Respect for the dead (Reagan)?
While watching the long, elaborate, final funeral of Ronald Reagan, I found myself thinking about all the vitriolic and outright hateful things people had written and said about his death. I began to wonder about the notion of respecting the dead - or at least respecting death. I wondered about people who I think are truly terrible people, like Michael Moore or Senator Robert Byrd, and whether or not I would raise a cheer if they were to die. I don't feel that I would. I think I save that degree of hatred for truly malicious people, like Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein... or Osama Bin Laden.
Malicious: motivated by or resulting from a desire to cause harm or pain to others
I don't think that fits Ronnie.
In the end, I'm not sure how even I feel about celebrating someones death. It seems somehow ultimately petty. They're dead, and my joy only reflects something about myself - not about them. If Ronald Reagan's death has done anything, it's made me reassess my own feelings about hatred. Hell, that's something.
6 Comments:
Ronald Reagan, he can rot in hell. The man
helped smuggle guns and drugs, put more
homeless on the streets of america and
helped to slaugher thousands of innocent
civilians in central america. Though I am sure
he thought he was doing what was right, or at
least he was doing what Bush Senior told him
was right....still he can rot in hell with his
jellybeans.
I am glad that old shitstain is dead. I mean what did he do that was so awesome, that I had to read/watch/listen to his death for 4 days straight, and what is wrong with Michael Moore? oh I know, he is not a patriotic Republican.
-d0g_p00p
There is respect for the dead, and there is respect for the presidency. The state funeral wasn't just for the man, but also the office of the American Presidency. We as a nation came together last week not to praise but to bury.
The voices that loved Reagan should be balanced by others that had less love for the man. Let history then judge. Reagan was a man made of flesh, sinew, and bone. He may have been a good/great president, but he was no saint. It's easy to attempt to canonize him, but I think in the end it does the man, and the country a great disservice.
History may prove that Reagan was one of the top 2 or 3 American Presidents of the 20th Century. He defeated communism, revitalized American patriotism, and moved America towards the robust market (and free trade) economy we enjoy today.
But he also had no use for the poor. In addition to restoring American "exceptionalism," he also played to the basest and darkest fears for many Americans. Pitting rich against poor, back against white. The undercurrent in his rhetoric was that there were only a set number of chairs to the table of American prosperity, and that you had better get yours before someone less desirable was seated.
This is in large part why the first President Bush pushed the idea of a "kinder and gentler," Republican party, and the current President Bush espouses the "compassionate conservation" angle. It is because Reagan was neither.
My 2 cents.
Theodore
Well said, Theo - want to write for MC? You wouldn't believe our benefits program.
I dunno. What's the pay like?
Theo
I thought Ian was part of this site. All I see is pro Republican crap, where is the counter?
-d0g_p00p
The pay is the adoring response of fans like poop.
Hell, we may even have celebrity responses!
Post a Comment
<< Home