Let me preface my remarks with this candid statement: I have a great deal of respect for you as a thinker and as a fair-minded journalist.
But I'm surprised that the fairness and objectivity that I normally associate with your show seems to be so glaringly absent in your discussion with Richard Reeves on Ronald Reagan. My viewpoint, and I hope I'm wrong, is that the US ITSELF is well on its way to the ash heap of history, driven by the philosophies of Reagan and those of like mind. As we sit here in late 2006, haven't we as a nation already begun to experience the results of mindless US aggression, of our arrogance, of our wanton disregard for the environment? Haven't we all noticed that our ruthless indifference to the virtually EVERYONE on this planet except our country's elite is clawing away at our standing in the world?
If I had to point to one incident that defines Reaganism, I suppose I would say it's Nicaragua. It encapsulates the idea that the US in the 1980s stood willing to do ANYTHING, regardless of how shameful, regardless of the will of its own people, regardless of the most basic precepts of our constitution, as long as those actions supported what the Reagan administration deemed to be US interests.
And Reeves says (I paraphrase), "In terms of presidential greatness, I wouldn't call him a Lincoln or a Jefferson, but he's certainly in the next tier." Sorry to be so blunt, but I find that totally nauseating.
It's beyond me how two intelligent people can sit across from one another, talk in detail about Reagan's legacy, and not at least mention this.
I hope to hear back from you on this.
Welcome new blogger Craig.
But I see neither ashes nor heaps of ashes.
I see the only omnipower the world has ever seen.
Keep posting, even if we disagree.