Be INFORMED

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Ronald Reagan: The Myth Is Still A Lie

The Whitewashing of Ronald Reagan

by tmaertens      Sun Mar 20, 2011          Original

A Gallup poll taken in 1992 found that Ronald Reagan was the most unpopular living president apart from Nixon, and ranked even below Jimmy Carter; just 46 percent of Americans had a favorable view of Reagan while Carter was viewed favorably by 63 percent of Americans. 

This was before the Hollywood-style re-write of Reagan’s presidency that created the fictional character portrayed during Reagan’s 100th birthday celebration. The campaign was led by Grover Norquist and his “Ronald Reagan Legacy Project,” along with corporate-funded propaganda mills like Heritage and AEI that underwrote hundreds of flattering books to create a mythic hero and perpetual tax-cutter.  They singled out Reagan’s 1981 tax cut that lowered top marginal rates from 70% to 28% as the basis for the campaign, leaving out the inconvenient reality that he subsequently raised taxes eleven times, according to former Republican Senator Alan Simpson who “was there.”

The plutocrats idolize Reagan because he cut taxes on the wealthy -- on income, capital gains, interest, and dividends -- and increased taxes on working people, including raising the self-employment (SECA) tax rate by 60%.   Mark Hertsgaard (On Bended Knee: the Press and the Reagan Presidency) called it arguably the “single greatest government-led transfer of wealth in history, and in the direction of the top two percent;” the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third under Reagan. The result is an enduring, entitled class of individuals who believe that work should be taxed, but wealth should not, and probably, like Reagan that ‘The homeless are homeless because they want to be homeless.’  They control the Republican Party. 

Their revisionist history makes Reagan into a small-government fiscal conservative, but he actually grew the government by 53% (Mises Institute), increasing military expenditures by 27% and creating another new department, Veterans’ Affairs.  He never submitted a balanced budget and ended up tripling the national debt to $3 trillion. His S&L bailout cost 2.4 times more to fix (relative to GDP) than Bush’s financial crisis.  The Washington Post reported in Reagan's last year that "In less than a decade, the world's largest creditor nation has become its leading debtor….”

Did Reagan end the Cold War?  Immediately after the Berlin Wall fell, a USA Today survey found that only 14% of respondents believed that.  Historians mostly credit forty years of “Containment” by eight U.S. presidents.  As Tony Judt’s Postwar concluded: “…Washington did not ‘bring down’ Communism – Communism imploded of its own accord.” I served in the USSR during perestroika and glasnost and later, in Russia after the breakup, and can attest to that; Gorbachev tried to reform a repressive, dysfunctional system and lost control of the process.

What is virtually unknown in this country is that Reagan’s bellicose rhetoric and saber-rattling led the U.S. to the brink of a hot war with the USSR in 1983 (Google “Abel Archer”).

Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Act, which he said he would have vetoed, and publically supported the South African apartheid regime, a policy that Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu declared to be "immoral, evil and totally un-Christian." This sympathy for racists was not an anomaly: Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign was announced in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a city with no connection whatever to the governor of California but infamous for the murder of three civil rights workers. His speech there lauding states’ rights was dog-whistle politics to die-hard anti-integrationists, a continuation of Nixon’s racist Southern Strategy.  His 1980 campaign against a Cadillac-driving welfare queen from Chicago’s South Side (i.e., Black woman) was more of the same. 

Never mentioned in the current hagiography is that he amnestied 3 million illegal aliens; that among his most important advisors was an astrologer (Joan Quigley) whom Nancy consulted daily about major decisions; and that he regularly fabricated stories, including about personally “liberating” Nazi concentration camps (he never left California).

Other inconvenient facts about Reagan have disappeared into the memory hole: he provided aid to Saddam Hussein after his unprovoked attacked on Iran and despite Saddam’s known use of chemical weapons; he funneled money and arms to the Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan who later morphed into al Qaeda; his sending Marines ashore in Lebanon led to the deaths of 241 Marines; and, he invaded tiny Grenada on the flimsiest of pretenses.

Reagan illegally traded weapons to Iran for American hostages (which led to more Americans being kidnapped) and repeatedly lied about it.  On March 4, 1987 he finally admitted he had lied. He diverted the profits of this criminal trade to illegally fund the murderous, drug-running Contras in Nicaragua ("The moral equal of our Founding Fathers") and lied about that, too.  Eleven of his co-conspirators were nonetheless convicted, making a total of 138 Reagan administration officials indicted for various offenses, according to Richard Reeves, making it the most corrupt administration ever. 

