I Come To Bury Caesar, Not To Praise Him

With this entry, I'm going to do something I rarely do, and that is dip into the realm of politics.  For those of you without cable television, radio, or access to Internet news sites^*, let me sum up the background to this entry as such:  at around 17:00 Atlantic time, Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the United States, died.

Now, I've never been one to hide my political leanings, so it should be obvious that this will not be the type of glowing saccharine eulugy that will be keeping me from watching television for the next couple of weeks.  Nor will it be a momentous tearing apart of the man, for, to be honest, I don't remember anything of the man's presidency.  I was born when Carter was still president (although Regan was the president-elect by then), and didn't really become aware of politicians until closer to the end of the decade.  Even then, I was only barely aware of Brian Mulroney, and had no idea who was President in the States until around 1991.

No, my post today refers to the cult of personality that appears to have sprung up around him since he left office.  Now, some will likely come and tell me that he had this cult throughout his presidency.  Now, there may be some truth to it, but a look at the numbers tells a different story.  Yes, he did win the 1984 election by the largest percentage of electoral votes since James Monroe's 231 to 1 victory over John Quincy Adams in 1820.  However, while the electoral college votes may have been lopsided, the percentage of the popular vote came in at a mere 58%, less than both Lyndon B. Johnson's 1964 victory (61.3%), and Richard Nixon's second victory (60.9%), with the latter being against two opponents, and yet we don't here people expounding the virtues of their presidencies with as much vigour as Reagan's proponents do.

Nor do his policies bear any real reason for celebration.  From his silence on the AIDS epidemic, to his arms for hostages and the funding of counter-revolutionary forces in attempt to overthrow left-leaning goverments (see: Nicaragua, a case where the actions continued even following the results of the coutry's first free elections in decades.)  On the financial front, he hardly seemed like the model that the Republican party pushed forwards.  While he did push through tax cuts, he was also responsible for the largest tax increase vis-a-vis the nation's GDP, and spending was always high for a president who wanted smaller government.  In addition, the verdict appears to be still out on "voodoo econmics", with proponents and opponents basing their decisions more along personal beliefs than any real evidence.

In short, I don't understand why Reagan is so glorified.  Yes, much of the Communist infrastructure crumbled on, or immediately after, his watch.  But, it can be argued that this was doomed from the beginning.  The only real argument that can be put forward for his causing this is that he outspent them, and that a president could spend the money faster than the other guy hardly seems like a good reason to build a legacy on. In the end, the only thing I can come up with is that he was a charismatic man who managed to come to power at the end of a scandal and crisis plagued decade.  I wonder if we'll hear the same things from from the "Reagan was the best president ever" camp when Clinton, another popular and charismatic leader who, it could be argued, was more finanicaly conservative than Reagan.  Somehow, I doubt it.

This rambled slightly more off focus than I planned, so let's just cut to the chase: One point for the title.  It should be an easy one.