Michael Ancram, the UK’s Conservative foreign affairs spokesman and, remarkably, Tory party deputy leader, is one of those decent, well-intentioned and utterly ineffectual people who make their way to the top in Western democracies. Here’s his big new idea:

“Michael Ancram has called for renewed co-operation and dialogue between mainstream Islamic countries and the West – in a move to outflank the international terrorist organization al Qaeda. The Deputy Conservative leader has written to Tony Blair highlighting his paper “From Clash to Dialogue: an answer to al Qaeda”, in which he proposes a “big initiative” based around a new Grand Congress of Reconciliation.”

Oh yes, yup, sure, that’ll do the trick.

Why do I call them ‘health mullahs’? Well, because of the way in which they will use any information, however irrelevant, to justify their faith and their fanaticism:

“When the Commons health committee published its reflections on Britain's obesity epidemic two weeks ago it provoked an immediate media feeding frenzy. The revelation that a three-year-old girl had become the youngest casualty of the epidemic made headlines both here and abroad. It was contained in the second paragraph of the 146-page report and was clearly placed to add drama to the central message that the Government, the food industry and parents had to wake up to the threat.”

Well, this it turns out is the truth about that poor child:

“Then it emerged that the girl was not, after all, a victim of the "obesogenic" environment - one which encourages over-eating and sedentary behaviour. Instead, she had a rare genetic defect which affected the appetite control mechanism located in the hypothalamus in her brain. The result was she had a ravenous appetite immune to the efforts of her parents to control it and unaffected by junk food advertising, school sports policy or government behaviour.”

And then, of course, there’s this charming story:

“Birthday kids at Duxbury's Chandler School next fall will get dragon stickers, special seat covers and starred birthday sashes they can wear all day. But no cupcakes - they're bad for you. The tradition of cupcakes at school birthday parties died last month when the School Committee unanimously ratified a new handbook that redefines the way students celebrate in class.

Words fail me, but, given stern Corner injunctions against profanity, that’s probably just as well.

From John Reid, the UK’s health minister, of all people. Check out this report from the Guardian:

“Mr Reid said that the middle classes were obsessed with giving instruction to people from lower socio-economic backgrounds and that smoking was not one of the worst problems facing poorer people.

"I just do not think the worst problem on our sink estates by any means is smoking, but it is an obsession of the learned middle class," he said. "What enjoyment does a 21-year-old single mother of three living in a council sink estate get? The only enjoyment sometimes they have is to have a cigarette."

He’s right on any number of counts, although, as we have discovered in billionaire Nurse Bloomberg’s New York City, it’s not just the “middle classes” who are obsessed with bossing about the plebs. The war on tobacco has long since ceased to have any connection with public health (everyone knows that it’s a dangerous pastime). What it’s mainly about these days is public penitence (the drama of the ‘reformed’ smoker), power (people like pushing other people around) and an expression of social superiority.

Two other gems from this report: the first was the criticism from the thugs over at Action on Smoking and Health that Reid was somehow being “patronizing”. To hear that claim from an organization dedicated to the proposition that adults are incapable of taking decisions for themselves is, quite frankly, quite remarkable. The second comes from the reliably pointless British Medical Association (it’s sort of like the AMA but, somehow, even worse) gibbering on about the ‘damage’ caused by passive smoking. I always thought that doctors were meant to dispense accurate information. The BMA clearly does not think that rule applies to its own pronouncements. It’s time to scrap it.

Whatever you might think of SUVs (as for me, I don’t even own a car), there’s no doubt that they have become a handy symbol for the puritans, scolds and busybodies who make up far too much of the enviromentalist movement. It’s no surprise, therefore, to see that the city of Paris is looking to ban them (at the same time, needless to say, as expanding facilities for bicyclists, some of the most annoying people ever to weave across a road, but I guess that’s a controversy for another time…) and that London’s mayor Ken “endorsed by the Economist Livingstone " has had this to say on SUVs:

They were "bad for London -- completely unnecessary." Their owners were "complete idiots."

Hmmm. “bad for London,” “completely unnecessary,” a “complete idiot”, now those words remind me of somebody.

Ken…Ken..Ken?

Another portent of prudery on display in the UK. Thong sellers put up a (entertaining) poster of some of their products near a mosque. A couple of complaints ensued, followed by a warning from the Advertising Standards Authority. What nonsense. If worshipers at a mosque (or, for that matter, a church) want to act as aesthetic policemen for their immediate environs, they should do so the old fashioned way – by coming to a (paid) accommodation with the owners of the billboards in question. Freedom of religion is one thing, exquisitive over-sensitivity to the customs of each particular sect is quite another.

Now, about the FCC...

Dismal regional election results for Tony Blair over in the UK, in part, undoubtedly, because of his support for the Iraq war, but to blame this debacle purely on Iraq (as some will do) would be wrong. Beyond Iraq, Blair’s government has also done much to alienate support on the left for its supposedly centrist tendencies, while many on the center-right who supported Labour in the general election will have returned to the Tories both attracted by that party’s more effective leadership and repelled by the government’s fixation with regulation, taxation and the EU. The perception that Blair is a little, how shall we put this, flexible in his attitude to both truth and, more generally, honesty, will not have helped his party either.

There was a dismaying result in London where the demagogic Ken Livingstone, a politician whose viciousness is matched only by his incompetence and dishonesty, was (relatively) narrowly re-elected as mayor. Incredibly, he was endorsed by the usually sensible Economist and the usually even more sensible Stephen Pollard. The reason for this folly? The ‘congestion charge,’ which has (repeat after me) absolutely nothing to do with market forces and absolutely everything to with Livingstone’s longstanding dislike of the autonomy and the freedom that the automobile can bring.

So can we look forward to Michael Howard in Number Ten next year? No. At this stage in the electoral cycle, the Conservatives need to be doing far better than this. Under Howard they are back, but they are not yet in.

Bernie Shaw: “I’d just like to say something…We failed the American people with our coverage…I certainly missed a lot.”

Wolf Blitzer: “We’ve learned a lot about this presidency since his two terms in office.”

Paula Zahn: “I just wanted to add, Wolf, I do think there is new material coming out now about Ronald Reagan. With the distance of years we have the ability to get information…When there is a death, I think there is a respectful difference. I’ve heard people say the media is going overboard. In fact, it is entirely appropriate to go back and find what this man meant in the news media, to the world.”

I appreciate the posting--it surprised me. It also happened to be on my birthday, since you posted 14 minutes after midnight. You've made the week of the President's passing even more unforgettable for me, which I didn't think was possible.

However, I apologize if I left out some info that may be misleading people. The Russians were civilian contractors, not soldiers. And although I'm sure President Reagan would appreciate the irony of Russian soldiers noting his death with quiet solemnity, I think maybe your average Joe Schmoe (Ivan Schmoevovitch?) Russky appreciates his new version of Russia just as much as Russian soldiers do.

I just read your earlier post from the Air Force captain and the enormity of it all hit me. Our guys fighting with the Russians as allies in Afghanistan as liberators. Amazing. Trying to wrap my head around the all the changes brought by Reagan is mind-bending.

I would be quite pleased if some publisher decided to print Lady Thatcher’s eulogy (and perhaps all those given yesterday) on a card, so bookstore clerks can hand it out to customers each time someone purchases Edmund Morris's "Dutch."

On the top of the card, it'll just say "Read this, and you can skip the book. You will understand him better this way."

Lady Thatcher must have known that the "The Soviet Union imploded on it's own-Reagan just happened to be there, and besides, it was all Gorbachev" types would be out immediately and she called them all out. She did it elegantly, but she did it, and her use of "Great Liberator" and the checking off of the East European capitals left no doubt where the credit belongs. (She's probably the only person in the world who could do it.)

To fallen soldiers, let us sing,
Where no rockets fly or bullets wing
Our broken brothers let us bring
To the Mansions of the Lord

No more bleeding, no more fight
No prayers pleading through the night,
Just devine embrace, eternal light
In the Mansions of the Lord

Where no mothers cry and no children weep
We will stand and guard though the angels sleep
Through the ages safely keep
The Mansions of the Lord

So I'm sitting in my home office, lump in throat, tears on cheeks. Watching the precision of the honor guard and the unbelievable reverence and beauty of the moment. And it dawns on me: he's done it again. He has an entire nation realizing again how beautiful this country is. Its people. It's respect for things great. Tradition. Class. There could not have been a departing gift so powerful. His first lesson to me in 1980, when I was 10. His last, today.

Although I was not old enough to vote for Reagan, my parents followed his administration very closely and I, consequently, heard many of his speeches. From his speeches I gained a greater appreciation of, and interest in, the ideas and principles of our founding fathers and the Constitution. So much so that years later while I was reading Donald Kagan's Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy I was struck by the following statement:

"Every leader who makes any impression at all acts as an educator for good or ill, knowingly or not. His people pay attention to his words and deeds as to few others, and he contributes to their vision of the world, their nation and themselves, and the relations among them."

