PREVIOUS    NEXT 

  Here's One for the Gipper

By Allen Stovall
Los Angeles, CA

Unless you have deliberately been avoiding contact with all forms of mass media recently, you have already been inundated with a tidal wave of news regarding the death and life of Ronald Reagan: B-movie actor and television host, president of the Screen Actors Guild, governor of California, and 40th president of the United States.

I suspect that in many countries the news of Reagan's demise was treated as just another event in the daily planetary cycle of birth and death. However, in the United States the news has eclipsed all other reportage and it has spawned an orgy of endless eulogies and glowing tributes to the life of this late hack actor-cum-politician. Just in case any Americans may have forgotten the accomplishments of, or may have had doubts about, the integrity of their late president, the populace is being served heaping plates of sugarcoated sound bytes designed to canonize, or even deify, their late president. By the time his carcass is interred, Reagan will be guaranteed an exalted place among the pantheon of American gods and other mythological figures such as George Washington and Paul Bunyan.

Given the choice of historical facts or quasi-religious myths, the latter are evidently what Americans prefer in the knowledge and memory of their beloved leaders and their country's history. Myth is what Ronald Reagan lived — it's what he was made of, and it's what will sustain his elevated memory in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans for decades, if not generations, to come. Very little of what is currently being said about Reagan, especially about his purported accomplishments during eight years as US president, bears any resemblance to the historical facts. Let us examine some of those myths, and the terrible facts that are largely obscured by them.

First, there's the myth of Reagan as "The Great Communicator." While it can not be denied that to many he had a certain charisma in his smooth, almost self-effacing manner, and while he obviously had an easier time with public speaking than do either of the two US presidents named George Bush, Ronald Reagan was an intellectual lightweight, a liar, and a very poor communicator. While he could usually speak in complete sentences, he could not speak of complex issues with any more than a child's understanding and articulation of those issues. His speech may have been fluid and seemingly effortless, but his vocabulary was quite limited. One of Reagan's writers, obviously giving the president more credit for having a command of his own language than was justified, once included the word "paradigm" in a speech — "The Great Communicator" pronounced the word just as he saw it, "par-a-di-jum."

Reagan's speeches were rife with vapid jokes, pseudo-macho posturing cobbled from poorly remembered B-movie lines, and meaningless drivel, which revealed his abysmal ignorance of global politics and global cultures. He idiotically and ignobly reduced the Soviet Union, once a US ally in the war against fascism — a very complex country containing a vast array of rich and varied cultures — to one short, infantile phrase: "The Evil Empire." When confronted by the US Congress with questions pertaining to what he knew about illegal, extra-governmental operations which resulted in the Iran-Contra Scandal, the supposedly eloquent president suddenly could say nothing more than, "I don't remember." To be fair, that is one time he could have actually been telling the truth. Reagan's use of movie lines such as, "Make my day" (from Clint Eastwood's "Dirty Harry") trivialized complex political issues and lowered the standard for US statesmanship. Such inane talk opened the door for subsequent presidents, most notably George W. Bush, to rely heavily on one-liners and juvenile phrases such as "Let's Roll" and "Bring it on" — an extremely poor substitute for meaningful dialog. America's level of communication has been reduced to a series of grunts, barks, and yelps — and we have The Great Communicator to partially thank for it.

Second, there is the myth of Reagan as an upstanding, honest, straight shooter, the modern incarnation of the Great American Cowboy. Truth was often a problem with Ronald Reagan. Evidently, he believed his own lies. In a particularly candid moment during one of his presidential speeches, he let loose with a Freudian slip that apparently summed up his philosophy. Intending to say, "Facts are stubborn things," he instead exclaimed what he really thought: "Facts are stupid things."

