I couldn't believe the news as I logged on tonight - former President Ronald Reagan is dead, at 93 years of age.
I will say, it very well may be just as well, as for the past decade, he fought the cruel disease known as Alzheimer's.
But still, as long as Reagan was alive, it was like holding on to something precious all the same. Now that he's dead, all feels lost. Terribly lost.
I was only in my teens when Reagan was president. I was 11 when he was elected in 1980 and 19 when he left office in January 1990. My fondest memory of Mr Reagan was in 1985, when he delivered his anti-terrorism speech. Today's young generation needs to know that the line against terrorism wasn't drawn by Bush the 43rd. It was Reagan who first declared that terrorism wouldn't be tolerated. He worked extensively with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in combating the IRA, as well as terrorist groups in South America and the Middle East.
Reagan, along with his wife Nancy, also delivered the now famous, almost catchphrase-like, "Just Say No (to Drugs)" message. Although I think the War on Drugs is horribly prohibitionist, and agree with libertarians that the government has no right to outlaw a drug unless it has been proven without a shadow of doubt that the drug in question is fatally dangerous, I believe that the "Just Say No" message was a valiant one. It was more of a message warning the youth of America what they might be getting themselves into than an outright prohibitionist statement.
Now, being of a generation that loved to pretend that it had an excuse to be politically apathetic, via Watergate - as if their parents' experience was their tortured experience too - we used the Iran-Contra affair as justification. How terribly we were let down by Reagan and Congress' approval for squelching the Sandinistas and influencing Middle East policy while we were at it! You just can't trust the government, damnit, and my vote doesn't count!
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - jack e. jett
i am sorry but the comment that he "never bashed gays or those afflicted with aids" is missing the point. it is more like he did nothing, nada, zip, zero, about a disease that was, at that time, killing off my friends left and right. so yes, it was mighty nice of him not to "bash" us, but i will always believe (and this could just be my fucked up head) that if he would have made somewhat of an effort, we would be further along in the fight.
yes i agree that many people are taken with him.
i think he was smart and had a great sense of humor.
just as my friends.
jack e. jett
2 - Al Barger
Jack E, you seem to indicate by your comments that you really KNOW better than to blame Reagan for AIDS, but emotionally can't quite seem to shake it. I give you credit for struggling to be reasonable.
However, you have to know that AIDS was in no way Reagan's doing. He didn't invent the virus in the back room, nor did he induce individuals to engage in the high risk behaviors that spread the disease.
The president CANNOT solve every problem that arises in society. Why would he be expected to? Curing AIDS was 1)not in the president's power. Not even the great Bill Clinton could do it. 2)not in the job description. Where did the constitution authorize the federal government to be in charge of medicine, and why would you think they should be?
Reagan's main job as president was to defend us from the Soviets. In fairness, his way of doing it worked pretty well.
3 - RJ Elliott
JEJ -
I don't have the cites handy right now, but I have read that Reagan increased the funding to fight AIDs by a large amount.
Of course, he should have done more. But, even if he had, it wouldn't have saved anybody back then. (Though we may be closer to a cure today.)
4 - bhw
I couldn't believe the news as I logged on tonight
Why the surprise? The guy was 93. Even if he hadn't had Alzheimer's, he wasn't exactly in the prime of his life.
Now that he's dead, all feels lost. Terribly lost.
Oh, for god's sake, lighten up, Francis. He was just a man who was once our president. He wasn't assassinated. He didn't die early from a horrible disease [although he did have a horrible disease]. This is life. People live, and we hope that they are lucky to die at 93. If I make it to 93, I want people to throw a big fucking party when I go.
You think things are lost just because Reagan's body stopped breathing today, when his mind stopped working long ago, even while he was in office?
Yikes. The guy had a great life until he was an elderly man. The melodrama is just too heavy.
5 - bhw
P.S. Can the pope be far behind?
6 - RJ Elliott
BHW:
The Pope is in rough shape. I suspect he'll be gone before the end of the year.
And, like Reagan, there will be those who snicker at his death (And I don't mean you).
It's sad, really. Before the bodies of our leaders even get cold, the scum rises to the surface to piss on not-yet-dug graves...
7 - bhw
Reagan's death is nothing to snicker at.
[His presidency, well, that's another matter. ;-)]
But the guy really did have a great life. He was the leader of the free world in his 70's. That's a long, healthy, prosperous life. So what's so sad about his death? Nothing. It's just a natural thing, and in his case, a good thing. For the past few years, the body was alive but the person was not.
My mother's 90-year-old uncle died last fall, and before he died, my mother was *very* upset that he was "giving up" and wasn't "fighting" anymore. WTF? He was NINETY years old. That ain't giving up, that's holding on for longer than most people.
