Ronnie Reagan is a polarizing figure in American politics, even today. Back before Bush had sunk to the depths that he is today, he was the heir apparent to Reagan's legacy. True conservatives know to invoke St. Ron at every rhetorical juncture as a sort of trump card over whatever issue is at hand. (What would Reagan do?)
Reagan's legacy is a distortion, though. Conservatives laud him for shrinking government when in fact he increased it. He is credited for defeating communism, which gives him a veneer of liberty and freedom. In fact, he supported right-wing death squads in Latin America and Islamic militants in the Middle East, the same militants we fight today in Afghanistan and Iraq. Americans have the privilege of waving away these things as niggling details, footnotes, means to greater ends because Ronnie had it, man, he had the vision. He saw further and clearer than others. More than one American has invoked some form of Lenin's phrase, "To make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs," to describe Reagan's legacy. The absurdity of quoting the Soviet-style rationalization of mass murder is self-evident.
Excerpts from Reagan's diaries are now available at Vanity Fair, here. He apparently wrote in them everyday, and they read as a time-line of the 1980s.
6 comments:
"In fact, he supported right-wing death squads in Latin America and Islamic militants in the Middle East, the same militants we fight today in Afghanistan and Iraq."
The RWDS were opposing LWDS and oppressive socialist dictators, and the Islamic militants were opposing the Soviets, also oppressive socialist dictators. You remind me of Noam Chomsky: You are selectively loyal to your tribe.
Is he one of your heroes?
Your Pal,
~~BugBoy~~
Your dismissal of the Sandinistas as some kind of horrific "Left Wing dictatorship" is simpleminded and ahistorical. There were no left-wing dictatorships in power in Guatemala or El Salvador, just aristocratic and brutal klpetocracies pumped up with American tax dollars. I'm sure the nuns raped by our freedome fighters were happy to know they were dying for "freedom." Gag me.
And, certainly, better Chomsky than Kissinger-or Perle and Rumsfeld.
The Sandinistas were thugs who fleeced the country of its wealth and put it in secret Swiss bank accounts and stole property (mansions, etc) for their personal use.
They usurped power from a democratic coalition and stripped the citizens of their rights.
They tried to acquire MiGs for the purpose of destabilizing the entire region and they supplied weapons to death squads in El Salvador.
Through a peasant revolt and US support they were voted out of office by a huge margin.
Your use of the nun incident as a conclusion reveals the true nature of your analysis. You refer to me as "simpleminded" and "ahistorical", yet your analysis gravitates toward a criminal incident as if their personal choices were significant policy. You omit any such crimes by the Sandinistas, and definitely dodge the issues I mentioned above about the crimes committed by the Sandinista leaders who did make policy.
So you either didn't know about these things or chose to ignore them. Which is it?
~~BUGBOY~~
Bullshit. There were no "democratic coalitions" with any real base in the country. Plus, the Sandinistas did hold elections-unlike the criminal Somozas that you loved so much. As for fleecing the country? Come on! A bit of the pot calling the gigantic four-story kettle black here? The Sandinista programs, as bad as they may be, were exactly in what way worse than the macroeconomic policies of the Somoza clan?
As for the nuns incident-this is not merely an isolated criminal act. This was POLICY,as taught at the School of the Americas. Read something other than the Wall Street Journal Editorial Pages.
Peasant revolt? Them peasants loved their Somoza and the military dictators in Guatemala. Right. I bet you think Rios Montt was a good Christian genius who just did what had to be done.
Death Squads? What were the Contras? What are the current Columbian right wing death squads which the exact same thing (and no, I don't like FARC at all, either)
"unlike the criminal Somozas that you loved so much"
Where did I ever express love for Somozas? This is an incorrect inference on your part.
"A bit of the pot calling the gigantic four-story kettle black here?"
The Sandinistas were a bunch of theives, thugs, and hypocrites. Despite your over-simplifications and glorifications, they were oppressive and dishonest, facts that you conveniently ignore.
"As for the nuns incident-this is not merely an isolated criminal act."
This is simply untrue, and might I add, unsubstantiated. You referred to me as "simpleminded" and "ahistorical", yet you offer something as questionable and doubtful as this simply because you think it supports your politics. Leaping to such speculation as you do, and attempting to equate such a ghastly act with policy in the region, defies fair-mindedness and calls into question the issue of intellectual honesty or judgment.
"Peasant revolt? Them peasants loved their Somoza and the military dictators in Guatemala."
Well they damned sure didn't like pinata. Even Sergio Ramirez, Jaime Wheelock, and Alejandro Bendana later admitted the Contras' base of support became landless peasants with many field commanders being small farmers, frequently supplanting national guard officers. Don't like grass roots democracy much?
Your Pal
~~Bugboy~~
Post a Comment