The Farce Forum

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, just a brief reply on a rather limited point for now.

What is a hero?

That is a very good question that merits consideration.

I am sure you are aware of questions concerning how PT 109 was sunk and whether JFK made errors that contributed to that. I have no idea whether those questions are legitimate or not. Clearly what JFK did in rescuing the men from his ship was heroic in the classical sense. Wikipedia suggests that a hero is one who demonstrates courage and the abillity (or willingness) for self-sacrifiice for some greater good--or I would ad to assist another or others.

One could make the point that a political or military leader who does not put his or her life on the line might very well be an admirable or excellent leader without necessarily being a hero in the classical sense.

Another issue I think is whether the willingness to make or offer self-sacrifice must involve physical self-sacrifice or whether it could involve economic or other forms of self-sacrifice. As you know, JFK's "Profiles in Courage" was about American political leaders who demonstrated political courage by being willing to sacrifice their political career to support a position they believed to be correct. I do not believe that any in Kennedy's book risked physical sacrifice in standing for the principal. Presumably if they lost their political career there would also be an economic cost to them. Is the economic cost and cost in position and prestige sufficient to render them heroes?

I certainly like your example of the man on the bus taking care of his sick mother. For many years my father took almost round-the-clock care of my mother who was essentially an invalid. Certainly the man on the bus and my father and others who sacrifice themselves for others demonstrate moral excellence but is it heroism if their actions do not involve any physical risk?

Now what about an excellent political leader who rallies his followers but does not risk his political career in doing so? Or the general whose leadership is wise but whose decisions are made in relative safety. Is political or military leadership necessarily synonomous with heroism? Perhaps not. Perhaps there is political "greatness" without heroism.

I am not sure exactly where I am going with this and if I am simply nit-picking by wondering whether heroism must necessarily involve the risk of actual physical harm. You state that my mention of DDE and D-Day shows I have a need for heroes. I might say it means I have an interest in great men and the concept of greatness and leadership. I think any society has the need for great leaders. You say just the opposite, that that is a dangerous thing. I think that says a lot about our differing political philosophies. I think there is an interesting correlation to one's views on the goodness or corruptness of societal institutions whether it be churches or government institutions. I see societal danger when societal institutions are torn apart--probably because such institutions are necessary for order and stability, concepts that are important to a traditional conservative.

Now getting back to Ike and D-Day, I am sure that mistakes and screw-ups are inherent in any large military campaign. I still believe he was a great militarty leader who became a great political leader of our country. In my opinion, whether RR was a hero or not, he was a great political leader because he instinctively understood what needed to be done to achieve victory over the Soviet Union. I would agree that his military build-up imposed an economic cost on this country as well as on the Soviet Union. I suspect most RR scholars would agree. That our society paid an economic price for his programs does not detract from their greatness. One can argue that what he achieved was more important for the citizens of Europe who obtained their freedom than for Americans who achieved freedom from the risk of a nuclear war and concern over communism. But I firmly believe the economic costs were such that most Americans would have willingly paid to accomplish what IMO they accomplished. Now what president was it who refered to "bearing any burden and paying any price" for the cost of freedom? And certainly it was better for us to bear an economic burden than pay a burden of lives lost in a military conflict.

You think that RR's military build up was unnecessary and communism (well, European communism) would have collapsed without the American defense build-up but that is speculation. And even if there might have been an ultimate collapse of communism it was worthwhile IMO if all it did was hasten the collapse of communism. You could look at it from a stricyly utilitarian analysis, comparing the great good that came to the people of Europe with the cost borne by Americans for the build-up. Any American should have been willing to pay a cost to bring freedom to Europoe in eight years rather than in eighty. Moreover who knows what might have happened had we simply waited and hoped? RR prevented the risks inherent in a continued war, albeit a "cold" one.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

How about a quote from that noted historian Rudolph Giuliani?

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani described Reagan as "the most dominating president of the 20th Century. He changed the map of the world. He defeated communism. He destroyed the Soviet Union. He tore down the Berlin Wall and he fought for the rights of the individual."

By the way, Guilian does not mean that RR personally carried away the bricks from the Berlin Wall.

