Tirades and Revisionism

I made the mistake of reading Paul Jackson's tribute to Ronald Reagan in the Sun yesterday. Ordinarily, I ignore his columns because about all they do is get my blood pressure up, but I thought that he might have something useful to say about Ronald Reagan.

Silly me - I should know better. Among the myriad things that completely irritated me about Jackson's column was the following statement: "Reagan -- who has been so misrepresented by the Lib-Left". First of all, it irritates me when someone uses a memorial occasion to play their little political games; second, as with all stories, there are two sides to it.

So, let me see if I can point out the second side of some of Jackson's commentary:

1. Jackson Writes: "Paradoxically, had his movie career not gone into decline, he would never have got into politics, and the Soviet Union might today rule the world."

By implication, Reagan defeated the Soviet Union? I don't think so - not even mildly close to the reality. First of all, Reagan wasn't even a sitting President at the time the Soviet Union collapsed. Further to claim that US foreign policy (whether Reagan designed or not) was a primary mover in the collapse of the Soviet Union is at best hubris.

2. Jackson Writes: "As governor, he also forbid public schools from banning openly gay teachers from the classrooms."

I admire Reagan for this move. However, when it is praised by the likes of Jackson, it reeks of hypocrisy. Jackson, along with his fellow extreme right-wing commentators have been on the front lines of fostering anti-gay prejudice in this country. If he so admires Ronald Reagan, why not emulate his more positive aspects?

3. Jackson Writes: "Carter had undermined America's position in the world by surrendering the valiant pro-western Shah of Iran to Islamic radicals, and today we now know just what the horrifying result of that has been, and America was being mocked and its people held hostage to world terrorism. "

Hmmm...let's see, this is a particularly rich vein of misrepresentation. First of all, the US helped put the Shah into power. Second, Jimmy Carter couldn't have made any overt moves in the region short of outright invasion, which would have triggered a world war. The Shah was seen by many Arabs as something of a despot, and clearly was not exactly well-loved by Iranians. (Let us not forget that the Iranian PEOPLE were the ones in the streets when the Shah was finally overthrown.

If you take Jackson's view of things, Reagan's presidency was something of a heydey for the United States. Let's review some of the other side of that equation:

a) The "Star Wars" Program: Possibly one of the most laughably ambitious defense projects ever undertaken. The available technology at the time guaranteed that the program would fail, but only after spending billions of dollars trying to make it happen. The only people that benefitted from this gaffe were the defense contractors.

b) Economics. Ah yes, the era of the now infamous "Reaganomics" program. A time when deficits soared out of control, social programs were gutted ( the effects of which are appearing in the form of a public education system on the verge of collapse; a medical system only accessible by the very wealthy ), and generally speaking, social darwinism took hold. The growing gap between rich and poor in the United States continues to amplify itself, with students "graduating" from an education system that leaves them barely literate in English.

c) Foreign Policy. In case anyone has forgotten, it was under Reagan's watch that the United States intervened disastrously in numerous countries in Central and South America. Propping up dictators whose only redeeming quality was an apparent sympathy towards the United States, and deposing legal governments that the US felt were "problematic" for reasons of dogma. Whether Reagan personally drove such decisions, or he just let things 'run their course', it was on his watch, and therefore, on his head - so to speak.

Reagan's "victory" in Iran was a matter of timing. The Iranians couldn't hold the hostages forever, and simply chose to wait for a 'change of regime' before they released them. Reagan had little or nothing to do with it all.

On Jimmy Carter: Of course, Jackson also conveniently ignores the Camp David accords that started a decade or more of relative peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Ah yes, Carter's presidency was disastrous - he helped dig the US out of the economic hell that broke lose after the Oil Embargo; dealt with the aftermath of the US pullout in Vietnam, among other accomplishments.

I am neither a fan nor opponent of Reagan's - I disagreed with him on a number of fronts, but Jackson would do well to look at Reagan objectively, and not try to build Reagan up at the expense of his predecessors.

As usual, I find myself seeing Jackson's "facts" as distorted and skewed - mostly to fit his delusional view that anything "right wing" is inherently "good". A historical review of Right-Wing governance in Canada and the US is hardly reassuring:

Reagan - spent the US into all-time high deficits, cut government programs to help the poor, and generally left the economy of the US in a shakey place.

Bush Sr. - Continued to lead the US through deficit after deficit.

Bush Jr. - Has led the US into a war that was as costly as it was unnecessary. He has racked up the biggest deficits in US history, and polarized much of the world against "The Western Countries".

By comparison, Bill Clinton - a Democrat, presided over the most prosperous 8 years the United States had seen in decades.

In Canada, we have the following:

Brian Mulroney: A man more memorable for his voice and chin than his policies. He spent this country into debt like a drunken sailor. Money was frittered away on all sorts of things - none of which seem to remain in place today.

Mike Harris: Supposedly balanced the books in Ontario, but at great cost to education, health care and public infrastructure. When the Harris government was replaced by the McGuinty Liberals, an audit of the books found a government about to run a huge deficit. Makes one wonder.

Gordon Campbell: Is busy modelling himself after Ralph Klein and Mike Harris. He's engaging in the kind of nasty, bull-headed economics that his predecessors have, with more or less the same pointless, damaging results.

Ralph Klein: I save the best for last. A monkey could have balance the provincial books over the last decade. Oil revenues have been at all time highs for years. Blind economic ideology has led this Premier to privatize everything in sight, with nary a glance to whether the changes are in fact beneficial to the people or not. He has engaged in horrifyingly devestating cutbacks to government programs in this province, without any regard for the impact of such changes. Ralph looks like an economic success, the reality is he is a disaster looking for a place to happen.

Yes, right wing governments are _SOOO_ good for us. They remind us of all the reasons that a balanced government is so important.