everywhere i look, both inside and outside the blogisphere, people are talking about reagan. for his fans, what to do is easy, they can speak honestly about how they feel about him. for those who didn't like him, it gets more difficult.
the general consensus seems to be that you're not supposed to speak ill of the dead. and why is that, exactly? wouldn't it make more sense to not speak ill of the living? it seems worse to me to talk badly about someone when they can still hear you. i guess the theory is you keep quiet out of respect for the family. i suspect, however, that none of the reagans read this modern world. (note: i used this link because it's the one cited by tacitus in his post that i reference below even though the post was written more than 6 months ago. apparently some think the inappropriateness of criticizing someone after their death applies retroactively)
another thing i wonder about is how long are critics of the former president expected to keep their mouths shut? juan cole seems to have concluded that criticism is inappropriate only on the very day of death. that seems to be a reasonable compromise to me. the period of silence must end at some point. otherwise, how can historians ever really study the reagan era. and, let's face it, there was plenty to dislike about reagan (oops! did i cross the line with that?) i simply see no reason why people who disagreed with him have to lie at the same time that people who idolized him get to speak openly about their feelings.
as i look around and see different people talk about reagan in different ways, none of it bothers me. praise and criticism is all part of the process of reflecting on a life after it has passed. when i remember reagan i want to remember his rousing speeches and iran-contra; his tough negotiations with the soviet union and the ballooning debt that we are still saddled with; his wide-eyed love of america, and his shameless pandering to the christian right. it's all part of the package that was his presidency. to remember only half the story crosses the line from retrospective to propaganda
the only thing i have read since reagan's death that has crossed the line with me (and granted, i have not been looking very hard) is this post by tacitus. he starts by decrying people on the left for using reagans death as an opportunity to score political points and then launches into his own political attack against kerry. i've never totally understood the canonization of reagan by the people on the right. i haven't read enough of tacitus to know whether he is a full member of the reagan cult, but i wonder what exactly he thinks kerry should have done when news of reagan's death broke. some people, it seems, are not satisfied with polite praise during a period of mourning. they are only satisfied if all of reagan's opponents get on their knees, confess that they actually disagreed with such a great man and beg for the country';s forgiveness.
but if his rationale for the invasion of grenada (for example) was unconvincing during reagan's life--when he was able to put his best arguments forward in favor of that action--why would the fact of his death convince any of his critics to change their minds?