No better statement could be made of the impact that Reagan had on our nation in general and my generation specifically. he reintroduced us to the principles upon which our nation, and its greatness, was based. If the aforementioned quote was an accurate description of the impact of Pericles on Athenian society it is certainly true of President Reagan's impact on America.

I stood in line from 8pm to 1am last night for the Rotunda viewing. I met a man who came all the way from Granada to pay his respects. I met an 11-year-old boy who, when I asked him what he knew about Ronald Reagan said, "He told Mr. Gorbachev to tear down the wall and he ended the Cold War." He told me in a school assembly he got to be President Reagan and read that part of the Berlin Wall speech (I'd like to send my kid to that school!). And then, when I finally stood in front of President Reagan's casket at 1:10am et, I had intended to say a prayer, but I was so awe-struck I couldn't think of anything to say. As I walked down the West Front steps upon exiting, I started to admonish myself for forgetting to say the prayer, but then I cut myself a break for not knowing how to act in the presence of greatness -- I'd never been there before.

Leta Hix
Arlington, VA

I took a train from NYC to DC last night and returned immediately this morning after viewing the President's coffin.

I waited in line for 4.5 hours (1 AM - 5:30 AM) with thousands of members of the Reagan Revolution and it was worth every minute. The crowds were in good spirits as they made their way through the mazes of lines, but after we got through the metal detectors, the mood changed. When you exit the final security check, you walk out onto the main level of the Capitol's West Front and there was silence. A solemnity took over as people made their way to the entrance into the Capitol. The line moved from the south side of the House to the middle of the Capitol and from there people ascended a staircase into the Rotunda. I passed through a doorway into the Rotunda filled with the faithful, the honor guard, the great artwork of the Rotunda, and the flag draped coffin. Several people cried and the whole minute inside the Rotunda was exceptional.

Brian F. Gardner

What a glorious sendoff Washington is giving our late President. Not wanting to be redundant, I do want to share my experience from standing in line from 7:30 p.m. until we entered the Rotunda at 12:10 a.m. I was surrounded by a real snapshop of America -- the most diverse crowd I have ever seen.... But [what impressed me the most] were the two blind people in line. Think about it for a minute -- blind people standing in the heat for hours on end to pay tribute to someone they [likely] had never seen or would never see. Amazing -- God bless America and God bless the Gipper.

John Hawkins
Alexandria, VA

From a reader:

Don't over-analyze about the Spider-Man anecdote. I have a friend who loves telling that story about Reagan, and the actual quote was something like "the first thing I read in the paper is Spider-Man, to see if those wrestlers have gotten down to the ring yet." He was making fun of Stan Lee's ridiculously slow pacing.

GILLETT-NETTING v. BARNHART, No. 03-15442 (9th Cir. June 09, 2004) Two minor children conceived by in-vitro fertilization after their father's death are entitled to insurance benefits under the Social Security Act because they are their father's legitimate children and thus his dependants under Arizona law.

To read the full text of this opinion, go [here].

The LA Times story on the problems of the "neocons" offers this by way of definition:

"Neocons" — best known for advocating aggressive foreign and military policies — are in the painful zone between distinction and disfavor in Washington. They are losing battles on Capitol Hill. Their principles have stopped appearing in new U.S. policies. And where neoconservatives were once seen as having a future in Republican administrations, the setbacks in Iraq could make it difficult for the group's leading members to win Senate confirmation for top posts in the future.

Let's see. Goldwater talked about winning nuclear wars and lobbing warheads through Kremlin windows. National Review called for rollback, not containment. Meanwhile, Krauthammer and Frum opposed the war in Yugoslavia while National Review supported (and Pat Buchanan wanted to send the US Navy to protect Croatia). When Bill Kristol offered his plan for a new foreign policy, he deliberately did not use the word "neoconservative" but neo-Reaganite. Etc, etc, etc. Is anybody seeing my point yet?

Another reader who was there:

I was at the funeral procession with a group of friends yesterday. Three things really got my attention, some of which have been commented on elsewhere. First, obvoiusly there were people from all over the country. I talked to one lady who owned a marine salvage business in Texas and had come up for the procession, and was going to the Capitol later last night. She thought it was the least she could do in return for all Reagan did for us. I met many more like her.

The second thing that I noticed was the mood - I had expected it to be more somber than it was. People were laughing, telling stories about when they first voted for him, how bad it was in the 70s, what a wienie Carter was (is) and how much Reagan had accomplished. Obviously people were appropriately somber when the caisson and riderless horse passed by, but all in all the atmosphere was one of celebration rather than grief.

The third thing that really captured my attention was how the crowd pulled for the members of the military as they stood at attention in parade order prior to the start. It must have been brutally hot standing in the middle of Constitution Avenue in parade dress, much of the time at attention. After the first few servicemen were overcome and collapsed (to be immediately replaced by the person behind them in formation), the crowd began watching for signs of distress. As people in the crowd saw a serviceman who was having trouble holding their salute, or showing other signs of fatigue, they would almost will them to stand up, and then alert rescue workers who would go to their assistance. Having participated in the World War II Veterans' Parade on Memorial Day, I've now seen up close twice the way the public supports our military.

As they say, not bad, not bad at all.

From a reader:

Mr. Goldberg:
The funny thing is, of course, is that Wilson was quite reluctant to enter the war and was harshly criticized for his attempts at isolation--especially by the likes of Republican internationalists Theodore Roosevelt, Leonard Wood, and Henry Cabot Lodge--during World War I. But five months after being elected on the slogan, "He Kept Us Out of War," and a month after being inaugurated for his second term, Wilson asked for the war declaration--and it was granted to great applause in Congress and among the public.

Insofar as American involvement in the war is concerned, almost from the beginning, the United States was supporting the allies--and the Germans were bound and determined to stop it (to include acts of sabotage--for an example, see Jules Witcover's Sabotage at Black Tom). American financiers and manufacturers readily provided money and raw materials to the Allies and American volunteers were found in the ranks of the Allied armies--and were never pursued by U.S. authorities, despite strong German protests. And let's be frank, the Germans did not do themselves any favors with their own high-handedness especially as it related to unrestricted submarine warfare and the infamous Zimmerman Telegram.

Odd as it may seem today, among our WWI allies, France was much preferred over the United Kingdom by Americans. First, there were the historical associations dating back to the American Revolution; many Americans saw helping France and serving in the French military as akin to paying a debt owed to France for our own independence. Second, France was a sister republic in a world of crowned heads and autocrats. Third, one of the Democratic Party's constituencies--Irish Americans--were suspicious of Britain as were many American policymakers who were upset by the British blockade against Germany that often resulted in U.S. ships being halted on the high seas. Fourth, in the face of the Americans' determination to establish their own independent army on the Western Front, the French dropped their idea of integrating American soldiers into French units and generously offered to help train and equip the American Expeditionary Force. The British kept asking or demanding that American men be used as a replacement pool for the British Army. This did not go over well with the U.S. Army--who took it correctly as a slight on its professional potential--or the U.S. public which not like the idea of its young men being used as a natural resource. Finally, the French military had an air of la glorie that was born of the First Empire (American officers were quite fond of Napoleonic comparisons) and buttressed by such battles as the Marne and Verdun.

After World War I, there were plenty of conspiracy theories about how the United States was goaded and beguiled into war by Allied propaganda and pushed into war by industrialists and financiers who wanted to make scads of money on armaments and the like. The "we fought the war for Halliburton" routine we hear today is at least a collaterial descendant of the post-1918 accusations about why the United States entered the Great War. Thus, as World War II approached, Congress passed some strong legislation to ensure that we would not be dragged into another European war. As soon as the war began in earnest, however, FDR began to think of ways to help the allies--which meant maneuvering around Neutrality Act--especially after, to the surprise of many, France fell in June 1940. It is interesting to note as well that, almost immediately after 1918, the U.S. Army and Navy fully expected to fight in another European war and during the interwar years laid the plans for the military expansion and industrial moblization that won World War 2.

Regards,
Scott Belliveau
Lexington, Virginia (and you may use my name)

Jon - I don't really disagree with any of that. Though someone recently told me that Norman Podhoretz now says in his new book that he coined the term neocon in the mid-1950s. We'll just put that aside.

Anyway, again I don't necessarily say that neoconservative means a former liberal. That was Ramesh's response. Though the former liberal thing is obviously a big part of the intellectual history. Here's how I put it in my much maligned three parter ( Here, here, and here) on "neoconservatism":

The word "neoconservative" was coined by Michael Harrington and the editors of Dissent to describe their old friends who'd moved to the right. It was an insult, along the lines of "running dog" or "fellow traveler." Or perhaps the "neo" was intended to conjure "neo-Nazi," the only other political label to sport the prefix. As Seymour Martin Lipset, one of the most-respected social scientists of the 20th century and an original neocon wrote, the term "was invented as an invidious label to undermine political opponents, most of whom have been unhappy with being so described."

