Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (3306)	1/19/2001 1:20:06 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 6089

Hey Poet, cool thread, eh! Here is an article that gives the opinion of 7 historians on Reagan and his legacy. Like all opinions they are biased; But the absence of hate language for or against living breathing human beings of any political stripe...certainly lends some credibility to their opinions. When I consider buying a book I always browze quickly. Hate, prejudice, and small mindedness assault a reader immediately. I would not read such a book; Nor would I asociate with such people. The opinions in the article come from some eminent scholars, however. But they are still ONLY opinions. Just because these people have higher education, and the respect of their peers, DOES NOT make their opinion any more valuable than anyone in particular here on SI, which has many educated people. However, the fact that they state them in the public arena, does allow educated criticism to be directed, and to accumulate in the public record--for or against their ideas. I have looked at the public record of these respondents; Their credentials and reputations are extremely high. But that is only my opinion. I'm often mistaken. The summation, as one would expect, seems to be a mix. The fact that he was one of the most popular Presidents of all time, does not alone justify his place in history. Scholarship, luck, and History itself will speak the final words. policyreview.com ______________________________________________ Stephen Ambrose Here, a short bio of Ambrose (less than 10 short pages--interesting life!) stephenambrose.com M.E. Bradford I don't find Bradford's opinion to be as thoughtful as Ambrose. His partisanship detracts from his authority as a scholar, in my opinion Alonzo Hamby Not as prolific or as broad as Ambrose, but extremely well respected by his peers. cats.ohiou.edu Forrest Mcdonald "Mort Sahl once said in 1960, "Vote no. Keep the White House vacant another eight years."" :) Here is an interesting interview with Mcdonald. I would love to read this book! booknotes.org George Nash Nash provides some very insightful comments: Ronald Reagan, like Woodrow Wilson and Abraham Lincoln before him, has been guided in office by a compelling moral vision. Because he has been a principled (and not merely managerial) chief executive, Reagan has profoundly antagonized those who espouse competing social visions-notably the New Deal, Great Society, and New Left. He has threatened their intellectual hegemony and sense of superiority, much as FDR threatened those Republicans of his day who considered themselves America's natural aristocracy. As custodians of a regime under powerful ideological assault, Reagan's adversaries have a vested interest in disparaging his presidency. For this reason alone, his standing at the bar of history will long engender passion. Such is the fate of those who delegitimate (but do not overturn) the status quo. Nash is a Conservative (I guess everybody has to be something!), so this bias should be considered. On the other hand, Scholars that allow undue partiality to color their objective histories are quickly found out by their peers, and their reputations blighted as well as their careers. I am too tired to read through the last two for appropriate links. There are so many ways to get sidetracked down the link maze! The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank, so one would not expect them to be publishing any hateful analysis of the Reagan Presidency. Nevertheless, no historian is truly objective, and I keep that in mind. These 7 respondents appear to speak with some balance. I did not pick up any overt ugliness or viciousness or small mindedness. If we access the minds of scholars whose reputations have withstood intense examination from all sides--I suppose that is the most one can hope for... Personally, I find Reagan an enigma. My life and character would not stand scrutiny for ONE DAY as leader of a Nation. One wonders how Reagan lived such a life where there seems to be basically no moral failing, no hypocrisy, no inconsistency of expressed values. How can this be? Perhaps he truly was a caricature--someone drawn up in a serious comic script whose character is fixed by the author/illustrator so that it will always represent and epitomize the exact same values and predictabilities. Certainly, he was unique. Perhaps he was loved by more Americans than any other Statesman. History, as always, will be the final judge of his service to humankind. But the best and most important judge of his value will be his family and friends. Isn't it always so?