Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kentuck

(111,097 posts)
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:42 PM Feb 2013

Were the Repubs successful in re-writing the history of Ronald Reagan?

In my opinion, they were. Most people born after 1980 have a very positive image of Ronald Reagan and consider him one of our greatest presidents. Factually and historically, he was one of our worst.

Is it any wonder that they are attempting to re-write the history of the Iraq War also? Will they be as successful with it as they were with the re-write of the Reagan history?

That is why I am very pleased that Rachel Maddow is doing her show tonight. There was no glory in the invasion of Iraq and there was no victory.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

uponit7771

(90,339 posts)
2. Don't know, RayGuns dislike of black people make it kinda hard IMHO. Only dems would allow RayGun to
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:51 PM
Feb 2013

...be lionized unfettered

 

quinnox

(20,600 posts)
3. Reagan is looked at as an American icon
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 06:53 PM
Feb 2013

and I think history has been kind to his legacy.

I don't think they will be successful in rewriting history about Iraq, in fact, I think the opposite will happen.

LeftInTX

(25,337 posts)
5. Reagan's nasty legacy was felt mostly after he left office
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:07 PM
Feb 2013

Harder for the media & public to connect the dots.

Whereas the Iraq War was kinda "in your face".

ETA: The financial meltdown occurred under Bush's watch, at the end of the 2nd term, leaving a nasty stain. Although there were problems under Reagan, he was for some reason reelected and then his VP was elected.

Ikonoklast

(23,973 posts)
6. No. Give it time.
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 07:31 PM
Feb 2013

Rotten crap starts to stink the longer it lies there.


Thhe passage of time will give a better perspective on just how bad a president Reagan truly was.

blm

(113,061 posts)
7. Thank Bill Clinton for that. Remember this: Hey Democrats, Truth Matters
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:28 PM
Feb 2013
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0511-29.htm

Published on Thursday, May 11, 2006 by Consortium News
Hey Democrats, Truth Matters!
by Robert Parry


My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

. . .

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

. . .

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized.

. . .

Clinton’s generosity to George H.W. Bush and the Republicans, of course, didn’t turn out as he had hoped. Instead of bipartisanship and reciprocity, he was confronted with eight years of unrelenting GOP hostility, attacks on both his programs and his personal reputation.

Later, as tensions grew in the Middle East, the American people and even U.S. policymakers were flying partially blind, denied anything close to the full truth about the history of clandestine relationships between the Reagan-Bush team and hostile nations in the Middle East.

Clinton’s failure to expose that real history also led indirectly to the restoration of Bush Family control of the White House in 2001. Despite George W. Bush’s inexperience as a national leader, he drew support from many Americans who remembered his father’s presidency fondly.

If the full story of George H.W. Bush’s role in secret deals with Iraq and Iran had ever been made public, the Bush Family’s reputation would have been damaged to such a degree that George W. Bush’s candidacy would not have been conceivable.

Not only did Clinton inadvertently clear the way for the Bush restoration, but the Right’s political ascendancy wiped away much of the Clinton legacy, including a balanced federal budget and progress on income inequality. A poorly informed American public also was easily misled on what to do about U.S. relations with Iraq and Iran.

In retrospect, Clinton’s tolerance of Reagan-Bush cover-ups was a lose-lose-lose – the public was denied information it needed to understand dangerous complexities in the Middle East, George W. Bush built his presidential ambitions on the nation’s fuzzy memories of his dad, and Republicans got to enact a conservative agenda.

Clinton’s approach also reflected a lack of appreciation for the importance of truth in a democratic Republic. If the American people are expected to do their part in making sure democracy works, they need to be given at least a chance of being an informed electorate.
. . .

(Parry allows DU unlimited use of his articles.)
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/051006.html

David Zephyr

(22,785 posts)
8. Yes. Sadly, they were successful at it during his administration, too.
Mon Feb 18, 2013, 08:43 PM
Feb 2013

Re-writing American history to gloss over facts and fix blame on other now requires a 24/7 "news" channel. It's a full-time business.

But there's so much to re-write, isn't there?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Were the Repubs successfu...