It's morning again, again
It's 1981-1988 again. All at once. At least then, they had eight years to deal with it. Now it's like Reagan concentrate. Although we haven't seen the former President in over a decade, but his death has certainly stirred up both intense patriotism and warmth as well as intense hatred and animosity -- and some of us are slipping into the same old debates again.
The left, particularly gay groups and AIDS activists, are horrified by the outpouring of emotion and love for the former chief executive. Understandably so -- they're reminding us that Reagan oversaw (or didn't oversee, you decide) the onset of AIDS, but failed to address it publicly until 1987. The gay community is far from unified on this front, however - not everyone is sure the Gipper should take the whole blame, or perhaps, if this is the appropriate time to be handing out the blame cards.
On the right, party loyalists and Christian groups are falling all over each other to pay homage to the revered patriarch. From what I've seen, they have not turned to snipe at their dissenters, which serves them well, I think - the last thing the Reagan family wants is a politics-as-usual tit-for-tat. Any acknowledgement of anti-Reagan sentiments takes away from the warm and fuzzy week they've planned to say goodbye to a larger-than-life Chief.
Does Reagan's passing count as a period of national loss? Depends. After 9/11, there was no sniping, no arguing and no debating, there was just doing. That, to me, is a nation mourning a national loss. With the loss of Reagan, that overwhelming feeling isn't there -- certainly not without qualification from the left.
That doesn't mean, however, that it can't be handled with respect for both those who held him dear, and those that hold him at arm's length. This week is a throw-away week for legislative work in DC; pomp and circumstance will certainly pervade.
We're doing the same for Ford, right?
The left, particularly gay groups and AIDS activists, are horrified by the outpouring of emotion and love for the former chief executive. Understandably so -- they're reminding us that Reagan oversaw (or didn't oversee, you decide) the onset of AIDS, but failed to address it publicly until 1987. The gay community is far from unified on this front, however - not everyone is sure the Gipper should take the whole blame, or perhaps, if this is the appropriate time to be handing out the blame cards.
On the right, party loyalists and Christian groups are falling all over each other to pay homage to the revered patriarch. From what I've seen, they have not turned to snipe at their dissenters, which serves them well, I think - the last thing the Reagan family wants is a politics-as-usual tit-for-tat. Any acknowledgement of anti-Reagan sentiments takes away from the warm and fuzzy week they've planned to say goodbye to a larger-than-life Chief.
Does Reagan's passing count as a period of national loss? Depends. After 9/11, there was no sniping, no arguing and no debating, there was just doing. That, to me, is a nation mourning a national loss. With the loss of Reagan, that overwhelming feeling isn't there -- certainly not without qualification from the left.
That doesn't mean, however, that it can't be handled with respect for both those who held him dear, and those that hold him at arm's length. This week is a throw-away week for legislative work in DC; pomp and circumstance will certainly pervade.
We're doing the same for Ford, right?
<< Home