What the deification of Reagan really means

There is a new Gallup poll out that finds Americans believe Ronald Reagan is the greatest President. Huh? For me it just shows how ignorant the American people are and how vastly they are influenced by current events. I'm speaking specifically here how our politicians have celebrated the 100 birthday of Reagan and how the main stream media goes along with the glorification.

Never mind all the horrific things Reagan did while in office. On Democracy Now! last week, one of the greatest minds alive, Noam Chomsky, offered his take on Reagan's Presidency. Please take careful note of the last sentence (Emphasis mine).

This deification of Reagan is extremely interesting and a very—it’s scandalous, but it tells a lot about the country. I mean, when Reagan left office, he was the most unpopular living president, apart from Nixon, even below Carter. If you look at his years in office, he was not particularly popular. He was more or less average. He severely harmed the American economy. When he came into office, the United States was the world’s leading creditor. By the time he left, it was the world’s leading debtor. He was fiscally totally irresponsible—wild spending, no fiscal responsibility. Government actually grew during the Reagan years.

He was also a passionate opponent of the free market. I mean, the way he’s being presented is astonishing. He was the most protectionist president in post-war American history. He essentially virtually doubled protective barriers to try to preserve incompetent U.S. management, which was being driven out by superior Japanese production.


During his years, we had the first major fiscal crises. During the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s, the New Deal regulations were still in effect, and that prevented financial crises. The financialization of the economy began to take off in the ’70s, but with the deregulation, of course you start getting crises. Reagan left office with the biggest financial crisis since the Depression: the home savings and loan.


I won’t even talk about his international behavior. I mean, it was just abominable. I mean, if we gained our optimism by killing hundreds of thousands of people in Central America and destroying any hope for democracy and freedom and supporting South Africa while it killed about a million-and-a-half people in neighboring countries, and on and on, if that’s the way we get back our optimism, we’re in bad trouble.


Well, what happened after Reagan left office is that there was the beginnings of an effort to carry out a kind of—this Reagan legacy, you know, to try to create from this really quite miserable creature some kind of deity. And amazingly, it succeeded. I mean, Kim Il-sung would have been impressed. The events that took place when Reagan died, you know, the Reagan legacy, this Obama business, you don’t get that in free societies. It would be ridiculed. What you get it is in totalitarian states. And I’m waiting to see what comes next. This morning, North Korea announced that on the birthday of the current god, a halo appeared over his birthplace. That will probably happen tomorrow over Reagan’s birthplace. But when we go in—I mean, this is connected with what we were talking about before. If you want to control a population, keep them passive, keep beating them over the head and let them look somewhere else, one way to do it is to give them a god to worship.

Today's current god is Ronald Reagan. Who will be next? Until this passivity of the American people can be overcome, we are in for more extreme power of the wealthy and more control over the rest of the population.

Eugene Robinson is flat out wrong

Last Friday, on the Rachel Maddow Show, there was this exchange between Ms. Maddow and Eugene Robinson, MSNBC political analyst and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for “The Washington Post” (courtesy of the Rachel Maddow transcript):

MADDOW: Do you think that the long-time strategy of America‘s sort of addiction to dictators, supporting despots in the name of stability - do you think that addiction may be weaker now than before this happened?

ROBINSON: Well, just in numerical terms, I think there are likely to be fewer of them, fewer American-supported dictators because this region was particularly thick with them, and they seem to be falling by the wayside.

I don‘t think we will ever get to the point where an administration will say we will never have a relationship, friendly or cooperative relationship, with a despotic regime.

We have a relationship with China and China has a despotic regime. And it was good that we talked to the Soviet Union, et cetera, et cetera.

But the sort of client relationship that we‘ve had with some of these countries, I think, that era may be closing, and we‘re going to have to figure out what replaces it, what sort of relationship replaces it and how it can be adapted to the different situations in different countries.

First off, “sort of addiction to dictators”? Excuse me, but the U.S. wants dictators in power in those countries where we want to exploit their resources. God forbid the people rule the country (aka: “democracy”). We would have no control over the country.

It is far more in our interest to control one dictator by giving him money (or anything else he wants) and reinforcing his power than a citizenry who could change their minds if they determine we’re exploiting them. So “sort of” is weak at best.

And what’s this rhetoric from Ms. Maddow about “supporting despots in the name of stability”? I think Ms. Maddow is smart enough to know that the “stability” line is just a U.S. front for exploitation of the country’s resources. Come on, Ms. Maddow! Really! Of course we want “stability.” We certainly don’t want the people of a country rising up in defiance of our exploiting their resources at their expense. A dictator will do nicely to stop that from happening, thank you! I think Ms. Maddow should clarify her mention of “stability.”