Reagan lived in a fantasy world. In fact, he retreated so deeply into his movie fantasy world that often times he could no longer discern fact from fiction. Once while visiting Germany, he astounded everyone with a completely fabricated tale of how he had been on the front line with American troops who freed prisoners from a WWII Nazi concentration camp. The reality was that he had been nowhere near Germany, nor any other place where the war was being fought. Reagan spent WWII on Hollywood backlots, playing army, while the real soldiers were putting their lives on the line to fight fascism.

He also took on the false persona of someone called "The Gipper," a character from the movie "The Knute Rockne Story," though even in that case Reagan muddled the facts. His adopted battle cry was "Win one for the Gipper," a phrase that was to be used ad nauseum in a variety of situations. The most egregiously inappropriate use of this line, however, was when he delivered the opening address at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. While the US President was supposed to be inspiring ALL the athletes in attendance — most of whom had come from different countries — to achieve their best performance, he instead chose to be blatantly nationalistic and admonished only the US athletes to "Win one for the Gipper."
Reagan even wore his penchant for prevarication as a badge of honor, when he bragged of how, in his early days as a radio announcer, he created fictitious baseball plays when the tickertape that he relied on for actual play-by-play coverage malfunctioned. Perhaps one might convincingly argue that such an activity was harmless. However, what would stop the president from applying the same sort of tactics in a situation of much more grave consequences?

Next, is the myth of Ronald Reagan as a great leader, a freedom fighter, and cold warrior. Much has been made of Reagan's having been singularly responsible for the disillusionment of the Soviet Union — "the fall of Communism," if you wish — and the dismantling of the Berlin Wall. This fits nicely into the myth of the cowboy president who gunned down the big, bad Evil Empire all by himself, but it has little to do with reality. To be sure, Reagan publicly admonished his Soviet adversaries to give up their evil ways and tear down their nasty wall [author's note: lest anyone get the wrong impression, I'm glad the Berlin Wall came down, but I don't credit Reagan with tearing it down], but once again, the issue was much more complex than such a simple-minded scenario would reveal. Reagan's grand victory over communism came at a terribly high price for Americans and Soviets alike. Through his unprecedented military buildup and inflammatory Cold War rhetoric, he brought the US and the USSR closer than ever before to an all-out "hot" war involving nuclear weapons. His massive military spending, along with tax cuts for the rich (sound familiar?), drove America into its worst ever deficit (until now, when clown prince George II has taken the honor), and in turn drove the paranoid Soviets into a concomitant frenzy of massive military buildup, bankrupting that already fragile economy.

To fund his bloated military and his tax relief for the wealthy, Reagan diverted billions of dollars from civic and social programs, weakening America's domestic infrastructure and helping to widen the gap between rich and poor. Reagan's military intrigues were usually fought by proxy armies of client states (such as in El Salvador) and mercenaries (such as the Contras in Nicaragua, and Jonas Savimbi and his UNITA "rebels" in Angola), to whom he paid obscene amounts of money and supplied murderous training, all the while calling them "freedom fighters." Overwhelming evidence points to the frequent sale and exchange of illegal drugs, especially cocaine, in the funding of Reagan's beloved Contras — this, while back on the home front First Lady Nancy Reagan was admonishing American youth to "just say no to drugs."

One of the uses of American troops to carry out a Reagan military intrigue was in the invasion of the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada. This was seen as a glorious victory for Reagan in his war on communism, though in reality it was a nearly-botched job (even though it involved knocking out a few old, tired, Cuban guards with antique rifles), and it ultimately resulted in the reversal of any gains that had been made by poor Grenadans who had been attempting to achieve a modicum of economic independence and the dignity of sovereignty. After Reagan's glorious victory, Grenada reverted to being a poverty-stricken, exploited backwater, a forgotten US colony — but at least they were free of the evil Cuban influence. Some would say Reagan's Grenada intrigue was a diversionary tactic to draw public attention away from a recently sustained military failure, a lethal attack by Hezbollah on a US Army barracks in Lebanon.