And speaking of that endless column, my whole point about neoconservatism is that it is a word which distorts more than it reveals, is used irresponsibly by critics and adherents alike and should be interred along with all of the once-important distinctions of the left -- Schactmanites, Lovestonians, Fabians etc. Those on the so-called paleo right love the neocon label because it allows them to perpetuate a myth that the conservative movement has been hijacked. The reasons liberals and many self-described neoconservatives use the term are many, but one of them is as a way of asserting moral or intellectual superiority to just plain old "conservatives."

Indeed, I continue to find it hilarious that self-described neoconservatives (and the liberal New York media establishment which listens to them) still talks of National Review as if it is a "paleo" or "Old Right" publication, while the self-described paleos claim that NR has been completely taken over by neoconservatism. These assertions cannot both be true and it is further evidence that the word should be thrown away. NR is merely and proudly conservative and needs no prefixes. At least that's how I see it.

Dear K-Lo,

I was fortunate enough to be able to attend President Reagan’s funeral procession yesterday as well.

I won't tell you about all the pomp and circumstance, or the sad beauty of a state funeral procession for the death of a beloved president, other than to say that it was like the death of a king. I’ll leave the sweeping descriptions to the media though. The things you won't read about are the many beautiful little moments that took place.

Grown men weeping openly, and young children standing in awe, not quite able to understand whom this President Reagan was, but fully aware of the solemnity of the moment and that something very important was happening.

So many small things happened that I will never forget. Like the ten year old with the too large glasses looking up at the big Marine Corps photographer saying, "You're a reporter? I'm a reporter too. I write for my school newspaper. We're not as big as your paper is though. And I'm not so much a writer as a cartoonist really."

Overhearing the old men who didn't know each other figure out that they’d stayed at the same hotel at the '76 convention when Reagan challenged the incumbent President Ford, and where they heard the concession speech that ignited a movement. The father and his two sons who'd driven straight through the night from Missouri, who simply said, "We had to be here." Or the five year old that instinctively took his baseball cap off as the caisson passed by who looked up at has father and whispered, "Daddy, take your hat off", and his father nodding and smiling at his son through his tears, having been so completely overcome with emotion that he had forgotten to remove it.

The fighter jets buzzing the crowd in the missing man formation. Seeing the first flight group, then the second, then the third, and finally the fourth. And just as they reached Constitution Avenue seeing one of them take off at a 90-degree angle straight up until it was forever gone from sight, a beautiful symbol of Reagan’s entrance into Heaven.

What a beautiful day.

Sincerely,

Jordan Gehrke

Who knew a post about the Reagan dime would take us here? From a reader:

You’re getting into my enemy’s enemy territory, here. I wish the USA could have stayed neutral or at worst joined the Brits, but the Brits wouldn’t let us. They forced the issue by impressing American sailors of English/Irish origin/descent.

The challenge was posed to us by the British, but on behalf of all of old Europe, including France. What was at stake was America’s novel definition of nationality, that an Irishman born a subject of George III’s conquered Ireland could in fact choose to become an American. We had to fight that war with old Europe and win it.

From a reader with an intriguing email disclaimer:

Strangely enough, I am also on the side of the British during the Napoleonic wars. I say “strangely enough” because the United States joined Napoleon (Reference the war of 1812).

------------------

... Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader.

From a reader:

Paul Johnson wrote one of those short "Penguin Life" bios of Napoleon.

Here's the Publishers Weekly recap:

From Publishers Weekly
The career of a different kind of celebrity hound is examined in historian
Paul Johnson's Napoleon. Johnson (A History of the American People) contends
that Bonaparte sowed the seeds of the devastating warfare and totalitarian
regimes of the 20th century. Stressing that the Corsican general was
motivated by opportunism alone, Johnson traces his rise to power and
expansionist bids, arguing that the most important legacies of his rule were
the eclipse of France as the leading European power and the introduction of
such enduring institutions as the secret police and government propaganda
operations

From a reader:

Jonah:

In reading your "Buffy" column Friday, with the references to
Spiderman, I remembered that Reagan once said that in reading the
newspaper, he would read the comic page first, and the first strip he would
read was Spiderman. The media, of course, implied that this was further
proof that Reagan was a simpleton.

But it occurred to me that so many of the qualities of Spiderman were
apparent in Reagan. First is the philosophical starting point that with
great power comes great responsibility. And that responsibility is to
actively fight against evil, wherever it may be found. In the Spiderman
story, Uncle Ben dies because Peter Parker chose to step aside and not get
involved in a situation that didn't appear to be his problem. Reagan
could have taken the position that rolling back communism was not really
America's problem-- so long as it was contained and not causing us any
problems, what did it matter. Instead, he did what he did.

The notion that there is good and evil in the world, though not
specific to Spiderman, is a very comic-book type worldview, and Reagan
wasn't afraid to express express that worldview even though he was
lampooned for it. Which leads me to another similarity. Reagan, like
Spidey, was a happy warrior. Throughout the years, how many times has
Spiderman thanklessly rescued J. Jonah Jameson from various predicaments,
with nothing to show for it but more bad press ? Even though Jameson
continually says hateful and untrue things about him, Spiderman just sort
of laughs it off, and jokes that it is all part of being a super-hero.
Spiderman also always displayed a sense of humor when dealing with
villains, and a certain self-effacement that was similar to Reagan's. He
never displayed the anger of Batman, or the self-righteousness of Superman.
He did what he did because that was his duty, knowing that, as the song
goes, "action is his reward."

In writing this, I realize I run the risk of portraying Reagan as a
crudely drawn, comic-book figure-- but what I'm trying to say is that the
values that Reagan represented were in many ways mythic and transcendant.
Its not so much that Reagan was like Spiderman, but that Reagan embodied
the heroic qualities that too many people think only exist in comic books.

Rereading my Wilson post I noticed that it might seem like I think Napoleon was an obviously bad guy. I don't know that I believe that. He did put a stop to the French Revolution -- surely a favor to us all. As as for all the war and invading, I don't know what to make of that in the modern context. Obviously, when in doubt, I side with the British. So in that sense alone, I'm anti-Napoleon. Also, I've developed a soft spot for the Austro-Hungarian Empire thanks to reading a lot of Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn over the last year (and listening to my Slovakian father-in-law). So I don't know.

Derb, Rick, other Cornerites? Any thoughts on what we're supposed to think about Napoleon?

John - I don't want to get bogged-down in this either. But, I will throw in a few things I believe to be true. World War I was not really a war we needed to be in. It laid the groundwork for much that has gone wrong in America and the world since then (including World War II). The manner in which the liberal Wilson and liberal intellectuals fomented and exploited war fever in this country remains unprecedented in American history and was, in a great many respects, fascist. If you think McCarthyism was bad, the Red Scare of the Wilson Administration was far worse in almost every respect. The Fourteen Points may have had beneficial consequences for some Europeans, indeed I'm sure it did. But, Wilson himself used them as much as anything else to buy the support of liberals and leftists at home. Napoleon, was hailed as the "great liberator" by much of Europe. Indeed, so was Hitler, at first, by Ukranians eager to get out from under the yoke of Stalin. Wilson wasn't a Hitler -- or a Napoleon -- but you can come pretty far short of that standard and still be a bad dude.

Also, I think the rule at National Review is that every time you say something nice about Woodrow Wilson, Charles Kessler drives up to your house, rings the door bell, and leaves a burning paper bag full of dog droppings on your doorstep. So don't answer the door barefoot.

John that works for me. But, truth be told, renaming the Moscow stock market after Ronald Reagan would give me goosebumps.

It's not that outlandish, there are quite a few things in Eastern Europe named after US presidents, particularly Woodrow Wilson (grr. boo).

John - "Ironic" would be one word for it. "Awful" would be another. How about we demolish the Reagan building (or any number of other Federal buildings) and name the hole after Reagan. He'd like that better.

But what he'd really like is if we established a government program of privatization called the Reagan Free Market Initiative. It could go around privatizing government agenices and afterwards we could put up a little sign saying "another government agency privatized by the Reagan Free Market Initiative."

Or something like that.

From the Onion:

Suicide Letter Full Of Simpsons References

STORRS, CT—University of Connecticut sophomore Aaron Bennett, 20, was found dead of an apparent sleeping-pill overdose in his campus-area apartment Saturday, a suicide note riddled with references to the popular TV show The Simpsons on his desk.

Bennett appears happy in a March photo taken in his bedroom.

"Outwardly, Aaron seemed like a gentle, quiet, stable person," dean of students Kathleen Ernst said Monday. "But clearly, he must have had a darker, troubled side that he kept hidden. The only thing we can be certain of is that, to the very end, he really knew his Simpsons."

Friends and family are struggling to comprehend the dean's-list chemistry major's motivation for taking his own life, as outlined in the three-page suicide letter.

"When death comes so suddenly, it can seem incomprehensible," Ernst said. "It certainly doesn't help matters that Aaron's note begins, 'No banging your head on the display case, please. It contains a very rare Mary Worth in which she has advised a friend to commit suicide.' How do you even begin to explain something like that to his parents?"

Bennett's cousin, Tracy Hogg, said she did not know that the young man was despondent, but did know that he was a big Simpsons fan....[There's more...]

