You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Lileks on Reagan
2004-06-07
It’s 1983; I’m working at the Minnesota Daily, in the editorial department. Smart friends, common purpose, and by God a paper to put out! It gets no better when you’re in your 20s.

We didn’t hate Reagan; we viewed him with indulgent contempt, since he was so obviously out of his depth. I mean, please: an actor? As president? (This from a generation that got its politics from “All The President’s Men.” This from a generation that would later embrace Martin Sheen as the ne plus ultra of all things presidential.) He was in a movie with a talking monkey, for heaven’s sake. That was all you really needed to know. “Bedtime for Bonzo,” you’d say with a smirk or a conspicuous rolling of the eyes, and everyone would nod. Idiot. Empty-headed grinning high-haired uberdad. Of course he was popular among the groundlings. It would be laughable if it weren’t so typical - he was just the sort of fool the voters could be trusted to elect.

Reagan was worse than stupid – he was conspicuously indifferent to our futures. It was generally accepted that he either wanted a nuclear war or was too dim to understand the consequences. It went without saying that he didn’t read Schell’s “Fate of the Earth.” It went without saying that he didn’t read anything at all.

Oh, it was a scary time. You have no idea. Reagan sent jets to attack Libya, for example. Something to do with a bombing of a nightclub in Germany – that was bad, sure, but raising the stakes like this was madness. Sheer madness. If they were angry enough to bomb a nightclub, how angry would they be now? We put nuclear missiles in Europe. Nuclear missiles! Sure, they were put there to counter a Soviet deployment, but if the Soviets ever used them we could use our other missiles. Responding to a provocation was so . . . provocative. And then there was the whole Central American situation – Vietnam, all over again. Grenada? Pathetic muscle-flexing just to make us feel good. We’re Number One! USA! USA!

Sometimes it all you could do was just put on “The Wall” on the headphones and take a long hit and find cold hollow solace in the music.

The miserable, depressing, cynical, defeatist music.

Dark times. The world might actually end not with a whimper, but a bang. The scenarios were many, but you got the gist – the Soviets made a move, and Reagan screwed everything up by pushing back. That’s how we saw it happening. He was just that stupid, just that stubborn. He’d blow up the world.

“The people have spoken, the idiots,” I wrote in my journal after he was elected in 1980. I was living in a boarding house a block from the Valli, an English major at the U, a college paper columnist taking all the usual brave stances: Republicans are repressed hypocrites, Playboy insults women, etc. (Interesting side note – my ratio of happy-fun-ball essays and tiresome polarizing screeds was, as now, about 3:1.) But then Reagan got shot. I didn’t like the guy; no, not at all, but he was the president. And hence he was my president. And I was down in the Valli Pub, watching the news. Andrea, a flatfaced barfly who sat in the dark basement all day drinking coffee and smoking Marlboros and watching TV, was hideously pissed that she was missing her soaps. “Why couldn’t they have shot him a few hours later?’ she said. Grunts of amusement from the rest of the slugs.

I wrote a column with her quote as the title. If I remember correctly it was well-received. Because her sentiment was, to use an archaic work, indecent. We were better than that. He was our president, after all.

Those were the days.

1984. We all believe that Mondale will win, because Reagan’s stupidity and inadequacies are manifest to us. We are thrilled when Mondale announces he will raise taxes. Stern medicine, America! But Reagan wins. I repeat: Reagan wins in 1984. Somewhere Orwell is smiling, man. You can smell the karma curdling.

1988. The world has changed; Reagan and Gorbachev The Savior were photographed in a chummy moment in the New York harbor. The world feels less dangerous, for reasons that seem indistinct. The Times runs one last picture of the Gipper walking down an open-aired hallway in the Rose Garden; his head is down, but he looks tall and broad and strong and content. I thought: I’m going to miss him.

Stockholm Syndrome! Stockholm Syndrome!

Vote Dukakis! Now! Fast! Ahhhhh.

1990: Iraq invades Kuwait. I wasn’t aware of it at the time, but that’s when I started to turn.

2004, June 5: I am reminded of the thrill I got when I heard the words “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Because you can sum up Reagan’s legacy by polling any random high-schooler and reading that line.

“What wall?” they’d probably ask.

The wall, kid. You know: The Wall. The fortified gash. The thin lethal line that stood between tyranny and freedom. I mean, we lived in a time when there was a literal wall between those concepts, and we still didn’t get it.

What you don’t know when you’re 22 could fill a book. If you write that book when you’re 44, you haven’t learned a thing.
Posted by:Steve

#6  The earliest known version of this observation is attributed to
mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot:
Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart;
to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.
Variations on this theme were later attributed to Disraeli, Shaw,
Churchill, and Bertrand Russell. (I misquoted Churchill to this
effect for years.)"
found it on the web, but don't ask me where.
Posted by: meeps   2004-06-07 11:10:27 PM  

#5  Cyber Sarge: is usually (an incorrectly) attributed to Churchill. Funny thing, I had always remembered it as being his - so who knows?
Posted by: Rex Mundi   2004-06-07 6:03:03 PM  

#4  Cyber sarge: Amen.
Posted by: Evert V. in NL   2004-06-07 5:07:11 PM  

#3  Chirac says history is not replicated. In other words, Iraq is not comparable to D-Day and WW2. But read these concluding words:

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.


That was Reagan and he was talking about the Soviet Union not Al-Q and the threat of terrorism but you could pin it on W's teleprompter and it would serve today as it did in Ronnie's time.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2004-06-07 4:41:52 PM  

#2  Peggy Noonan also had a nice remembrance in the WSJ this morning.
Posted by: Mike   2004-06-07 3:11:28 PM  

#1  I forget who said it: "If your not a Liberal when your 20 you have no heart and if your not a Conservative when your 30 you have no brain."
Posted by: Cyber Sarge (VRWC CA Chapter)   2004-06-07 2:53:30 PM  

00:00