As for his being a great leader and politician, one needn't look any farther than the reports of some of Reagan's closest aides to read accounts of his vast ignorance, legendary frequent naps, inattentiveness to serious matters at hand, and inability to make important decisions based on careful analysis. (I feel a bit of deja vu coming on. It seems there is someone else currently occupying the White House who closely fits that description.) At the end of a regular "work" day Reagan would be handed a thick stack of papers apropos to the following day's Security Council, or other meeting — documents that naive Americans would hope he'd actually read. The Gipper would, at best, rustle a few pages, throw the stack of documents on his coffee table, stuff a videotape in his VCR — most likely one of his favorite movies like "Jaws" or "Rambo" — and be gone for the evening. He’d let one of his hired hands take care of the important matters — after all, that was what they were getting paid to do. Well rested, he could continue to be the affable guy who pretends to be in control.

The manner in which Reagan won his first "landslide" presidential victory in 1980 (though if one counted the total number of eligible voters, it was a minority of Americans who actually voted for Reagan) was highly suspect. I'm referring here to what has been called "The October Surprise." The US armed forces, under President Jimmy Carter, had unsuccessfully attempted to free US hostages who had been taken in the storming of the US embassy in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution. If Carter had been successful in his rescue attempt, many believe this would have been Carter's "October Surprise" that may have saved him from losing the November, 1980 election. However, it failed, and Reagan was subsequently elected. It just so happened that the following January on Ronald Reagan's inauguration day, the hostages were released.

The myth that many Americans proudly swallowed hook, line, and sinker is that Cowboy Ron scared the Iranians so badly with his tough talk that they released the hostages, fearing reprisals. The overwhelming evidence of the actual situation, though, was very different. Though it was never fully revealed in the tepid investigation made by the US Congress into the Iran-Contra affair, reports outlining the illicit dealings are available to the public, for those who care to read them. The evidence points to an arms-for-hostages deal, partially brokered by Col. Oliver North, that involved the trading of missiles to the revolutionary Iranian government in exchange for their holding the US hostages until after the November election. So much for honesty, integrity, and brave leadership.

Next, let's take a look at the Reagan who was a cold-hearted murderer — as opposed to the mythical Reagan, the kindly and affable fellow who wouldn't hurt a flea. After four American students were shot and killed by National Guard soldiers at an anti-war demonstration on the campus of Kent State University in 1969, Ronald Reagan, who was then governor of California and had been dealing with his own state's student unrest, had this to say (this may not be exactly verbatim, but it's very close): "If it takes a bloodbath, let's get it over with.” In other words, kill them all if that's what it takes to shut them up — and the sooner, the better.

Fast forward to the 1980s, when Reagan's aforementioned support of murderous mercenary groups, such as the Contras in Nicaragua and UNITA in Angola, resulted in untold slaughter and misery in those poor and struggling countries. Angola has one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of civilian amputees in the world due to the extensive use of landmines by Jonas Savimbi and UNITA. Reagan's beloved Contras were well known for avoiding actual military clashes with the Nicaraguan army, preferring instead to attack defenseless civilian settlements, schools, and clinics in an attempt to reverse the hard-won advances of the Nicaraguan revolution. Reagan called the Contras "the moral equivalent of [America's] founding fathers." Considering the fact that America was built on genocide of its native population, perhaps The Gipper wasn't off the mark after all. Perhaps he knew his history better than he appeared to — though, at times, he was clearly still a bit confused.

For example, once at a White House Press Corps breakfast the president was asked by a reporter, "Why do you advocate the overthrow of Nicaragua, when it is a legitimately elected government?" (The reporter was referring to Nicaragua's 1984 election, in which seven parties ran candidates and which was certified by international observers as having been free and fair). Reagan's reply was, "I don't consider any government legitimate that was founded at the point of a gun." The Gipper must have thought our founding fathers traded stock options with King George III to buy America out from under him and avoid a hostile takeover.