From a reader:

Am I the only person who remembers that these same networks and pundits who are remembering Reagan as "pragmatic" also cried incessantly when the Reagan movie was released and the studio decided to cut the "he who lives in sin shall die in sin" line? That movie debacle was less than a year ago, and it seems like nobody remembers it (which is a testament to how awful it was and how few people saw it). While everyone is jumping on the Reagan bandwagon, let's not forget that a major network tried to release a fictional portrayal of Reagan and his legacy and that it was ultimately released on Showtime and received fairly decent reviews from the lefty critics. They can't have it both ways; they can't hail his pragmatism less than a year after trying to portray him as some religious zealot who was completely unsympathetic to people dying of AIDS.

From a reader:

Watching the Funeral on NBC ( I know, my own fault for being on that channel ) and old Tom made mention of the city on hill speech but just had to throw in the "fact" that many minorities continued to feel left out of Reagan's plan of prosperity. This from the man who looked far more somber the night he had to say "it looks like Ronald Reagan has won by the largest landslide in history" that at anytime during Reagan's funeral procession. Sorry had to vent to someone. Well Keep up the good work! Cant wait for the book.

No that's not the latest pseudo-documentary out of Bollywood about a crapulent liar who goes on a crusade to make an Indian industrialist look bad.

I'm referring to my exchange with Ramesh yesterday. Even though I end up agreeing with Ramesh about 92% of the time in here, whenever there's ever the slightest friction between us I get these emails from people saying "can't we all just get along?" as if Ramesh and I are feuding. Maybe it's our writing styles or something -- Ramesh's humor is like a dry martini where you just say the word "vermouth" a couple times as you pour the gin. But, don't worry, Ramesh and I are good friends. In fact, speaking of martinis, he's even been invited to chez Goldberg for dinner tomorrow night.

Interesting story:

U.N. weapons experts have found 20 engines used in banned Iraqi missiles in a Jordan scrapyard along with other equipment which could be used to make weapons of mass destruction, an official said Wednesday.

The discoveries were revealed to the U.N. Security Council by acting chief U.N. inspector Demetrius Perricos during in a closed-door briefing. The text was obtained by The Associated Press.

But how would all that water reach the people standing in those long lines? Senator Rick Santorum enlisted the young people working for the Senate Republican Conference he chairs to spend the night walking cases of water through the many lines so that no one would go thirsty. One young staffer, who insisted she not be identified, said that Democratic staff were helping the GOP's water brigade.

The Senate Republican Conference also passed out 5,000 copies of the text of a Senate Resolution Honoring President Reagan to give all of us waiting a reminder of some of the reasons for Reagan's greatness ("as a lifeguard . . . saved the lives of 77 swimmers").

The people mourning President Reagan tonight came from all walks of life. I talked with Dean Workman, a Dallas, Texas, resident who was just 10 when Reagan became president. Workman vowed to attend Reagan's funeral and flew to Washington, D.C. this week to do precisely that.

Try to snatch the definition of neoconservatism from my hand.

Actually, of course you're right in that my definition is pretty flimsy -- but I thought it was kind of funny.

But then again, the "adult former liberal" definition doesn't hold up too well either. I know you don't truck with much of the "who's a neo?" nonsense. But if all it took was former left-liberal (Podhoretz, Bill Bennett, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Ben Wattenberg, Perle) or even former socialist-Communist (Kristol, Lipset, Novak, Muravchik et al) credentials then many of the giants of National Review were neos too -- even though so many so-called paleos claim them as their own. Frank Meyer, Whittaker Chambers and James Burnham come to mind.

Again, put the word out to pasture.

Rod, Ramesh -- If I didn't say so before, Welcome to the Conservative movement.

(Did I mention that Pat Buchanan attended my bris?)

Rod, Ramesh & all you formerly liberal readers -

Before "neoconservative" meant bagel-snarfing war-monger, it meant someone who was once liberal and became conservative (hence neo conservative). I take some pleasure in that Rod and Ramesh -- the Louisianan Catholic (now living in Texas) and the Kansas-born Catholic -- were both liberals in their youth and are hence neocons, while I -- cosmopolitan-demi Jew, scion of the chattering class, from the Upper West Side of Manhattan not three blocks from Zabar's -- was always a conservative and proud of it. I vividly remember the deep malaise that beset my family during the Carter years and the spirit of joy which overtook the Goldberg household when Reagan won. In my high school, the rebels loved Reagan and I am the better for it.

From a reader:

It's fantastically ironic that you'd use Roddy Piper's character to embody Reagan's personal ideological crusade, because John Carpenter tried to savage Reagan with "They Live." It contained the standard liberal flights from rational thought about the 80's: Homelessness, conspiracies among the rich to get richer at the expense of the "little guy," etc. etc.

Your use of the bubble gum quote (excellent, BTW) is like Limbaugh's use of (Michael Moorite) Chrissie Hynde's tune on his show.

Anyway, Piper's acting, the fight scene with Keith David, the 80's babe actress with the haunting eyes, a true classic no doubt. The corner deserves to have a minor "They Live" thread.

Now, if I were Karl Rove, I'd be recommending to the president that he announce an initiative to fund stem cell research - adult stem cell research, that is, because it has shown more promise than fetal stem cell research. After all, isn't it supposed to be about bringing relief to patients?

LET TRIBUTE RING FOR THE MAN WHO LET RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RING

TELL YOUR CONSTITUENTS TO RING CHURCH BELLS AT 1PM EDT FRIDAY

Dear Colleague:

Many Americans are looking for a way to show their gratitude for the life of Ronald Wilson Reagan, who did so much for religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Most notably, Reagan helped restore the right of religious assembly for hundreds of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain.

It would be a fitting tribute then for houses of worship across the country to peal their bells on the day of President Reagan's funeral in Washington, D.C.

I will be asking my constituents -- and I recommend that other Members of Congress ask their constituents to do the same -- to ring bells in city halls and houses of worship as President Reagan's funeral concludes at 1pm EST (12pm CDT, 11am MDT, 10am PDT) on Friday. This would be an impressive gesture -- bells ringing simultaneously across the continent in tribute to President Reagan.

Dr. James Dobson, among other national broadcasters, will encourage his listeners on his radio show Wednesday and Thursday to consider ringing out their appreciation and gratitude for President Reagan on Friday at 1pm EDT.

This will give your constituents a unique opportunity to be a part of the celebration of Reagan's life, and at the same time, underscore President Reagan's contribution to religious freedom the world over....

Sincerely,
/s/
Dana Rohrabacher
Member of Congress

As a Southern Californian who has defected to the North (alas, my wife!), I could not make the viewing of the casket. My father, however, went with an aunt and uncle and this is what they had to say:

2:30 AM - Arrived at the freeway exit to the Library
5:30 AM - Actually able to exit freeway
8:30 AM - Finally in line at the Library
11:00 AM - Viewed the casket - Color guards were especially impressive
12:30 PM - Arrived back at the car in the community college parking lot.

According to my father, the crowd is unbelievable. The folks in front of my family were from Afghanistan, with the wife knowing very little English. This family, who had emigrated to the US in the early 90's, drove from San Jose (7 hours, in case you are wondering), as he felt Reagan had a hand in his achievement of freedom. The people behind my family were from Marin (if you can believe it!). These folks had an infant that was born April 14th, who also made the trip with them.

The crowd in general is a cross-section of Americana. There are people of every age, creed, color, and size. My father did mention, however, that there was less of a showing from the black community, though I wonder how much of that has to do with the location of Simi Valley. Apparently, the energy of the place is astounding. Though it is a sad time, there is a certain peace and sense of relief that is abuzz among the crowd.

and one I should have made. From a reader:

You say that Bush and Reagan are a lot closer in ideology. How do you make that comparison? On tax cuts and some social issues I agree with you. However, on the biggest issue of them all, big government, Bush is clearly no Reagan. The idea of Reagan pushing for a massive new entitlement (prescription drugs) is laughable. This is why Bush is in so much trouble with his base.

Of all the leading candidates, Reagan obviously has the most consistent principled stand, on both domestic and foreign policy. Nixon has an onorable anti-Communist record and, if he has been somewhat ambiguous on domestic questions at times, he would seem to be, on balance, acceptable to conservatives--if he can avoid the temptation to which he has succumbed in the past, the temptation of assuming that the conservatives are in his pocket and therefore distorting his position to court the Liberals.

It is on the question of fitness for office that I have encountered conservative hesitance about Reagan. These hesitations seem to me to miss a major fact. While Reagan's governmental experience may be short, he is the only conservative in a generation who has had the actual experience of carrying solidly conservative principles into practice in a major state. Furthemore, he is doing it with enough success to gain the grudging admiration of skilled observers who are far from sympathetic to his ends. And the objection that he lacks a grasp of foreign policy was effectively dispelled in his recent debate with Robert Kennedy on "Town Meeting of the World," an encounter from which he emerged (again, in the opinion of neutral and unsympathetic analysts) clearly superior.

From a reader:

Jonah... Ohfercryinoutloud... is this whole debate taking place because K-Lo won't allow the Kirk/Picard debate?