8 - RJ Elliott
BHW:
I agree, in a sense, that his passing was a "good thing." It ended his suffering, and the suffering of his loved ones.
However, when any famous leader dies, there is a period of respectful mourning. Or at least there should be.
If Jimmy Carter had died instead, I would not be making snide comments about him. I think he was an absolutely horrible President, but I would be respectful.
I am not, btw, criticizing you here. I am talking about others who use such news to metaphorically dance on the graves of those they disagreed with in life.
If I were to die, and it was actually reported in the news, how would my "enemies" respond? Giggling? Chortling? Or focusing on the good aspects of my personality and life?
I would hope the latter. But I doubt it...
9 - bhw
Well, if you died, I'd send $10 .... ;-)
That said, as soon as a famous leader dies, everyone chimes in to reflect upon that person's career, achievements, and failures. Of course, some of the reflection will be partisan and some won't. But Reagan shouldn't be immune from critics now, just because he died.
Again, it's not a tragic death. I think if someone dies unexpectedly, more people observe a "waiting period" before criticizing. But certainly not all.
I honestly believe that when Carter dies, his critics will do the same thing Reagan's critics are doing today. I guess we'll just have to wait and see, though.
10 - RJ Elliott
I wonder about that. Would conservatives really piss on the casket of Carter? Or would they take a week off from dissing him?
I would HOPE it's the latter. But I just don't know...
11 - Dirtgrain
How many graves did Reagan piss on?
I am sorry for Reagan, the human being. It was a terrible way for his life to end. But I am happy that he is dead, finally (my mother was relieved when my Omi died. Over her last two years, my Omi lived almost entirely in a bed, getting bedsores, losing her mind. She was lost, bewildered, helpless, alienated--to a horrible degree).
People are confusing compassion for an individual's with respect for who that person was and what that person did. Lying about who Reagan was and what he did is not reverence or compassion. That is the lowest form of politics. Already there all sorts of political posts on the internet looking to use Reagan's death and the revision of Reagan into some sort of hero (this started long before his death--e.g., The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project and that aircraft carrier that was named after him) to fuel political agendas. That is irreverent. Just say that you are sorry that he had to die that way, and leave it at that. All of this other sanctimonious praise and Big Brother-style historical revision is horseshit.
If you want to debate who Reagan was, outside of context of his recent death, if you want to consider how many graves Reagan pissed on, then start by seeing The Reagan Doctrine: Third World Rollback. Yah, I'm sorry for his suffering. But in regards to who Reagan chose to be and what Reagan chose to do, I despise him entirely.
12 - boomcrashbaby
I know Reagan will go down in history as being one of our great Presidents. He united the country.
When he was President (81-89), I was in my final years of high school during the day and living on the streets at night, coming to terms with who I was and coming of age where I was suddenly able to meet a whole world of people like me. Then just as quickly as I found this new world, everybody started dying. GRIDS, they called it at first. That was in 81. It wasn't until late 85, that CONGRESS, reacting to public panic, allocated 70 million to AIDS research. Reagan allowed that bill, for the first time, because of the panic. But the epidemic had spread. He did nothing for years because it was only affecting homosexual men. And it was also the year Rock Hudson died. Finally, someone America knew died, and that changed it to something worse than that which was just killing off nameless citizens.
70 million was far too little, far too late. Because Reagan delayed for years, when an epidemic was running through his own country, the last year I checked, (2001), the ANNUAL cost to combat/treat AIDS in the U.S. alone was 6.9 billion dollars. That's the same amount we were paying to combat it in 1999. Hopefully it's leveled off.
Imagine the lives saved, the further along we would be in research and treatment, if he didn't delay in acting for so long. We would have figured it out far earlier, and would have been able to educate people so much earlier.
I don't know if that CBS made for TV movie that everybody got so bent out of shape over, is really accurate in what he said about AIDS. Don't know and don't care. I know it's what he DIDN'T say about AIDS that will forever shape my memory of him.
13 - jack e. jett
the last line in boomcrashbaby's statement...."i know what he DIDN'T say about AIDS that will forever shape my memory of him".
this is exactly how i feel. i will always believe with all my heart that many of my friends would be here today if more had been done..and quicker.
is this an irrational thought? i can't say for sure. even the not knowing bothers me.
over the next few days though, they will make him sound like jesus on a cross.
jack e. jett
14 - Bob A. Booey
BoomCrash:
I agree with your moral criticism of Reagan. If he turned his backs on millions with HIV and contributed to unnecessary suffering, how can you say he'll go down as one of the great Presidents?
15 - Mac Diva
And, let's not forget Reagan's remarks about welfare queens and irresponsible black bucks, delivered to happy white audiences in places like Greenwood, Miss. Or that his elections put the fininishing touches on the Southern Strategy.
