mean--I'm not advocating keeping D students in drinking money here...)
And you're right, a 100% estate tax is sure to trigger a lot "Brewster's Millions"-type behaviour, but there's much we can do about that. All I'm saying is that I'm in favour of any government measures which acknowledge that money is an abstraction and that, as such, NO ONE has any "right" to mountainloads of it. Our resources ought to be used to make sure *more* people have a chance to do what they want. I'm not advocating the "legislation of happiness"--I'm saying that life has enough heartbreaking aspects (falling out of love, losing people and pets that we care about, failing to achieve some personal/artistic goal) without completely unneccessary hurdles to the individual's pursuit of happiness like: "your parents are poor--no bloodtest for you" or "work your way through college and get C's cause you don't have time to do the reading"...
Dave
I'm with Michael in shrugging and saying that at least Ronald Ray-gun wasn't Nixon. Best I can do: Condolences to his family. Do all you can to fund Alzheimer's research, because no one deserves that fate.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/16289)
You made a lot of good points, but you skidded out of control when talking about your own beliefs.
"100% tax on all estates over 1 million dollars"
You want to literally just take anything over 1,000,000? You do realize the money that you are talking about was already taxed once, right? Now you are going to seize it? Right.
You don't have many allies politically do you?