From a reader:

Jonah,

I went to the library to pay my respects last night. I arrived at the college at 9pm and left at 6am. It was a long night; however, I met some really wonderful people throughout the night. One scene I need to share was the entire night while waiting in a very long line, you could look around at the highway in the distance and all you could see were headlights of cars carrying people coming to see the President. It was a scene straight out of "Field of Dreams", and I am not the only person to make that statement. It was a subject of conversation through the whole night. Even at 4am the line of lights continued. It truly overwhelmed me. Everytime I think of RR, I will imagine all the lights. It was beautiful.

Thought you would like to know.

From a reader:

I can hear him speaking now:

"I am reminded of a story about President Reagan which I tell in detail in my long-awaited autobiography My Life, available June 22nd online at Amazon.com and bookstores across this great land of ours. . ."

Andrew Sullivan appears to still be miffed at Ramesh for saying the comparison of Schwarzenegger to Reagan is fatuous. I still agree with Ramesh. But there might be an apples and oranges thing going on here. After linking to this op-ed about Reagan's optimistic spirit , Sullivan writes, "Arnold is certainly far closer to Reagan's spirit than Dubya."

I'm not sure I agree with this either, but let's assume it's true. It seems Sullivan is talking about personality more than ideology (this would be consistent with his recent obsession with McCain as Kerry's VP). Ramesh is clearly talking about ideology. No matter what Schwarzenegger's boosters may claim, at the end of the day Schwarzenegger is a liberal Republican. Reagan was not a liberal Republican. Maybe -- maybe -- Schwarzennegger and Reagan have similar personalities, even similar political personalities, but in the realm of substance and ideas, Bush and Reagan are far closer than Reagan and Arnold. And unless we're going to get into the truly fatuous debate over whether or not labels "mean" anything, that should count for a lot more.

If the press talked about Ronald Reagan the way it has been talking about Mikhail Gorbachev, it would stand accused of superpatriotism. Time ran a glorious 18-page cover spread on the Soviet “leader” (not to be confused with right-wing “dictators” and “strongmen”), including an interview whose questions were so deferential they might have been prepared by the editors of Pravda. (Nothing about Afghanistan, Poland, human rights.) One typical query: “The events of recent weeks, such as the U.S. announcement of the ASAT test and the spy-dust charges, could hardly have been helpful in terms of preparing for the summit meeting. Is this type of thing seriously damaging?” Columnists Tom Wicker, Joseph Kraft, and Mary McGrory are gloating over Gorbachev’s propaganda skill. Wicker: Gorbachev “has been running rings around [Reagan] in pre-summit propaganda.” Kraft: Western Europeans “are pleased to have a Soviet leader who, in the European tradition, is no pushover for the Americans.” Miss McGrory: “The only fear that Reagan has is that the country is too decent for his own good and therefore a setup for the malevolent, ruthless, godless Kremlin commissars.” For all three, the real question isn’t whether Gorbachev is serious about arms control, but whether Reagan is.

Moscow (Aug. 20)--Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev today pleased with Western nations not to impose sanctions against the Soviet Union. In an address to the Supreme Soviet, he stressed his nation’s efforts to control human-rights abuses, extend the franchise, and withdraw troops from Afghanistan. “Our system is imperfect,” he said, “but we are working diligently to correct it. All we ask is time. The legacy of a century can’t be dismantled overnight.” He outlined a three-year plan to guarantee a system of one man, one vote, with opposition press and parties free to organize and express demands and grievances. In Washington, congressional leaders reacted with skepticism. “This is the most abhorrent system on earth,” said Senator Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.). They’ve had plenty of time. We don’t intend to let them stall any more. Justice delayed is justice denied.” Kennedy attacked what he called Administration “coddling” of the Soviet regime.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they let Clinton speak at the funeral. He is an ex-president and is too much of a weather vane to say anything truly objectionable. But if people want this to be a bi-partisan event, it'd be nice to find a Democratic statesman in the Truman tradition to speak. Unfortunately, with the possible exception of Joe Lieberman, I can't think of anybody with the stature and the credentials who would fit the bill. Scoop Jackson's gone and so much went with him.

And, no, of course I'm not stunned Clinton wants the limelight.

NOT only were John Kerry's sched uled New York and Los Angeles star-studded fund-raiser concerts next week with everyone from Barbra Streisand to Whoopi Goldberg both scratched, but Jann Wenner's VIP cocktail party, which was to precede the June 10 Madison Square Garden affair and was to have everyone from Bette Midler to Paul Newman, was also scratched.

Tickets to both fund-raisers were slow. Tough for Kerry to catch a break. A convention coming up? Former President Clinton has a book coming out. These Los Angeles and Madison Square Garden concerts? Former President Reagan makes his final farewell. Trying for TV? Current President Bush is all over with D-Day. Hoping for mobs? Smarty Jones got the biggest overflow crowd ever. A week he's in town we had Tony Soprano, Tony Awards, even the marriage de jour of J.Lo to another Tony, Marc Anthony.

From a reader:

Mr Goldberg:

The fact that Reagan is by far more popular than Clinton is proven by the fact his detractors feel they need to make the case for Clinton. Can you imagine if Clinton had died anyone would have felt it necessary top point out Reagan was more
popular than Clinton was?

The former First Lady believes her long-suffering husband recognized her when he stared into her eyes for an instant before taking his last breath, his daughter Patti Davis writes.

"It was the greatest gift he could have given me," the former First Lady told her family.

Sobbing, shaking and knowing death was imminent, she held her husband's hand about 1 p.m. Saturday as he inhaled deeply and opened his eyes for the first time in five days.

While most thought Alzheimer's disease had robbed former President Reagan of all his memory, the last look he gave his wife was one of deep acknowledgment, Davis writes for People magazine in its upcoming edition. "At the last moment when his breathing told us this was it, he opened his eyes and looked straight at my mother. Eyes that had not opened for days did, and they weren't chalky or vague," Davis recalls. "They were clear and blue and full of life. If a death can be lovely, his was."…

From a friend:

This is totally ridiculous, because while Reagan's POLL numbers may (or may not) have been lower than Clinton's, in both elections he won a majority of the vote, and in 1984 won 61 percent. In two elections Clinton never got more than 49 percent. And remember, in 1980 there were three candidates too.

And from a reader...

hi if clinton was so popular why did his own vice president run away from him during the electiones and still lost ,clinton may think that he lost because of the fact that he ran away from him but when your vice president runs away from you it shows something is wrong

It also infused Reagan with a sense of mortality and mission. He was convinced when he returned from the hospital that he had a limited amount of time to achieve his ambitious agenda. Yet his goals were not only political but also personal. With Cardinal Cooke, who came to visit him, Reagan struck a spiritual note: "I have decided that whatever time I have left is for Him." The late Mother Teresa, who visited the White House that June, told Reagan, "You have suffered the passion of the cross and have received grace. There is a purpose to this. Because of your suffering and pain you will now understand the suffering and pain of the world. This has happened to you at this time because your country and the world needs you." Reagan was speechless. Nancy Reagan wept.

We're hearing from lots of liberals, including Paul Krugman, that Clinton was more popular than Ronald Reagan according to the polls. This is true, but it means less than they think. First, as someone pretty deeply involved in the impeachment mess, I can tell you that a great many poll analysts believed that Clinton's popularity from 1998 on was as much a product of the public's exasperation with the impeachment drama than any actual fond feelings for Clinton. Telling pollsters you liked Clinton was a way to tell the government to "move on." Indeed, if memory serves, when Clinton wasn't under attack from us meanies, his popularity tended to drop. Second, the people who keep talking about how popular Reagan was tend to be TV talking heads who don't want to talk about his unpopularity because it was his unpopularity which indicated his greatness. The Today Show crowd thought Reagan was nuts for talking about evil empires and for putting nukes in West Germany. It's the conservatives who keep talking about the derision that he received from the media and intelligentsia.

Third, the fact that Clinton's numbers were so high is a testament to the fact that Clinton desired to be popular more than he desired to be effective.

Clinton did do a few bold or semi-bold things. He signed Welfare reform in defiance of his base (and, hence, solidifying Reagan's legacy further). He championed NAFTA (again: solidifying Reagan's legacy further). He fought an air war in Yugoslavia (I'm not sure what that says of Reagan's legacy). But with these and one or two pther possible exceptions, Bill Clinton was concerned with maintaining the affection of the public more than he was concerned with doing anything particularly special. I'd be delighted to argue that further, but my sense is this is one of these controversial things you can say about Bill Clinton and his "philosophy" of triangulation which kept his poll numbers high while losing the House, Senate and scads of state governorships and legislatures.

Nothing could be more different than the example of Ronald Reagan, who left the GOP much stronger than when he found it. Reagan was popular precisely because he had the brass to buck the conventional wisdom, endure the scorn of the intellectual class and the media. That's why he's more popular now than he was then; people only remember his bravery and his accomplishments. As time goes by, Clinton's popularity may go up or down, but it will be the popularity of -- to put it charitably -- a character, not a leader. I doubt very much there are that many honest liberals who believe that Reagan's place in history and in the minds of the American people will not outshine Clinton's by orders of magnitude in the generations to come.

