The Left cannot be pleased with the overwhelming national turnout and support for the legacy and achievements of Ronald Reagan. For starters, this has interrupted the anti-Bush media campaign, and put the Kerry campaign on a week-long hiatus. But more importantly, it has shown, contrary to Danny Glover’s prediction, that Reagan will not be remembered first and foremost for Iran-Contra. Of course, the fact that liberals like Daschle and Clinton long to share in the limelight and stand ready to praise our fallen hero only goes to show that something is to be gained by aligning yourself with Reagan and his greatness. The public’s support has forced the Dems to praise the man they once derided. But the Left can’t hide all of its disdain for Reagan, especially now that it’s clear how history is likely to remember him. Wes Pruden had these fine words on the Left’s "virulent venom." And then there’s this report on the Left’s web-based demonization. Pity.
As a living person who probably deserves to be called a member of "the Left," let me say: it’s much too early to say how history will remember Reagan. The week after one’s death is probably not the best time to try to make that judgment.
Two more points:
1) nothing wrong with optimism about the U.S., and to the extent that Reagan had that, he was a good leader.
2) Clinton should share the limelight with Reagan, since many of Reagan’s ideas wouldn’t have come to fruition if Clinton and the new centrist Democrats hadn’t appropriated them. Think of welfare reform. Some Dems derided Reagan, some didn’t, just as some Republicans call Dems traitors and some don’t. But Reagan definitely helped move Democrats rightward in the 1990s. Not sure that’s a good thing, and electoral realities might dictate a different response if class divisions continue to increase, but it’s a part of history that should be acknowledged.
Well put, Brett. Reagan helped restore some optimism in the country and preached against big government("get the government out of the lives of the people" etc). He also derided dems for being big spenders. Unfortunately, Bush and Ashcroft have totally betrayed that message. You are rigtht about it being too soon to assess Reagan’s place in history, but I’d bet all my money that Bush will be near the bottom.
Good to see that censorship has once again reared its ugly head on "No Left Turns!"
Starbuck, why do you say that? Have recent posts been deleted by the webmaster?
Starbuck, why do you say that? Have recent posts been deleted by the webmaster?
Yes.
I would be interested as to why. I think that censorship is legitimate in many forms. The most obvious example would be not having pornography in a school library. Obviously, a free press and a free and open exchange of ideas is at the root of republican self-government. But, knowing Peter’s love of American self-government, let’s be careful about tossing around unsubstantiated accusations or crying "censorship" as if it is never legitimate. I await the ad hominem attack, of course.
Thanks, Tony(for dodging the issue). The obervation made by Starbuck had nothing to do with porno in libraries, but censorship on this website. I think he noticed that certain post(s) were removed.
I didn’t know that I was dodging the issue. I brought up the idea that legitimate censorship is OK. My use of the library example is to show that a simplistic "censorship is happening" is not enough because censorship is allowable under certain circumstances. Preventing censorship is not an absolute principle but the character of each case should be scrutinized. So, in other words, stop wining about censorship and then complain that the right is somehow limiting your leftist speech.
Grow up. This is a privately owned and privately maintained site, for which the Ashbrook Center pays a lot of money. If the Ashbrook folks really wanted to stifle debate around here they wouldn’t allow any of your comments. If you don’t like the way No Left Turns is run, go find another blog to snipe at.
Apparently someone accused me of removing a comment. I remove maybe one or two a month. I remove comments (regardless of source) if they are personal or obscene. I never remove comments because I disagree with the substance. I’ll continue to uphold that policy. And, by the way, I am the only one removing comments. Hold me responsible. I appreciate the civil discourse and even the sometime helpful links when readers ask questions. Thank you.