While in Nicaragua in 1987, I saw first-hand the bitter fruits of Reagan's freedom fighters. In May of that year, I had the very sad honor of standing all-night vigil next to the coffin of American volunteer relief worker Benjamin Linder, who was killed in a very cowardly and cruel manner by some of Reagan's beloved Contras. Benjamin Linder was living and working in a rural area of Northern Nicaragua in the war zone, helping to bring electricity — a single light bulb per house — to those who had never before enjoyed the luxury. At the time of his ambush and subsequent torture, Linder was bending over a small stream, tending to a weir (a device to measure the potential hydroelectric power of a stream or river). He was apparently shot in the legs with buckshot so he couldn't run, and then jabbed repeatedly in the head with a sharp object such as a bayonet while he lay helpless on the ground. Benjamin's coffin had a window in it that revealed his face, a face that still bore the contorted grimace of pain that he surely suffered.

I still hold president Ronald Reagan personally responsible for the torture and death of that gentle soul. Of course, that was only one American, albeit a great one — but that says nothing to address the torture and deaths of tens of thousands of the poor (and to we Americans, nameless) Nicaraguans by the hands of Reagan's freedom fighters. In May of 1987 the US press corps swarmed by the hundreds to Matagalpa, northern Nicaragua, to cover the death of Benjamin Linder. But meanwhile, that same press largely ignored the wholesale slaughter that had been ongoing for several years, choosing instead to stay in the comfort of their Managua hotel, gathering official US embassy reports and passing them off as reportage. Meanwhile, back in the US, the Gipper could, unchallenged, spout outlandish lies about the dire threat that Nicaragua's evil Sandinista government posed to the freedom and security of the United States.

This essay, or rant if you prefer, could go on ad infinitum. I have only touched on a very few of the enduring myths and lies that are Ronald Reagan's legacy. I haven't mentioned such despicable actions as Reagan's opportunistic betrayal and subsequent ruination of several of his movie industry colleagues while he was head of the Screen Actors Guild during the dreaded "McCarthy" era of the late 1940s and early '50s. I haven't discussed the execrable lineup of shysters and gangsters who were the brains and brawn behind Reagan, and who are currently serving the same purpose for another puppet president. Nor have I sufficiently discussed the financial havoc wreaked by Reaganomics (nee "Voodoo" economics), the war on unions, workers, and poor people, and the beginning stages of the dismantling of America's Middle Class — projects that have been picked up with gusto by our current stooge president and his handlers.

No doubt there have been and will be many more eloquent exposés devoted to this unsavory topic than what I have written here. Given the current flood of pro-Reagan sentiment brought about by his very recent passing, I felt impelled to write my own counter-eulogy to this very mythic figure. Given the recent blow to America's morale by the revelations of prisoner torture and abuse at the hands of US military and intelligence personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, I suspect Americans have been desperately searching for a refill to their prescription for patriotic pep pills. The Gipper's passing fits the bill nicely. Americans can now wax nostalgic and swell with pride over memories of "our" heroic Cold War victories, and the glory days when Dynasty and Dallas were the top shows on TV, Ronnie banged his giant "Gipper Gavel" at his second coronation, and Savings and Loan sharks were enjoying a feeding frenzy.

Some who read this may scorn me for what they would say amounts to spitting on the grave of our dearly departed president Reagan. They may argue that even though I disagreed with his politics, I should at least pay respects to our late leader. To that I ask, would any of you claim I should pay respects to the memory of Adolph Hitler, or Jeffrey Dahmer, or even to Saddam Hussein once he slips off his mortal coil? No, while I may have some compassion for his misguided soul, I have nothing but contempt for the memory of the miscreant misanthrope called Ronald Wilson Reagan, Mister 666. All I can say is "Good riddance to bad rubbish," and hope that some day "We, the People" of this United States of America, will wake up before it's too late.

LAZY SUZANNE ARCHIVE -CURRENT- 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10-11-12

Copyright© 2000-2008, Suzanne Rush, Boy, are my arms tired.com! All Rights Reserved. E-Mail the Editor.