Remembering Reagan

Today is the 100th aniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth, an event which has prompted many retrospectives and reminiscences in the MSM and blogosphere alike. 

I would date the beginning of my own real political awareness to Reagan's campaign and election in 1980.  Nearly all of my high school teachers went out of their way to denigrate him and offer dire prophesies of the manifold ills that would befall us if he was elected.  "Ronnie Ray-gun", they called him; "a dangerous cowboy" who "confuses his movies with reality".  Some seemed sincerly and utterly convinced that he'd instantly provoke the nuclear armageddon which hed been hanging over our heads for all of our young lives.  Full of the rebelliousness of youth, I wondered about the shock-value of professing to admire Reagan, how "bad" one might seem to ones right-thinking" (actually left-thinking!) elders!

But before long I discovered that there were some opinions contra the groupthink I'd encountered.  Many of them were offered grudgingly, in a backhanded manner: "he's actually a pretty smart guy for an actor", "too bad he's not younger, he did a decent job as Governor of California", "anyone's got to be better than Carter", and "at least he'll have Nixon on speed-dial when he has to deal with the Russkies!".

My opinion of the man was alrerady beginning to change when I saw a clip on the news one night in 1980.  "Controversy", the newscaster informed us, "at the Republican candidates' debate in  New Hampshire".  On-screen I watched the now-famous footage of a bespectacled moderator asking the sound man to turn Reagan's microphone off and a controlled but visibly angry Reagan's icy response: "Mr Green, I am PAYING for this microphone!" as the crowd erupted in cheers.  Believe me, it made an impression on me, as it apparently did on many others.  I think that brief incident did more to demolish the negative stereotypes held by many of the public who really knew nothing about Reagan other than what they'd seen in the movies and heard from the left-leaning media.

Many years later, I learned of another interesting incident which has only recently become slightly known (thanks to the Internet).  In 1967, Governor Reagan and Senator Robert F. Kennedy were guests on a CBS program called "Town Meeting of the World" which featured a panel of students representing various nations who were given an opportunity to question Reagan and Kennedy on the hottest issue of the day, the Vietnam War.  At the time Kennedy was regarded as a front-runner for the 1968 Democrat presidential nomination, the heir-apparent to the "Camelot Dynasty", while Reagan was something of a curiosity to many people, the actor-turned-politician who was a fledgling governor ("only in California") and presumed to be wholly ignorant of foreign policy.

A funny thing happened.  Ronald Reagan made "Bobby" Kennedy look like a rank amateur.  The "actor" parried every thrust from the hostile students, challenging their erroneous statements and presenting an alternative viewpoint to their generally anti-American rhetoric.  With cool confidence he reeled-off facts and figures, and delivered cogent answers which demonstrated real mastery of the subject.  By contrast Kennedy came off as weak and uncertain, seemingly trying to claim both sides of the issues, and spoke mainly in generalities.

Kennedy's assassination less than thirteen months later has enshrouded his memory in a mixture of legend and myth, and it is extremely difficult to locate any publicly-available footage of the show.  A brief segment is available on Youtube which gives some of the flavor of the exchanges:

Robert Kennedy excoriated the aide who agreed to the joint appearance with Reagan and vowed (in rather salty language) never to appear with him again.

There were plenty of defining moments during Reagan's presidency - four in particular that I hope to comment upon in a future post - but since the current post has gotten awfully long I'll conclude with one of my favrorite parodies of Reagan, from the days when Saturday Night Live was funny:

Where are the bishops?

We have just returned from our annual midwinter sojourn to D.C. for the March for Life.  Every year on (or about) the 22nd of January, pro-life Americans converge on the capitol to observe the anniversary of the lamentable decision by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.

The Archlady and I - and each of the five archscions as they've arrived on the scene - have been making he trip for nearly fifteen years.  The March itself has been going on for thirty-eight years now.  We assemble, rally, march, tie-up traffic, mill-around outside the Capitol and the Supreme Court, visit our Senators and Representatives, and then quietly return home to begin making plans for next year.  The MSM barely deigns to acknowledge the March, much less provide any in-depth coverage or editorial examination of the serious issue at hand.  They know they can get away with it because with each passing year, even as polls indicate Americans are growing more and more pro-life, abortion-on-demand becomes a more entrenched element of the status quo.

You see, nothing has changed.  The immediate aftermath of Roe v. Wade was a time of raw emotion and righteous indignation that the Greatest Nation on Earth could grant legal protection to such a barbaric and immoral act.  The Eighties were a time of hope and promise, with the election of President Reagan and the effort to pass the "Human Life Amendment".  Alas, it failed, most of the activity since then has been in the direction of further broadening or at least codifying various abortion-related "rights".

Joseph Stalin famously said that "a single death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic".  This seems to be the attitude of the media, who are able to work themselves into a well-lathered state of agitation about a single death, as long as it's the death of a "suspect" who initiated a gunfight with the police and lost, the long-delayed execution of a convicted criminal whose guilt is beyond questions, or a cute animal.  Meanwhile the million-plus babies aborted each year are only a footnote, and afterthought, and certainly not someting that merits a mention in the nightly newscast or the morning paper.

Since 1973 the Catholic Bishops have leading the fight against abortion - sort of.  It is of course the unambiguous teaching of the Church, to which all of the bishops are to give assent, that direct abortion for any reason is gravely sinful and can never be permitted.  Many individual bishops have been staunch and visible leaders, the late Edward Cardinal O'Connor of New York comes to mind, but others seem to display a curious detachment from this issue.  I find it particularly scandalous that each and every bishop is not on hand for the annual observances in Washington, D.C. each and every year.  Sure, there will be a few who can't come for authentic reasons, but I really wonder whether the presence of the entire U.S. episcopate, in person or represented by a senior member of their local curia, would help us to extinguish this enduring holocaust even a little bit sooner. 

