July 30, 2004 6:06 AM

...and you, sir, are no Ronald Reagan

The Case Against George W. Bush: The son of the fortieth president of the United States takes a hard look at the son of the forty-first and does not like what he sees

Was there anything more truly ironic at this Democratic convention than seeing the son of the patron saint of Conservatives speaking from the podium? No, Ron Reagan's speech was not overtly political, since he was there to champion a cause: that of stem-cell research, which shows so much promise in the fight against Alzheimer's Disease.

Now, he is taking on the man who would assume his father's legacy, the man who couldn't carry Ronald Reagan's jock, George W. Bush. Clearly, Reagan is not impressed.

It may have been the guy in the hood teetering on the stool, electrodes clamped to his genitals. Or smirking Lynndie England and her leash. Maybe it was the smarmy memos tapped out by soft-fingered lawyers itching to justify such barbarism. The grudging, lunatic retreat of the neocons from their long-standing assertion that Saddam was in cahoots with Osama didn't hurt....

I began to get calls from friends whose parents had always voted Republican, "but not this time." There was the staid Zbigniew Brzezinski on the staid NewsHour with Jim Lehrer sneering at the "Orwellian language" flowing out of the Pentagon. Word spread through the usual channels that old hands from the days of Bush the Elder were quietly (but not too quietly) appalled by his son's misadventure in Iraq. Suddenly, everywhere you went, a surprising number of folks seemed to have had just about enough of what the Bush administration was dishing out. A fresh age appeared on the horizon, accompanied by the sound of scales falling from people's eyes. It felt something like a demonstration of that highest of American prerogatives and the most deeply cherished American freedom: dissent.

I find it interesting that Ron Reagan, who never particularly supported his father's policies but never publicly came out against them, now feels it necessary to take on George W. Bush. He's right, though. Many thinking Americans on both side of the aisle are wondering what in the world is happening in the White House.

I was hardly what one could reasonably call a fan of Ronald Reagan. Even so, as a President he was a figure that George W. Bush can't begin to compare to. The fact that Reagan's son is calling him on it should speak volumes.

Oddly, even my father's funeral contributed. Throughout that long, stately, overtelevised week in early June, items would appear in the newspaper discussing the Republicans' eagerness to capitalize (subtly, tastefully) on the outpouring of affection for my father and turn it to Bush's advantage for the fall election. The familiar "Heir to Reagan" puffballs were reinflated and loosed over the proceedings like (subtle, tasteful) Mylar balloons. Predictably, this backfired. People were treated to a side-by-side comparison—Ronald W. Reagan versus George W. Bush—and it's no surprise who suffered for it. Misty-eyed with nostalgia, people set aside old political gripes for a few days and remembered what friend and foe always conceded to Ronald Reagan: He was damned impressive in the role of leader of the free world. A sign in the crowd, spotted during the slow roll to the Capitol rotunda, seemed to sum up the mood—a portrait of my father and the words NOW THERE WAS A PRESIDENT.

Indeed. The current occupant of the White House looks like an absolute amateur by comparison.

WE DESERVE BETTER.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on July 30, 2004 6:06 AM.

This makes you wonder what would have happened if he had been wanted for jaywalking was the previous entry in this blog.

Things that make you go "hmm..." is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12