Tags:


The link between Reagan's party and Clinton's persecution
April 2, 2001 8:23 AM   Subscribe

The link between Reagan's party and Clinton's persecution After power itself, conservative Republicans have wanted nothing more than to round out the 20th century with the ledgers balanced. They needed a Democratic Richard Nixon and a Republican Franklin D. Roosevelt. Tom Teepen makes a pretty good case here. Clinton wasn't Nixon, and Reagan sure as hell wasn't FDR.
posted by mac (16 comments total)

 
I've been around metafilter for a while now, and it seems like we get more and more freerepublic.com type of posts each day. Hardly a day goes by that I don't come across some latest "outrage" regarding those crazy Republicans or some other organization.

The sad part is that the discussion turns increasingly into bickering and the noise level increases exponetially.

Am I the only one thinking this way?
posted by Witold at 8:37 AM on April 2, 2001


You only say that coz you're a stinking [insert idealogy here] rat. If you joined the [political party] like me, you'd come to understand how there is only true path to achieving our nation's true potential!
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:48 AM on April 2, 2001


> Am I the only one thinking this way?

Yes. You're all alone. Lonely, isn't it?

(Joke. Czesc, Witek.)
posted by pracowity at 8:52 AM on April 2, 2001


Witold: we are forced to hear the vocal minority on MF. I've a concurring opinion.
posted by greyscale at 8:53 AM on April 2, 2001


Witold: Even though that would be better suited for MetaTalk, I somewhat agree. The theory is, that this began around the same time as the presidential election. To avoid steering totally off topic...yeah, I (insert feeling here) about this article.

sonofsamiam: The only true path is MeFi :)
posted by samsara at 8:55 AM on April 2, 2001


Can we officially declare Clinton old news? He's not in office any more, and he hasn't been gone long enough to discuss a legacy. Or at least not post about him any more until he actually does something noteworthy, like get arrested for public exposure or something?
posted by anapestic at 9:14 AM on April 2, 2001


I am with you witold. No more soap boxes.
posted by a3matrix at 9:24 AM on April 2, 2001


Well wait a minute here . . .

Though the tone of mac's post seems to reveal his political beliefs (beliefs I tend to agree with) that doesn't mean that the post wasn't meant to foster intelligent discourse.

There seems to be a resurgance in philoreaganism of late; a trend which I cannot for the life of me comprehend. I would, however, love to hear what conservative minded folks have to say about it.

Are they in the minority here at MeFi? Perhaps. But this shouldn't preclude them from expressing an intelligent opinion. All too often, this doesn't happen. Instead, I read complaints about the "liberal bent" of Metafilter.

So quit bitching about "bleeding heart" posts made by people like me, and write something intelligent that supports your position.
posted by aladfar at 9:29 AM on April 2, 2001


"There seems to be a resurgence in philoreaganism of late; a trend which I cannot for the life of me comprehend."

The trend is easy to comprehend. The electorate's mean (pun intended) IQ has sunk even further since 1980. Harping on, and celebrating President Reagan and his supposed accomplishments given credibility to our current dim President. I would flesh this idea out, but work calls...
posted by ParisParamus at 9:45 AM on April 2, 2001


Thank you, aladfar. Yes, of course I meant for it to lead to intelligent debate. I'm still a newbie, so wasn't sure if it was better suited to MetaTalk. Just the same: meant no harm, and would like to see thoughtful discussion.

Can we officially declare Clinton old news?

Anapestic: I think most people would agree with that. The only ones keeping him in the news seem to be conservative GOPers who want to shift focus from the current "resident". (IMHO)
posted by mac at 9:55 AM on April 2, 2001


The first thing that occurred to me on reading this is the rumor I heard (if I can find substantiation I'll link it) that the federal government is threatening to withdraw funding from the Metro (DC's subway system) if the sign at "National Airport" isn't changed to "Reagan National Airport." As of now the conductor of the train is required to announce it as "Reagan" etc., but apparently that isn't enough. What sticks out in my mind is the pettiness of many of the initiatives. Even if the current trend toward 'canonization' of Reagan is warranted (obviously very much at issue), some of the ways it's being done undermine it's credibility.
posted by jennaratrix at 10:01 AM on April 2, 2001


Well, I fully agree that Clinton is old news. But then ... so is Reagan.

mac, the question above was whether Witold's complain was better suited for metatalk, which it clearly is. It has hijacked the discussion of your very topical and appropriate post (though I'm certain we've discussed the Reagan Legacy Project before).
posted by dhartung at 10:25 AM on April 2, 2001


mac, I don't think it was your original posting that samsara thought should be in MetaTalk. I believe he meant the subsequent discussion.

