Skip to main content

View Diary: When did it become ok? (83 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'd say about the same time Ronald Reagan (22+ / 0-)

    turned money into god, made ketchup a vegetable and greed a traditional family value.

    It was the start off the 'I don't give a fuck about anyone but me and mine'-era, and now we've digressed into the age of "I don't give a fuck. Period."

    •  I'd agree with you that (10+ / 0-)

      the Ronald Reagan era was the beginning of the end of America as we knew it.  Interesting that the GOP calls him a great POTUS.  Great compared to what?  Tricky Dick or Lame ass ford?  

      Visit the Iraq Memorial Quilt @ http://www.iraqmemorialquilt.com

      by pollchecker on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 08:08:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They don't compare him to (11+ / 0-)

        anything, that's the trick.
        He is superior to all, omnipotent, and omniscient.

        For those of us who remember, he was a B-actor who was upstaged by a chimp and that is plenty good enough for his believers.
        His era was marked by illegal, covert operations and a general understanding that, at least for the last term, the man was not well.

        Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21<> Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

        by Thousandwatts on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 09:35:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  He also was a peacemaker (5+ / 0-)

          ...when we needed one most. I don't disagree with many of the criticisms of his policies, though I do think that like Dubya he was a front for conservative forces who were the real policy makers. The man was an actor and his job was to sell what was given him in the script.

          The one notable way he bucked his leash-holders was the most important of all. At the height of the Cold War, when most experts considered nuclear war an overwhelming statistical likelihood, he saw the groundbreaking miniseries The Day After and it scared the holy living shit out of him. He changed his administration policies regarding the Soviets, softened the hard line stance held by the Republican establishment and took first strike off the table. He opened a dialogue with the Russians which led to deescalation, finding a willing partner in Gorbachev.

          The right wing likes to promote the myth that Reagan ended the Cold War through strong-arm tactics, but that's bullshit. He pulled us back from the brink of annihilation by actually acting like the kind and benevolent grandfather figure he portrayed and talking it out with the Soviets in a genuine effort to make peace. And he did it when his whole party establishment was hawkish as all hell and against what he was doing.

          It doesn't change the awful things he promoted and allowed on his watch, but the man deserves credit for being willing to change course when it was most vital. When I think of Reagan I think of a man who mostly played the President on TV until he realized his responsibility to prevent nuclear Armageddon and did what he had to. And he did it against the wishes of his own party, his own handlers really. It doesn't redeem everything, not by a long shot, but I do think he shares the credit with Gorbachev for saving the world from nuclear fire. Both men bucked the tide of history and their own parties and governments to snip the fuse on the bombs that would have destroyed us all.

          "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

          by DarthMeow504 on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 02:17:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's an interesting line of thought. (3+ / 0-)

            I tend to see it more as Reagan was doing "what they did" in terms of spending tons of money and "fighting communism" at every turn; lots of talk of "Star Wars" and mini-wars in the Western Hemisphere- seeing anything remotely communist as being a direct tentacle of the USSR and the Soviets managed to get themselves into Afghanistan, which shredded them socially and economically. The Soviets had open demonstrations against the war, a generation of war weary veterans sick of the bluster of global domination while the domestic economy collapsed. Many different nations under the hammer and sickle ready to strike out on their own and the Soviet army exhausted by Afghanistan, no longer the enforcer of a Politburo no longer singular in its goals.
            I don't think Reagan was as active in making peace as some are choosing to give him credit for; USSR crumbled on his watch but he would have loved to have had a more direct and active role if circumstances would have allowed as in his "open mike" gaffe in 1984.
            Afghanistan wore out the Soviet Union at many levels, combined with a change in Soviet leadership, and USSR crumbled with Reagan and history there to catch the pieces.

            Occupy- Your Mind. - No better friend, no worse enemy. -8.75, -6.21<> Bring the Troops Home Yesterday

            by Thousandwatts on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 07:34:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  seriously. That "gaffe" was the first thing (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Thousandwatts

              that came to my mind. If Ronald Reagan can be seen as a "peacemaker, " god help us all.

              •  History disagrees with you (0+ / 0-)

                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                1986, Reagan and Gorbachev put eliminating all ICBMs and nuclear weapons on the table. These talks led directly to deescalation.

                It's another right wing myth that the US "spent the USSR into collapse", as the military and especially the nuclear arsenal never went anywhere. If you don't think a nation can remain hostile and a threat despite economic hardship, take a look at North Korea. Russia could have maintained Cold War level hostility even after the satellite states broke off. It could be a superpower level threat even now if it chose.

                They didn't have to nor want to anymore because Reagan and Gorbachev thawed the Cold War at the negotiating table. Those talks, and the willingness of both sides to make concessions and genuinely seek peace is what ended the Cold War, not strong arm tactics nor military spending. Reagan and Gorbachev both bucked their own party hardliners to make it happen.

                Reagan changed course. He started out toeing the right wing hard line, and changed his mind. That's historical fact. People aren't black and white, all good and all bad, and neither was Reagan. He did a lot wrong, like I said, but he deserves credit for that one vital thing he did so very right.

                "Is there anybody listening? Is there anyone who sees what's going on? Read between the lines, criticize the words they're selling. Think for yourself, and feel the walls become sand beneath your feet." --Geoff Tate, Queensryche

                by DarthMeow504 on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:47:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  "The New Hobesian Process" is what an Econ (11+ / 0-)

      prof I had in the '80's called it. If people come to see a largess as a right, they will fight anyone and everyone to keep it.

      He was a conservative, and he applied it to recipients of social welfare programs, but it applies even more to government contractors (which most corporations are, at some level) and the over-paid top echelons of the corporate world.

      And everyone who isn't an executive is being told that THEY don't deserve the pittance they are paid. Everyone is pissed, scared and hyper-defensive. Including the economic elite, who are afraid that the music will stop before they have permanently secured their fortunes. (Home in Bahrain, money in the Carribean, etc.)

      It has become obvious that some in this country want to pick permanent winners and losers and no one wants to be one of the losers.

      The working class want guns to protect themselves because they don't have an armed guard in the lobby or out at the gate to protect them from the imaginary roving bands of destitute minorities who are coming to rape and rob and kill them.

      Our media deliberately keep the populace in a state of paranoia.

      George Orwell famously said, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." Had Orwell seen Reagan and Thacher, he would have said wingtip shoe, instead.

      The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it. -Ezra Klein

      by bubbajim on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 10:46:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (172)
  • Baltimore (88)
  • Community (84)
  • Bernie Sanders (66)
  • Freddie Gray (60)
  • Civil Rights (58)
  • Elections (41)
  • Culture (38)
  • Hillary Clinton (36)
  • Media (36)
  • Racism (33)
  • Law (32)
  • 2016 (31)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (26)
  • Environment (25)
  • Politics (23)
  • Republicans (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Economy (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site