The public gave Reagan a pass, however, probably because they thought he was too dense to understand what an impeachable offense was; even his official biographer Edmund Morris calls him an "apparent airhead" who depended heavily on his staff.  Margaret Thatcher echoed the claim: "Poor dear, there's nothing between his ears."  Richard Pipes, the conservative historian and a senior NSC official under Reagan wrote: “RR is totally lost, out of his depth, and uncomfortable. All of this--both the substance and human conflict--is above and beyond him.”

No corporate-funded whitewash of Reagan’s presidency can change those historical facts. 

(A version of this, by the author, appeared in the Mankato (MN) Free Press.)

Monday, March 21, 2011

News Channels Going Down Hill…

   … which is not a major surprise to anyone with cable t.v. If you are one of those FoxNews watchers, you are pretty much programed to their kind of news, or to be more precise, commentary. The sad thing is that both of the other top cable news channels have resorted to the same format of interrupting real news events ( Presidential speeches, news conferences,...) in order to get a half-assed lame word or two from the desk-jockey at the studio or from some reporter with nothing better to do. Journalist from other countries have taken notice of our reporters turning into commentators.

El País, Spain
The Decline of News
Channels in the U.S.

By Antonio Caño
Translated By Amy Carruthers
14 March 2011

Edited by Sam Carter

Spain - El País - Original Article (Spanish)
Barack Obama had just begun to explain today in Arlington (Virginia) the measures that the United States had taken to help Japan when the channel, MSNBC, decided to cut the transmission of his speech in order to show one of their commentators, Richard Wolffe, so that he could analyze the North American reaction to the Japanese tragedy.
I have nothing against Wolffe, a brilliant journalist who knows Obama well, having written two books about him since he became president. But this time, neither he nor the public had the chance to listen to what Obama was going to say about Japan. Even if a copy of the speech had been given to those responsible for the transmission prior to its airing, there would have been an ethical obligation and a basic level of caution to wait for the president to speak the words before judging them. But the most serious problem of all is that the viewers are deprived of the precise facts, of the statement itself, of the exact words that should lead to subsequent judgment, not only by the journalists, but also by the citizens.
This isn’t a problem limited to MSNBC. CNN and Fox News, its main rivals in the form of 24-hour news channels, also interrupted Obama’s speech, both probably following the guidelines of audience ratings that indicated a drop when the words of the president replaced those of the studio commentators. After the reference to Japan, Obama was going to speak about education, a subject that the analysts never tire of repeating with regards to its huge importance for the future of the United States. None of the channels broadcast it.
This example is only a symptom of a widespread phenomenon that began to occur several years ago in American news broadcasting: the marginalization of facts in favor of commentaries. The same happens in other countries and in other forms of media; the opinion is imposed on the information, and at times it is simply substituted.
This formula was first demonstrated successfully by Fox, whose innovation of the American television outlook using an abundance of commentators and analysts with an unmistakable ideological hallmark served to create a solid fan base: Of viewers or, more likely, activists, I can’t say which.
Since last year, Fox’s audience has surpassed that of CNN and MSNBC combined. It was therefore inevitable that the latter two copied the format used by their competition. NBC’s sister channel tried, at the same time, to become a type of ideological response to Fox and strengthened its primetime with a series of commentators who helped to observe the current events from the sidelines. CNN tries to remain reliably in the center, but it has also resorted to showing people and opinions that take time away from the news.
The recent result of this is that when the public needed to know what exactly was happening in the Arab world in serious situations, they tuned in to Al-Jazeera, and they would have done the same thing for the earthquake in Japan if Qatari television covered the Far East with the means available to the Middle East.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly lamented a few days ago that Al-Jazeera has had to take the place left by North American channels by doing simply what they used to do and have stopped doing. The universal success of CNN was based on the freshness of a station that told what was happening and how it was happening.
Now, apparently, facts are no longer selling. A foolish escalation of opinion-based journalism, encouraged by the possibilities that new means of communication present, has devalued the news as a form of journalism that must be presented in a precise manner, balanced and free from commentaries. The old rules of confirmation by two sources and the contribution of dates and background are being substituted by more shocking words and bold judgments. And news channels are resignedly becoming endless talk shows.

© 2010 Watching America and WatchingAmerica.com. All Rights Reserved