I voted for Clinton twice. That said, I don't think it gets liberals anywhere to go around whining about some sort of conservative witch hunt. Clinton obviously made severe mistakes, and if the conservatives were slightly overzealous in their prosecution of him, they paid a price for it politically.

As for the apotheosis of Reagan, I'm not at all surprised or puzzled by it. Reagan was an immensely popular president, and the GOP gets points with the public by keeping his name in the news. And they honestly do think that he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I think.

I certainly don't agree with it, however. If I go to National Airport, that's what I call it. I refuse to say "Reagan National" to a cab driver. And the Metro sign thing is just nonsense. On the other hand, if Metro wants to claim that they don't want to change the signs because of expense or because it makes the name too long, they have no credibility. Every day on the red line, I go by the "Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan" station. I haven't been to the "U St/African-American Civil War Memorial/Cardozo" station yet.
posted by anapestic at 10:41 AM on April 2, 2001


It takes 20 years for the collective conscious to forget about something so that it can be resurrected afresh. Witness the sudden return to vogue of 1980's rock on the radio.

Nixon, who had been so vilified during his tenure and immediately thereafter, did a pretty good job of rehabilitaing his image so that by the time he died he was mourned as an "elder statesman" and almost nobody in the media said boo to it.

Reagan is just now 20 years in the past and also close to his own final exit. A whole generation of Americans only have vague memories of him from their early childhood, and the Republican establishment already views him as a god, so he's bound to get a good nostalgia effect.

Mark the year 2020 (or 2021) on your calendar and look at how your children will view Clinton then before passing judgment.

(it IS possible to discuss stuff like this without descending into polemics, you know)
posted by briank at 11:08 AM on April 2, 2001


(You're right, Brian, but it's far too easy to fall into polemics, and doing so scores points with those on your side without you having to actually put forth an argument.)

I only have a few moments ATM, so I'll only address one point for now, the Reagan Airport thing (though I'll be back! mu-wah-ha-hah!).

I haven't heard anything about any recent agitation WRT what to call the airport, but I certainly recall a huge backlash at the time it was originally renamed, including threats by many public officials to thwart the order however they could. (Yes, refusing to change the signs was one of the threats.) And while there were some legitimate arguments against the name change in the first place, there is no legitimate argument against recognition of the official name change by any lower government official or agency. The only possible reason is political or personal hatred of Ronald Reagan. And that's just plain silly. Put in perspective: Anyone in New York who refuses to refer to JFK as anything but "Idlewild," and isn't under the age of 70, will be looked upon as a political kook.

Worse, it's a slap in the face of the public, most of whom don't have a clue about the politics of it all. Sure, those of us in the Northeast know about it, but to Ma and Pa Bumblefart of Dubuque, Iowa, who are on their first trip ever east of Cincinnati, all they know is their ticket says "Reagan Airport." So officials who pettily insist on calling it nothing but "National" are pure troublemakers who ought to be fired if they won't comply, just as they would be dismissed for ignoring any other federal rules or regulations. (If a cab driver wants to refuse to recognize "Reagan" as an actual destination, fine, it's his lost fare. Though that would be illegal itself in NYC at least.)

And Nixon was easily rehabilitated because, once you get past the Watergate thing, he left behind a boatload of real, sizeable accomplishments. Also, many of the policies he enacted were downright liberal, which makes him much more palatable for the left. He was probably the most complex president we ever had, so there's something in his past to satisfy everybody to some extent. He just wasn't the pure evil a few make him out to have been.
posted by aaron at 12:49 PM on April 2, 2001



once you get past the Watergate thing

My point exactly...at the time, Nixon was all but crucified for his wanton disregard of the Constitution, but after time we've let this mellow into "the Watergate thing". Time heals all wounds.

(see next thread re:Kent State for a similar effect)
posted by briank at 1:37 PM on April 2, 2001


« Older surf art!...  |  Kent State student senate deni... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments