MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles) (11/14/86)
Comes the news that, well, yes, in fact the Russians WERE telling
the truth when they said that Ronnie had no objections to the idea of
100% nuclear disarmament in 10 years, in spite of what the White House
has maintained for the last few days. Yet another example of
conscious prevarication/disinformation by our government, intended to
make the Russians look bad. You remember the Russians: those
notorious prevaricators who, as we all learned in Civics, are to be
despised because they are so willing to let the truth fall to their
own interests.
Really, I can't get angry with the Reagan Administration anymore.
I've just exhausted my outrage at the years of distortion, lies and
self-delusion that have gone into policy after policy, so that I can't
even get excited about this last month's litany. Does anybody care?
Certainly, the people don't seem to care, or even notice, this latest
round of sleaziness in the defense of liberty.
Does anybody understand this? Does anybody have any idea why
Reagan never seems to get hurt, regardless of how low his
Administration stoops, or of how ignorant (to use the charitable
characterization) he himself seems? If your inclination is to respond
to this with "they aren't responding because he IS doing a good job",
then I request your participation in this thought experiment: what
would Reagan have to do to get a substantial body of the American
people disillusioned with him? Child molestation? Drug dealing? Not
serious responses. Besides, these would just be trumped-up charges by
a claque of liberals. War crimes? Take a serious look at what the
"freedom fighters" in Nicaragua are up to and you'll forget about that
one. Flagrant incompetence? How can somebody be incompetent who
leaves everything but the personality up to his aides? Undeniable
senility? Well, he's never been a flash in the pan. Besides, he's
such a nice man; we can probably muddle along for another two years.
Etc. Etc.
The point of the exercise is to support the following assertion:
the American people have decided to "like" Ronald Reagan, no matter
what he does. They have equated their sense of national identity with
him, and they are not going to turn on him any more than they will
attack their own mothers. If you disagree with this, I repeat the
challenge: tell me ANYTHING remotely within the realm of possibility
that Reagan could do to cause the public to lose faith in him.
I would also like to hear discussion of the ramifications of this
for the Republican party, the US, and the political system in general.
How do people get into this god-like position? Why isn't this a
serious weakness in the system? Does this mean that George Bush is
doomed (if so, maybe it isn't a serious weakness, after all)? Has
this ever happened before? Will it happen again, and with whom?
Steve Upstill
-------ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA (01/05/87)
Steve Upstill challenges us to tell him anything "remotely within the realm of possibility that Reagan could do to cause the public to lose faith in him". How about if he announced that he wanted to raise taxes and eliminate social security? As for the situation in Nicaragua, most people probably feel that Reagan either doesn't really know what is going on or else he has somehow been convinced by his advisors to take a somewhat irrational course. But you have to give him credit for sticking to his guns. He said that he would oppose communism in Central America when he first ran for office. Stan Attenberger -------
krs@cad.Berkeley.EDU@astroatc.UUCP (01/20/87)
> > The point of the exercise is to support the following assertion: >the American people have decided to "like" Ronald Reagan, no matter >what he does. They have equated their sense of national identity >with him, and they are not going to turn on him any more than they >will attack their own mothers. If you disagree with this, I repeat >the challenge: tell me ANYTHING remotely within the realm of >possibility that Reagan could do to cause the public to lose faith >in him. I think the reason you have such a hard time understanding this is that your frame of reference, if you will, is different from many other peoples. I, for one, start with the assumption that Regan, or any president for that matter, is a reasonable person. I also assume that his actions are at least motivated by the desire to do the right thing. I then seek to determine and understand that motivation. Many liberal individuals I know begin with the opposite assumptions and, of course, see every act Reagan does as proof of his evil nature. Their goal in viewing the man is to find more evil acts, and reaffirm that their position is correct. Any person who assumes a position like this becomes stagnated in thier views and soon loses their objectivity. Their frame of reference becomes, this guy is as asshole and I am going to prove it. Not, what is really hapening, and what are its ramifications long term and short. >Steve Upstill > >------- -------