Why cannot the bishops resolve to do this?  It is not as though they don't know where Washington is, and none of them seems to have embraced poverty to such an extent that they are unwilling to fly - if only in coach!  They certainly find their way to the Nation's Capitol when one of their pet political issues is being legislated, and of course the U.S.C.C.B. has its headquarters there.  Speaking of this "sorry bench of bishops", as His Excellency Bishop Fabian Bruskewicz of Lincoln, Nebraska called them a few years ago, one wonders why they haven't done this.  Here we are, in an era when far too many bishops abdicate their God-given rights and responsibilities to govern, teach, and sacntify their own flock in favor of some lowest-common-denominator "policy" of the U.S.C.C.B., whom they seems to regard as the supreme authority in the Church.  How about having one of their annual meetings in D.C. during the week of the March?  Would the MSM dare ignore the entire episcopate - cardinals in scarlet and bishops in purple - marching at the head of +200k citizens down one of the main throughfares of the Capitol?  Perhaps they ask themselves, right now at least, "if this isn't important enough for ALL of the Catholic bishops to be there, why should we take any notice of it?"

Let me close by thanking all of those bishops who *do* come to the March every year, I didn't mean to imply that there were not many of them; my lament is that that even their witness is diminshed and diluted when so many of their brothers in the episcopate stay away.

Another Year Begins...

Wow - I didn't realize that it had been a whole month since I'd posted.  With this sort of performance I'm liable to lose my readership - all six of them!  Seriously, Merry Christmastide and Happy Hew Year!

it's been about a year since I started this little adventure and I'm wondering whether to wrap it up or continue a bit longer.  It's not that I haven't got anything to say - perish the thought - but I have so little free time that I don't feel that I am able to do justice to the subjects which matter to me. 

No, I'm not trolling for someone to beg me to keep blogging, just sharing what's on my mind.  That's sort of the purpose of this whole enterprise.  Anyway, I'm not one for "New Year's Resolutions" but if I'm going to continue I should "resolve" to post at least once a week to make it worthwhile.  But it's not a "New Year's Resolution"!!!

OK, if you've read this far you deserve some content.  So here goes:

1.) Tucson - MSM Frenzy - Obama's speech:

The events in Tucson were horrible, terrible, acts.  Acts of a deranged individual who actually wasn't a charter member of the "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy", the hyperventilations of the left and the MSM notwithstanding.  It is a lamentable shame that some leftist politicians and their allies in the MSM have sought to gain political advantage from it.  Fortunately the American people seem to be seeing through it.  The "alternative media" of the blogosphere has much to do with that.  The President gave easily the best speech of his term, probably his best since his single previous lifetime achievement, the speech at the 2004 Democrat Convention which nominated J.F. "Reporting-for-Duty" Kerry.

2.) Palin and Mania (not Palin-mania!):

It's astounding to me how the same folks in the MSM who've vilified Governor Palin in the most personal manner have been trying to claim the moral high ground in attempting to blame her for "inciting" the Tucson shooter.  Her response was quite good, but she shouldn't have had to make it.  Undoubtedly she'll be further pilloried for bothering to respond, at least one leftist pundit was castigating her on the air yesterday for "politicizing" the shootings  What is perhaps the most amazing is how commentators who otherwise strive to be taken seriously completely lose it at the mere mention of Mrs. Palin's name.  Personally I like her style but I question whether she's the right candidate for the G.O.P. in 2012, however I'd certainly vote for her if only to stick a finger in the eye of the MSM.  Which leads us to an interesting question:

3.) Obama and Palin (no Tucson):

According to their political opponents neither of them had sufficient experience to be president or vice president (repsectively).  Each has celebrity "star power" but they've both proven to be polarizing figures.  Has anyone else wondered whether things would be better or worse had the other become president?  Let's say McCain had been elected, pulled a "Harrison" (as in William Henry) and caught pneumonia during his inaugural address, and passed from this vale of tears in short order.  As of 1 February 2009 we'd have had an inexperienced, untested president thoroughly distrusted by the opposing party.  OK, that happened anyway.  But could things have been worse?  Or would they have been better?  I believe that three positive things would have happened: first, we wouldn't now have the albatross of "Obamacare" around our national neck, secondly the business community wouldn't have had to endure two years of uncertainty as to what direction the gevernment would take to try to influence the economy; and thirdly there would have been a real public debate about the judicial philosphies of type of justices nominated to the Sopreme Court (and neither of them would have been Sotomayer or Kagan!)

4.) Double-standard for quarterbacks?

Just thinking about the recent and not-so-recent travails of a couple of NFL QBs from the Deep South.  What if their trangressions - or their skin color - were reversed?  What if Brett Favre had been guilty of dogfighting and killing dogs, would he have been jailed?  Would he have even been suspended?  And what if Michael Vick had been guilty of "sexting" pictures of his nether regions to a female sports reporter?  How quickly would he have been suspended?  And for how long?  You know I'm not a grievance-monger but I couldn't help contrasting these two cases and wondering.  Sports is a great meritocracy, and there is probably less racism on the field and at the contract table than in any other sphere of American life.  And we've made enormous progress since the 1960's, to the point where most accusations of racism in today's world would be laughable to our forebears.  But again, I look at these two cases and wonder...