John, you still have not answered my question re which pro-RR books you have read cover-to-cover. Just a gentle reminder. If you admit none the world will still keep spinning.

I read dozens of books when I was writing the Cold War section of my website. Extracting information from books is what I do for a living.

What books do you read? Going by your posts you seem to rely on the internet for your information.

By the way, Rudolph Giuliani is not a historian. He is a politician trying to gain favour in the Republican Party. That of course explains why he makes the nonsense statement that “He (Reagan) defeated communism.”

[Tim Gratz]

John, did you honestly think that I did not know that Guiliani was a lawyer and a politician and not a historian?

But I believe his POV also merits respect.

What Guiliani did for the city of New York through his policies and leadership was almost miraculous. The demonstration of his political leadership adds credence IMO to his assessment of the political leadership of RR.

I am sure you do read books--so why can't you name a pro-RR book you read cover-to-cover before reaching your opinions?

I'll be glad to indicate the books I have read about the Cold War and RR.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Tim Gratz

[Charles Drago]

Tim, people voted for Reagan primarily because Carter appeared weak.

Correct.

And people thought Carter weak because of the treasonous pre-election actions of individuals inside and out of his administration -- including more than one of Reagan's highest-level associates.

But on a humorous note: Do you recall the press conference at which Reagan defended the Pentagon's budget by noting that a very small percent of those funds were spent on weapon systems. Most of the dough, he told us, went toward "salaries and costumes."

That's uniforms.

If only someone had yelled, "Cut!"

Charles

[Tim Gratz]

Well, we know where that came from, don't we?

[Guest David Guyatt]

I don't understand why people have to read books about Reagan to know what kind of president he was.

I think most people here are old enough to remember how the U.S. under Reagan turned tail and ran from the terrorists after they bombed our Marines in Beirut. This after Reagan's tough talk upon taking office that acts of terror would be met with "swift retribution." What a load of Hollywood-trained BS. He ran from Lebanon like a scalded dog.

I think most people here are old enough to remember Iran-Contra, with Reagan going on national TV for the purpose of lying, saying "We did not trade arms for hostages." And the whole purpose of this criminal activity, in supplying arms to an enemy (which some would call treason), was to support terrorists in Central America. You know, the kind of people who could expect "swift retribution" from this lying coward of a president.

I think most people here are old enough to remember the U.S. mining of the main harbor in Nicaragua, which was discontinued after the media found out and reported it. Another example of this lying coward's steadfastness and character.

I think most people here are old enough to remember the swapping of two spies with the Russians, with Reagan then stating on TV that there was "no connection between these two releases." Never has a president openly exhibited more utter contempt for the intelligence of the citizenry.

But since Reagan, just like George W. Bush, was elected not once but twice to the presidency, I have to say that the contempt of such men and their ilk for the people has been well earned and to be expected.

There used to be a wonderful and hilariously funny TV programme on British TV called NOT THE NINE O'CLOCK NEWS that was current when Reagan was elected president. Immediately after he was elected, they performed a sketch, western style, folksy, guitar-strumming, camp-fire song that had as a recurring theme "I can believe". During the song the performers listed (rhythm-ing, too) what they "believe" -- a long idiotic and naive, innocent list it was too.

The song punch-line after all this folksy sugar were the words "But I can't believe Ronald Reagan is President".

And that, in a nutshell, summed up the widespread British astonishment that this unpleasant B actor had risen to the highest office in America.

And from there it went downhill all the way. One need only mention the buffoonery of RR's VP, James Danforth Quayle, to see the future spread out before the world in all of its pitiful, spiteful and cruel glory.

David

[Dawn Meredith]

I don't understand why people have to read books about Reagan to know what kind of president he was.

I think most people here are old enough to remember how the U.S. under Reagan turned tail and ran from the terrorists after they bombed our Marines in Beirut. This after Reagan's tough talk upon taking office that acts of terror would be met with "swift retribution." What a load of Hollywood-trained BS. He ran from Lebanon like a scalded dog.