Update Stupid typo was fixed in first sentence.

Here's a fun item from John Fund's column fom yesterday:

A new book by former Air Force secretary Thomas Reed reveals that the Reagan administration allowed a Soviet agent to steal gas-pipeline software that had been secretly designed to go haywire on a catastrophic scale. The ruse led to a June 1982 explosion in the Siberian wilderness that Mr. Reed says was "the most monumental non-nuclear explosion and fire ever seen from space." It crippled the Soviet's secret techno-piracy operation because they could longer be sure if what they were buying or stealing was similarly booby-trapped. They had reason to worry: Contrived computer chips found their way into Soviet military equipment, flawed turbines were installed on a gas pipeline, and defective plans disrupted chemical plants and tractor factories.

Andrew Sullivan has a very good post on AIDS and Reagan (he also responds to Ramesh.)

Having grown-up in New York City during the 1980s, when ACT-UP seemed to be acting up everywhere, I never understood the obsession with Reagan and AIDS. As Sullivan says, Reagan could probably have done and said more earlier, but there was this almost mystical notion at the time that if Reagan would say the word "AIDS" it would be half-way to cured. Part of it, it seemed to me, was a desire to paint AIDS as an affliction that could hit anybody at any time no matter what their orientation or the type of activity they engaged in. Some people believed this to be true. But it was also very clear, at least on a cultural level, that a lot of people wanted this to be true. Many felt that homosexuals wouldn't get any help from the federal government unless the threat of the disease was expanded beyond a politically marginal population. Fair enough, but at the same time we were being inundated with exhortations about the need to have a "full and frank" discussion about AIDS anybody who refused to toe the left's line on the issue was shouted down. Anybody remember the reception of Michael Fumento's The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS? In effect it wasn't a full-and-frank discussion the gay left wanted, it was mandated ideological conformity.

Ramesh's emailer makes a perfectly fine point, though I think he misunderstands or, more likely, I miscommunicated my point. I probably should not have said "liberals and leftists" so much as, say, "media liberals" or "celebrity liberals" or something. I don't expect the New Republic or the New York Review of Books to suddenly embrace Reagan as a hero. But it says something that all of news networks have been -- with a few notable exceptions -- fairly unstinting in their praise of Reagan. It may not always be the sort of praise conservatives would like but it is praise -- in terms of his greatness, his kindness, his accomplishments etc -- that really can't be taken back. I have no doubt we will get lots of somber tut-tutting about Reagan from the Nation crowd (indeed, I don't see as many leftists waiting out of good manners as Ramesh's emailer), but Katie Couric can't turn the cameras back on Reagan to rip him apart next week. Ditto Tom Brokaw, Jennings and others. The stuff we're getting now in the major media is the stuff that will be written down in the memories of a generation, whatever postmortem exposés Mother Jones or various bloggers may run in the coming weeks.

On the way into work this morning, a 30-something radio D.J. opined that President Reagan was the reason that many of us grew up as conservatives. I know that's true of me. I didn't understand all of the policies and arguments, but I knew that if a conservative is what Ronald Reagan was, then I wanted to be that, too.

One day when I, too, "slip the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God," I plan to give a warm hug to President Ronald Wilson Reagan. I will tell him, "Christ changed my heart, but you changed my mind."

-W. A. Davis, Memphis, Tenn.

Andrew Sullivan writes that Ronald Reagan was "was definitely more easy-going about modernity than the current Republican leadership." He rarely mentioned abortion; had an openly gay couple sleep over at the White House; "appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court, and in Anthony Kennedy, gave birth to the judicial father of the gay rights revolution"; opposed an initiative to keep gays out of public schools; and was able "to reach voters in socially liberal milieus."

I am not sure that I agree with Sullivan about what "modernity" means, and I am pretty sure that I do not agree with him about Reagan's stance on social issues. He did not mention abortion less than current Republican politicians, and it is hard to imagine any present-day Republican politician, including Bush, making the straightforward anti-abortion argument that Reagan made in Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation. (I also don't accept the distinction between presidential speech and action that Sullivan makes in his post; in a democracy, controversial speech is an important action.) If Sullivan wants to argue that current Republican politicians have an objection to female Supreme Court justices as such, or that Reagan would have approved of the jurisprudence of his third-choice pick for the Powell vacancy on the Court, or that the shift in the political salience of social issues is entirely or even mostly the result of changes in the composition of the Republican party, let him make it. But so far, it sounds as though he would rather remake Reagan in his own image.

An email:

Thanks for your comments about the Left's praise of Reagan. I think Jonah
misinterprets the praise for Reagan from many on the Responsible Left.

For the most part, the Responsible Left is showing restraint and decorum.
The time between death and a funeral is not the time for tough, partisan
attacks (like the kind Lowry is hurling at Kerry, while Kerry shows tact by
curtailing his campaign). This is the time to focus on the deceased's
contributions. Not to focus on his shortcomings.

While some balanced policy criticism is OK, the Responsible Left is
largely letting Reagan's admirers mourn in peace. Anyone on the Left who
rejoices in Reagan's death is perverse (except in the sense that death
brought release from a horrible disease).

The time will come to more strongly attack the Reagan's negatives.
Conservative attacks on Kerry and whining about the media--like I see in The
Corner--make this restraint seem less deserved, but the Responsible Left
(this writer included) won't take the bait.

...is exactly how I want Communist regimes to react to Reagan's passing. He would certainly have it no other way. From the Associated Press:

HAVANA - Cuba harshly criticized former President Ronald Reagan and his policies on Monday, saying he should ``never have been born.'' In the first reaction to Reagan's death from the communist government, Radio Reloj said: ``As forgetful and irresponsible as he was, he forgot to take his worst works to the grave,'' the government radio station said. ``He, who never should have been born, has died,'' the radio said.

From the Associated Press: Jun. 7, 2004 07:10 AM

CAIRO, Egypt - While former President Ronald Reagan was remembered fondly across Europe and in much of the rest of the world, Arab nations recalled the Reagan days as a dark period. Islamic militants set up a Web page for visitors to celebrate the death.

The Reagan years marked the beginning of what Lebanon's culture minister, Ghazi Aridi, called a "bad era" of American Mideast policy that he said continues to this day.

‘Interesting speech by Dutch foreign minister’ is hardly the stuff of headlines, but in an interesting speech last week, Dutch foreign minister Bernard Bot signaled that even some of the more enthusiastic europhiles are having their doubts about the way that Brussels is wielding the power it has extracted from the EU member states.

"We must realize that there are limits to the degree of integration that Europeans can digest," he said. "People must be given a chance to adjust. There is a widespread sense of unease about Europe, about loss of national identity, and about an EU that increasingly intrudes into their everyday lives. The European Union is, after all, a union of member states. That is something we should never forget." He said that "patronizing" Eurocrats were pushing through idiotic regulations "such as telling window cleaners how to hold ladders". By doing so they were "creating a culture of tolerance for rule-breaking" by forcing local authorities to defy the law.”

Wise words, and, as was clearly the case with the Daily Telegraph writer who reported the speech, it is difficult not to be amused by this jibe:

“In a caustic aside, Mr Bot mocked the "arrogance" of states "such as France" which threatened to expel those countries that rejected the constitution after a popular vote without daring to put the text to their own people.”

Quite.

A number of readers have asked me what I make of Hitchens' closing point:

The fox, as has been pointed out by more than one philosopher, knows many small things, whereas the hedgehog knows one big thing. Ronald Reagan was neither a fox nor a hedgehog. He was as dumb as a stump. He could have had anyone in the world to dinner, any night of the week, but took most of his meals on a White House TV tray. He had no friends, only cronies. His children didn't like him all that much. He met his second wife—the one that you remember—because she needed to get off a Hollywood blacklist and he was the man to see. Year in and year out in Washington, I could not believe that such a man had even been a poor governor of California in a bad year, let alone that such a smart country would put up with such an obvious phony and loon.

However, there came a day when Mikhail Gorbachev visited Washington and when the Marriott Hotel—host of the summit press conferences—turned its restaurant into the "Glasnost Cafe." On the sidewalk, LaRouche supporters wearing Reagan masks paraded with umbrellas, in mimicry of Neville Chamberlain. I huddled from dawn to dusk with friends, wondering if it could be real. Many of those friends had twice my IQ, or let's say six times that of the then-chief executive. These friends had all deeply wanted either Jimmy Carter or Walter Mondale to be, presumably successively, the president instead of Reagan. They would go on to put Michael Dukakis and Lloyd Bentsen bumper stickers on their vehicles. No doubt they wish that Mondale had been in the White House when the U.S.S.R. threw in the towel, just as they presumably yearn to have had Dukakis on watch when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. I have been wondering ever since not just about the stupidity of American politics, but about the need of so many American intellectuals to prove themselves clever by showing that they are smarter than the latest idiot in power, or the latest Republican at any rate.