My prediction is that when the Reagan tapes are released they will be very much like Richard Nixon's in regard to outgroups. Gays, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, uppity women, Jews, will all be described in terms of stereotype and slur. That is the only 'place' people like him have for people like us. Wait and see.
16 - boomcrashbaby
I agree with your moral criticism of Reagan. If he turned his backs on millions with HIV and contributed to unnecessary suffering, how can you say he'll go down as one of the great Presidents?
Because I don't write the history books.
17 - RJ Elliott
More pissing on a grave.
Look, if Clinton died tomorrow, I wouldn't be commenting on his many failures. I would be pointing out his positive qualities. [Yes, he had them.]
That is what decent people do in this situation.
Blaming AIDs on Reagan is pretty pathetic. Maybe if fewer gay men had gobbled anonymous knobs in restroom "glory-holes" fewer gay men would have died.
Yes, the above statement is provacative. Intentionally so.
Leave the recently deceased alone for a week. And look in your own fucking mirror.
18 - Bob A. Booey
Uh oh. The "personal responsibility" neo-cons have turned on each other.
I'm interested to see BoomCrash's response to this homophobic rant. He even used the "look in the mirror" mantra of personal responsibility.
I did say, however, that it's too easy and tiresome to have sweeping, blanket insults toward a deceased President. There's a lot of bad policy you can criticize Reagan for, but respect his life and death even as you remember his lack of respect for those who suffered and died from HIV/AIDS. That's not turning the other cheek; it's remembering the value of human dignity and its absence in much of today's callous and calculating politics.
That is all.
19 - Natalie Davis
Decent people just shut up and take one-sided, 24/7, societally mandated slobbering? I don't think so. Some liked Reagan, some didn't. He wasn't Superman -- turning him into some fictional superhero is not a good thing. Those who wish to laud him have that right. Those who believe in telling the full truth do as well. Believe me, many of us are as sickened by the ongoing boohooing and revisionism as you are by those who react with presenting every flaw Ronnie Ray-gun ever displayed. The sycophants want everyone to be united in their misery -- well, we can find unity in being sickened.
20 - TDavid
Jellybeans anyone?
21 - Natalie Davis
Oh, right. Great cure for nausea.
22 - boomcrashbaby
Well, I was just about to log off, and then saw RJ's post, so I should respond.
1) RJ, I'm not 'pissing on his grave'. I said my memory of him was that he wasn't there when a segment of American citizens needed him. That is what I saw, that is what I feel, and I'm entitled to my opinion. That is not disrespecting anybody.
2) A lot of people during that time were far too silent. Not just Reagan. But he was the President. It takes a concentrated effort by the government and the CDC to educate a populace on activity (in this case, safe sex). A president speaking out on what was becoming a global epidemic would have done wonders to further that. As surprising as it may seem, RJ, all gay people do not have a pink phone with a single glowing button on it, that signals us whenever we need to be made aware of something.
I don't know about now, times change, but back when AIDS was coming out, there were far more gay people in the closet, than there were in open gay communities. These people would have had wives, and not been involved in the gay community. There would be no way to reach people like that, except by someone as powerful as the president.
3) in terms of anonymous sex, for many, for a long time, it was the only option. When society makes one relationship more difficult to maintain than another, a lot of people won't be able to maintain relationships. There are definitely promiscuous men who just enjoy sex. They are men after all. There's a lot of women like that too, and straight men. Don't condemn all gay people for the actions of some. What's happening though, as more and more gay people come out at a younger and younger age, and being gay isn't the deal it once was, those anonymous encounters are dramatically decreasing over time. Gay people are settling down. It's what they always wanted, but in the past, when it wasn't an option, what else was there to do, but hook up and then drift apart?
23 - boomcrashbaby
Uh oh. The "personal responsibility" neo-cons have turned on each other.
Because I believe in personal responsibility, that makes me a neo-con? Alright then.
24 - Scott
Reagan believed people should be responsible for their own actions and that Government is NOT THE SOLUTION TO YOUR PROBLEMS!!
He didn't do enough to help fight aids.. here's an idea.. stop screwing everything that moves! he didn't do enough to help the poor.. here's another idea.. get off the couch and find a job!
Just because someone believes that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and one group doesn't deserve a handout or special treatment over another one does not mean that they are racists or homophobes or whetever else you want to label them as.
Cry me a river..
Why don't you just move to France and get it over with.. The French Government will hold your hand and take care of you.
25 - boomcrashbaby
Just because someone believes that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and one group doesn't deserve a handout or special treatment over another one does not mean that they are racists or homophobes or whetever else you want to label them as.
No, but calling that which you have, a 'given right' when it is given to you, but 'special treatment or handout' when it is given to me, IS discriminatory and usually results from some sort of irrational fear or disgust which would indicate that comments like this generate from some sort of homophobia.