I think most people here are old enough to remember Iran-Contra, with Reagan going on national TV for the purpose of lying, saying "We did not trade arms for hostages." And the whole purpose of this criminal activity, in supplying arms to an enemy (which some would call treason), was to support terrorists in Central America. You know, the kind of people who could expect "swift retribution" from this lying coward of a president.

I think most people here are old enough to remember the U.S. mining of the main harbor in Nicaragua, which was discontinued after the media found out and reported it. Another example of this lying coward's steadfastness and character.

I think most people here are old enough to remember the swapping of two spies with the Russians, with Reagan then stating on TV that there was "no connection between these two releases." Never has a president openly exhibited more utter contempt for the intelligence of the citizenry.

But since Reagan, just like George W. Bush, was elected not once but twice to the presidency, I have to say that the contempt of such men and their ilk for the people has been well earned and to be expected.

There used to be a wonderful and hilariously funny TV programme on British TV called NOT THE NINE O'CLOCK NEWS that was current when Reagan was elected president. Immediately after he was elected, they performed a sketch, western style, folksy, guitar-strumming, camp-fire song that had as a recurring theme "I can believe". During the song the performers listed (rhythm-ing, too) what they "believe" -- a long idiotic and naive, innocent list it was too.

The song punch-line after all this folksy sugar were the words "But I can't believe Ronald Reagan is President".

And that, in a nutshell, summed up the widespread British astonishment that this unpleasant B actor had risen to the highest office in America.

And from there it went downhill all the way. One need only mention the buffoonery of RR's VP, James Danforth Quayle, to see the future spread out before the world in all of its pitiful, spiteful and cruel glory.

David

Actually David, Quayle was Bush the Elder's veep. (And he was "No Jack Kennedy"

Dawn

[Guest Stephen Turner]

There used to be a wonderful and hilariously funny TV programme on British TV called NOT THE NINE O'CLOCK NEWS that was current when Reagan was elected president. Immediately after he was elected, they performed a sketch, western style, folksy, guitar-strumming, camp-fire song that had as a recurring theme "I can believe".

David, do you remember spitting images "The Presidents brain is missing"? bloody hillarious.

[John Simkin]

John, did you honestly think that I did not know that Guiliani was a lawyer and a politician and not a historian?

It was you who said that historians have claimed that "Reagan won the Cold War". You have failed to produce any evidence for this ridiculous claim. As Pat said earlier, you really have made a fool of yourself in this thread. However, it has resulted in some really good contributions from other members. I will be placing some of these contributions onto my web page on Reagan.

[Ron Ecker]

The truest and most famous line that Reagan ever uttered in a movie was: "Where's the rest of me?"

[Tim Gratz]

John, will you ever get around to admitting you have not read one single book extolling RR's foreign policy?

[Ron Ecker]

John, will you ever get around to admitting you have not read one single book extolling RR's foreign policy?

I'll bet that John has better things to do with his time.

I think Reagan's foreign policy (if not Reagan himself) can best be summed up in one line: "We did not trade arms for hostages."

Or maybe "There was no connection between these two releases" (the swapping of U.S. and Russian spies).

I plan to write a book on Reagan to be entitled "The Man Who Would Choke on the Truth."

[Ron Ecker]

look at how far this thread has drifted from Ashton's original post

Or as Reagan would say, "There you go again."

I've always thought that a clip of Reagan saying that would make a good Depend commercial.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Actually David, Quayle was Bush the Elder's veep. (And he was "No Jack Kennedy"

Dawn

Dawn, you're quite right. My mistake.

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

There used to be a wonderful and hilariously funny TV programme on British TV called NOT THE NINE O'CLOCK NEWS that was current when Reagan was elected president. Immediately after he was elected, they performed a sketch, western style, folksy, guitar-strumming, camp-fire song that had as a recurring theme "I can believe".

David, do you remember spitting images "The Presidents brain is missing"? bloody hillarious.

How could I forget it, Steve. Ditto Margaret Thatchler leaning against the back garden fence of NO.10 Downing Street, dressed as Hitler and spouting NSDP stories to her neighbour, the Chancellor. Or Norman Tebbit cast in the role of the midnight vampire knocking on the back door of 10 Downing Street to ask if Margaret could come out to play... Wonderful stuff.

David