Me: To be honest, I'm not sure what to make of this. I think the piece on the whole is so full of cheap shots that whatever cleverness Hitchens is attempting here is drowned by the bile. That said, one gets the sense that he's saying all of the people he hung out with were wrong, including presumably himself, and that while Reagan may not have been a fox or a hedgehog there was good reason to prefer him or the Bushes to their alternatives. Or not. For a normally clear writer, he's downright opaque here. Still, I do think it's an interesting point to close on given that the editor of Slate has made so much hay -- and presumably some amount of money -- calling George Bush an idiot in a fashion that fits Hitchens' experience to a tee.

Of course, Hitchens doesn't mean (or he is wrong when he says) that it is a tendency of American "intellectuals" to denigrate the intelligence of Republican presidents and not American "liberals."

Dear Peter,

This morning at the French radio I thought a moment hearing you(YOU) answering [a remark] (A):

A - Reagan didn't "tear " the wall down, Nixon, Carter and the previous presidents had the whole job already done, He only took advantage of it for his own profit! He only destroyed the social security, ruined the poor people. He was stupid and brought the Neo-cons to Washington with the today consequences!

YOU: Reagan was not stupid, he was deeply kind and proved being president of the actors unionists, then Governor then President that he was very clever indeed. He was probably the best communicator ever. If He was not the only one to put the communism down, he contributed to it largely with the bluff of starwars that the russians couldn't follow….

He was probably the greatest President that America has ever had.

Actually, guess who was YOU?

Mr. Védrinne, former French socialist minister of Foreign Affairs!

This is the first time I heard a French Minister (more over socialist!) saying of a President, he was kind with the greatest respect and admiration!

I agree. Going by Andrew Sullivan's analysis one might assume that, say, Gary Bauer sprang ex nihilo to become a leading social conservative.

In no particular order:

1) I can't totally identify with the sentiments in the email I just quoted: I was for Dukakis in 1988, strangely enough.

2) I am rapidly losing patience for people who go on tv to explain, essentially, that what really made Reagan great was that he had put said television guests in high office.

3) There's also some political body-snatching going on. As Jonah has remarked at various times in the past, foreign-policy hawks tend to think that what was distinctive about Reagan was his anti-communism, supply-siders that it was his tax-cutting, etc. This is neither surprising nor especially damning. But some people, eager for a Reagan in their own image, make it sound as though he were a social liberal--as though he had never written Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation. To compare Reagan to Arnold Schwarzenegger is fatuous.

4) What does one do when a fiercely detested political opponent dies? Conservatives in the last two days have criticized some of Reagan's eulogists for their false praise, and criticized those who still attack him for their bad taste. We have the same problem when liberals die; it's something worth thinking about.

5) I don't wish to suggest that Alzheimer's disease is something we should want to keep around. But Reagan's death makes me think that Leon Kass may be on to something when he says that the decline of old age helps reconcile us to death.

6) Will Saletan's criticism of Reagan is that the president misidentified freedom with the absence of government. It is true that some of the things Reagan said lent themselves to that interpretation. But Reagan obviously did not believe anything so simple. He explicitly rejected libertarianism, let alone anarchism. Saletan writes that Reagan helped him to see that he is not a conservative because he does not think freedom is the absence of government. But President Bush doesn't believe that either; and whether or not Bush is a conservative, his rejection of that idea doesn't settle the issue. It is also worth keeping in mind that Reagan's political career and, indeed, most of his life took place against a backdrop threat of collectivism and (as Hoover put it) regimentation. A sensible conservative in this environment would have emphasized the individualistic elements of conservatism even if those elements were not the sum and substance of his creed, to be emphasized in the same way for all time.

7) Conservatives have rightly noted that Reagan's skills as a communicator cannot be divorced from the content of what he was communicating. If he had been a great communicator with Richard Nixon's ideas, he might not have been elected in 1980--and certainly wouldn't have been the president he was. The same thing is true of Reagan's much-discussed "optimism," which had a fairly specific political content that should not be airbrushed away.

I feel compelled to expound on Reagan's legacy today, as everyone must. I see that the NR crew is showing how Reagan affected domestic and foreign policy, and of course in those regards your guys and gals are incomparable. I just wanted to relate how Reagan impacted me growing up as a child in the 80s in Kansas City -- and since this is a tale to which you can relate, I felt like I had to let you know.

To me at that time, Reagan was not Reaganomics. He was not the ending of detente; he was not the media-ballyhooed "Great Communicator"; he was not the MX missile. He was simply The President. And I honestly feel this was the last time in American history when the vast majority of the American public looked to one man as Their President.

As a kid in the 80s, it had nothing to do with the minutuae of his policy. It had to do with his jellybeans.

He was the Jellybean Man. Everyone at Briarwood Elementary knew that he gave out jellybeans to visitors of the White House. He did that because he was one of us. He was the great guy who stood against the Soviets, and we kids knew just how bad the Soviets were. The Communists hated democracy; they chose dictators instead of letting the people run their own affairs. We knew how bad the Soviet system was. There was not even a question about it. It was Our Side vs. Their Side, and is there any child who cannot grasp such a fundamental concept?

When the Challenger blew up, our fourth grade teacher pulled in a TV to show us the news. Reagan's was the only calming voice that terrible day. Later, it was Reagan who called for the destruction of that terrible Berlin Wall. It was Reagan who reasoned with Gorbachev. It was Reagan who was instrumental in arranging glasnost and perestroika. We kids did not understand the details of Reaganomics or military policy or social conservatism. All we knew was that the communists were the Bad Guys, and Reagan was the leader of the Good Guys -- but maybe, just maybe, if the Russian system opened up, we could all get along. They could see how our way was better for everyone.

When Reagan's second term was expiring in 1988, all I could do was wish that dumb Constitution wasn't there, so that he could serve a third term.

Of course, I was just a kid. I didn't know the liberal objections to Reagan's policies. I didn't hear how he was oppressing the poor, or how he was supposedly breaking the law with Iran-Contra (Ollie North was a hero to us too). All I knew was that he was My President.

We never have had such a moment in our history since.

Sure, Bush Sr. had his moment of glory with the victory of Desert Storm. Sure, Clinton oversaw unequaled economic prosperity during the tech boom (whether he influenced it or not). Sure, Bush W. was there for us during 9/11.

But can any of them even approach the unifying force of Reagan? Could any of their challengers - Dukakis, Dole, Gore, Kerry? Is there any man or woman that the children of America could unite behind the way they united behind Reagan?

Sometimes, I miss the days of Reagan. More than my own personal youthful innocence, I miss the days when America could get behind its petty policy differences and unite behind its leader.

The three top articles at Slate: "Reagan's Stupidity" by Christopher Hitchens, "How He Wrecked the GOP" by Timothy Noah and "How He Misunderstood Freedom" by William Saletan.

Funny stuff, considering that Christopher Hitchens is one of the leading defenders of a Reaganite war lead by a Republican president most liberals deride as a moron (including Slate's editor); that Republicans now control the House, the Senate and the White House (and that they even gained seats in an off-year election); and that even Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton have credited Reagan with winning the Cold War and bringing a majority of mankind into the sunny uplands of liberty.

It's fun and worthwhile to point out that liberals and leftists detested Reagan not too long ago. But what's more important than any gotchyas on their hypocrisy is the fact that many of these folks may now be sincere. The fact that America seems largely united in its admiration for Ronald Reagan is a sign of his success in changing the country. It's funny, today there's this tendency among liberals and not a few conservatives to talk about FDR as if he was this great unifying figure. He was for a majority of people, but he was also one of the most deeply reviled and detested political figures in American history, including among a great many people we would call liberals and leftists today. For good or ill, it's a sign of FDR's success at bending the society to his will that we now think he was some sort of revered demi-god when he was in the Oval Office. It is an astounding tribute to his accomplishments that today -- less than two decades after his profoundly controversial presidency -- a majority of Americans, including the elite, are on roughly the same page about his greatness.

Here's what (CNN's) Bill Schneider wrote in 1984 in the New Republic:

"Reaganism is economic elitism. It is the view that hunger in America is merely anecdotal, that the homeless are homeless by choice, and that only the morally unworthy have been hurt by the administration's policies."

K-Lo,

As someone who continues to care for someone with Alzheimer's, and has done so since 1995, I can only think that while sad, the President's passing is a relief to Mrs. Reagan and his family. The toll of seeing such a great man succumb to a disease that does not discriminate, is a heavy burden. And whether it is your husband or father, mother or wife, there are times when it seems the weight of the world is on your shoulders. And while the President had shoulders broad enough to take on communism, to challenge the America people to reach their potential, and to look at the good no matter how small, rare is the individual who can shoulder the weight of caring for someone with Alzheimer's.

My dad, who is currently in a nursing home, first came to this country during the 1950's, and in many ways was the American that the President often spoke of. Hard working, independent, caring, and confident in his own convictions. Sadly, like the President in 1994, my dad was diagnosed with Alzheimer's, and like the President, he tried to put on a brave face for those of us around him. Seeing my dad's struggles with the disease, and my experiences caring for him, have given me a deeper respect, and greater gratitude for not only the man who is my father, but also the man who was and will always be, my President. My dad always spoke of what a privilege it was to be in this country. I think it is safe to say that he would have said that it was a privilege to have as our President, Mr. Reagan.