Secondly, Mr. Robinson’s comment that “the sort of client relationship that we‘ve had with some of these countries, I think, that era may be closing”? I don’t believe that for a second. The U.S. will continue to front dictators to make it easier to exploit their national resources, and not rely on the whim of the people regarding the interests of the U.S. at the nation’s expense.

As Noam Chomsky points out:

…there is a playbook: whenever a favored dictator is in trouble, try to sustain him, hold on; if at some point it becomes impossible, switch sides.

Then, of course, we work to put another dictator in place.

As an example of this, let’s look at Chomky’s take on Bolivia:

Bolivia is a striking example. The mostly white, Europeanized elite, which is a minority, happens to be sitting on most of the hydrocarbon reserves. For the first time Bolivia is becoming democratic. So it's therefore bitterly hated by the West, which despises democracy, because it's much too dangerous.

And that’s why I believe Mr. Robinson is flat out wrong in saying that this type of client relationship such as we had in Egypt is “closing.” I predict that if a “democracy” does arise out of this protest in Egypt, the U.S. will work to undermine it and bring in a new authoritarian regime.

The sad part is, I remember as a child learning in school that the U.S. was out there fighting for democracy (i.e., truth, justice and the American way). Turns out we've been exploiting countries and fronting vicious dictators for decades. I wish it were not true. Unfortunately, I feel it's too late for us to change our ways...at least in my lifetime.

Bush's world just got smaller

This is the best news I've read in a long time.

It's really nice to know that there are those out there who refuse to take the United States position of "looking forward and not backward."

According to the article,

Bush was to be the keynote speaker at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on Feb. 12 in Geneva. But pressure has been building on the Swiss government to arrest him and open a criminal investigation if he enters the Alpine country.

So Mr. "Heh-heh-heh" decided it might not be prudent to take a luxury trip to visit the Swiss.

Former U.S. President George W. Bush has cancelled a visit to Switzerland, where he was to address a Jewish charity gala, due to the risk of legal action against him for alleged torture, rights groups said on Saturday.

The reasoning behind the move toward legal action according to Reed Brody, counsel for Human Rights Watch,

"President Bush has admitted he ordered waterboarding which everyone considers to be a form of torture under international law. Under the Convention against Torture, authorities would have been obliged to open an investigation and either prosecute or extradite George Bush."

My favorite quote from the post is also from Mr. Brody, "He's avoiding the handcuffs." Brody goes on to say,

"I think George Bush's world is a very small place at the moment...He may enjoy some kind of impunity in the United States, but other countries will not treat him so indulgently."

I sincerely hope with the bottom of my heart that the world will continue shrinking for this person. I hope that he and his cronies will somehow, somewhere be held accountable for their actions, which among other things cost the lives of thousands of Americans and tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans.

A bridge (name) too far

There is some noise being made about renaming the famed Coronado Bridge in San Diego to the “Ronald Reagan Bridge.” I live about 60 miles east of San Diego and am still within San Diego County. I really can’t believe that The Powers That Be would even consider such a thing.

Over at Firedoglake, David Glenn Cox rants about the new Time magazine cover which has a photoshopped picture of Ronald Reagan and President Obama arm in arm. He is quite amazed by the fact that a Democratic President would allow such a thing to happen without a hint of squawk. His very nice overview of Reagan is very apropos of why I feel Reagan should not have his name replace the Coronado Bridge.

Forget that the Reagan administration was corrupt up to its eyeballs. Let’s forget that the Reagan administration generated wars that killed thousands of innocent civilians in Central America. Let’s forget that the Reagan administration sold the chemical weapons to Saddam that were used to gas the Kurds. Let’s forget that the Reagan administration traded arms for hostages and sent birthday cakes to the ayatollah.

After we’ve forgotten all of that, we are left with the administration that shifted the tax burden from America’s wealthy to America’s working class. An administration which declared ketchup a vegetable to skirt Federal law on providing school lunches. An administration that bought plastic Air Force bombers for three quarters of a billion dollars a copy. Plastic dreadnoughts, too expensive to risk and too expensive to throw away.

I have said in the past that as far as I'm concerned, both the Democratic and Republican parties are essentially made of the same cloth. So it's really not surprising to me that the Time cover would demonstrate that notion. Or as Bill Hicks once said:

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'

All in all, I can’t understand why Ronald Reagan is so revered in this country. Now that his 100th birthday is this Sunday, I'm sure we're going to get tons of accolades about him, perhaps all the frakkin' year. Yeesh!