I think we could all say that.

Respectfully,

Paul Marc Oliu
Princeton, New Jersey
www.facesofalzheimers.org

[W]hat the critics forget is that Reagan stuck with this extremely tough medicine and made sure it worked, even at the large personal and political cost of the worst recession since the Depression itself.

In addition, the shouting match that still goes on about tax cuts obscures Reagan's truly lasting achievement: his refusal to let inflation any more become an automatic vehicle for higher taxes to finance a larger government. This so-called bracket creep was stopped in its tracks by the indexing of the tax rates. He retreated on his tax cuts after his initial triumph over Congress, but he left a tax system with lower rates, inflation protection, and fewer tax breaks....

History will be tough on Reagan as more is learned about his occasional sloth and inattention, but this wonderful guy could take the heat back then, and his legacy will be able to withstand more knowledgeable scrutiny far into the future.

I wish the President's casket could be taken to and from Washington on a train, traveling through as many states as possible, across the country he loved, for no man ever loved his country more than Ronald Reagan. I and thousands more would be honored to attend such a tribute. As it is we will have to settle for the television. And surprisingly, the coverage has been wonderful, especially the D. Day speech.

If anyone at the Corner knows of one or more really good videos of President Reagan, highlights of his life, presidency and speeches, please let us know. Our children, who didn't know the man, and spent most of their childhood hearing their parents moan about the "boy in the Whitehouse" need to see President Reagan and get a glimpse of the idealism of that era and the greatness of the man.

Thank you for The Corner and the whole website and magazine.

Loyal Reader

Mary Baker

Boulder, Colorado

Kathryn:

My favorite memory of President Reagan occurred after he left office. I was a researcher in President Reagan's speechwriting office. All former Reagan staffers were invited to visit him in his Los Angeles office, so when I made a trip out to California, I made an appointment to visit the President. As always, he made you feel completely at ease. What I remember the most about that visit is the fact that he apologized to me because he was not wearing a suit and tie. He was going to be in the office for only a few hours, so he was wearing a sports coat and a shirt open at the neck.

Before I left, I told him what an honor it was to work for him, how we didn't want to work at the White House, we wanted to work for him. He put his head down and said his trademark, "well..." I had embarrassed him.

Historians will argue for years about the effect of his policies, but there is no argument that President Reagan was a gentleman, a good, humble man.

Barbara Sedonic

And then there's Reuters. Apparently the only picture they -- or this site's editors -- could find was one of Reagan and Nancy with Michael Jackson (I guess pictures with, say, the Pope, Maggie Thatcher or Desmond Tutu say less than one with a reputed pederast). Anyway here's how they open their restrospective:

Reagan remembered as charming enigma

06.06.2004
11.00am - By JILL SERJEANT and ARTHUR SPIEGELMAN

LOS ANGELES - Ronald Reagan, who died on Saturday at 93, was one of the great mysteries in American politics -- was he the man in charge or simply a puppet, the master politician or a manipulated performer?

Even his official biographer didn't know what to make of him.

To his friends and supporters, Reagan was a man of charm and warmth, a politician of principle who made Americans feel good about themselves after years of doubt fuelled by the Vietnam war and the Iran hostage crisis.

But to his critics, he remained the B-movie actor of his earlier years, a puppet in the hands of aides, and a man of little substance who turned the most powerful job in the world into his last great performance.

After all, some of his best lines and stories came from the dozens of movie roles that he played, often as the male star's best friend and once as a chimpanzee's best buddy.

One of his memoirs was entitled "Where's the Rest of Me?" after a screen role he played in which his character's legs were amputated by an evil doctor.

The title posed a question that has haunted American political debate for years.

Tip O'Neill, the Democratic speaker of the House of Representatives with whom the Republican Reagan often jousted, once said, "He knows less than any president I have ever known."

Steve - You know this stuff a lot better than I do, but isn't there some story about some grungy Berkeley protestors surrounding his car and they chant (or hold up signs) saying "We Are the Future!" And Reagan takes out a pen and writes something on the back of a piece paper and holds it up to the window. It read: "Sell Your Bonds."

Whenever my wife and I see particularly skeevy, grungy, kids we say to each other, "Sell your bonds."

I always remembered a small item from the Weekly Standard (March 4, 1996) about Reagan. Rather than paraphrase it, or deny them credit, here it is entirely from Nexis:

The recent passing of former California governor Edmund G. "Pat" Brown brought back a flood of political memories. Journalist David S. Broder hailed him as "one of the true blithe spirits of 20th-century politics," "a visionary, " and "the most amiable of companions." Remarked a former Brown press secretary, "It used to drive me crazy that Pat had no mean streak."

Forgotten in all the gush was the fact that Brown ran one of the most despicable television ads in history -- against Ronald Reagan, in the 1966 gubernatorial race. The ad carried the title "Man versus Actor" and concluded with Brown's admonishing a group of balck school-children, "Remember: It was an actor who shot Lincoln." Today, we might refer to this as "hate speech."

Regan responded as only Reagan could: "Oh," he said, "Pat wouldn't say anything like that." Talk about a blithe spirit.

Reading the last ten entries on the Corner, 7 of them whine (in one way or another) about the reaction to his death.

Seven negative comments, three positive. Is that what Reagan stood for?

Aren't there enough good things to say about the man? Why do you focus on his critics and not on him?

Good morning, K-Lo,

Sometimes I feel guilty that I watch Fox News to almost the complete exclusion of CNN and MSNBC. But then there are times like today, when I turn to MSNBC and in the less than five minutes I watched, the anchor and Andrea Mitchell managed to squeeze in how the Reagans "alienated" their children, Nancy's consulting with astrologers, her "polarizing" impact and the dismissal of Don Regan (and his subsequent trashing of Nancy in his book).

Less than 24 hours after the passing of this dear man, who presided over a most significant eight years in this country, THIS is what they are talking about?

Not feeling so guilty anymore. Happily back to channel 16.

Molly O'Connor
Los Angeles, CA

P.S. If anyone out there could tell me the name of the funeral home in Santa Monica where Reagan is in repose, I would be honored to pay my respects today.

Here's a whole list of nice reactions and one classic from Danny Glover, who's probably not hanging around the Corner this morning:

"We all know Reagan's legacy, from the Iran-Contra affair to the funding of the Nicaraguan military in which over 200,000 people died. The groundwork for the move steadily to the right happened with the Reagan administration. People want to elevate him to some mythic level; they have their own reason for doing that."

From a reader:

Dear Jonah--

I've been thinking about Tim Noah's critical Slate article on Ronald
Reagan, and whether or not it's as tasteless as you suggest. And I
don't really think it is. For the next week or so, the media will be
full of Reagan-praise, and inevitably some of it will be used for the
scoring of political points (see also Wellstone, Paul). I suppose
it's fair that Slate gave us the other side of the coin, because
that's about all we'll get of that side for a while. And how much
better that it was a fairly substantive critique of Reagan's policies
rather than some weaselly backhanded praise ("Reagan's charm and
connection with the American people enabled him to destroy entitlement
programs and fatten the military-industrial complex while bankrupting
the Treasury" or somesuch).

When I heard Reagan's death announced on a live program on NPR,
someone in the crowd emitted a distinct "WOOHOO!" Now THAT's
tasteless.

Keep up the good work,

ME I certainly understand the point and, as I said, I don't mind critical pieces of Reagan from folks who disliked him. But this was the only piece they rushed to publication, and I believe it went up even before it was official he was dead. That's why I said "Slate's first instinct." Why the rush? Can't wait 'til morning, or Monday? This is what you feel the need to race the clock to get up?

Anyway, I'm sure there will be plenty of criticism of Reagan in the days to come. Historic presidents deserve criticism precisely because they do great things and nobody did anything great without stepping on some toes.

Sitting and watching the President's final White House speech from January 1989, one gets the distinct impression that he is speaking and thanking YOU for helping him during his 8 years in office. He is not speaking down to you, not telling you of HIS glories, of his accomplishments. Instead, he tells of a job well done by US ALL-all American citizens. As you listen to him recount the 8 years of his presidency, he makes you feel proud that in some small way, we helped HIM!!

How did he do that??

My family is from the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. They left that nation in order to come to America for a better life. They hated Communism almost as much as President Reagan.

I remember when I was 7 years old, in 1984, attending a speech by President Reagan in NJ. I don’t remember any of the speech, or many images from that day, other than the view of the backs of people’s legs…….I do remember that my family was extremely proud to be there, to see a speech by President Reagan. Growing up I learned why. Conservatives and moderates in America weren’t the only people on Earth that truly loved Ronald Reagan. People who lived behind the Communist Iron Curtain also loved the man. He was hope and freedom personified. Words fail me at this point. All I can think of is: Rest in peace President Reagan.

Michael Dobric