I think Reagan used the power of media to conceptually estrange us from the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"; and sold the idea that America would be way better off when ruled by the rich. We are now seeing the logical result of that path taken. That said, I think Trump's subservience to his Russian pa…
I think Reagan used the power of media to conceptually estrange us from the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"; and sold the idea that America would be way better off when ruled by the rich. We are now seeing the logical result of that path taken. That said, I think Trump's subservience to his Russian patron, and the rough Mafioso manner of Team Trump would have deeply offended him.
It still galls me that Reagan’s name is invoked as the hallmark of the common good. His administration was the snowball running down the mountain that became an avalanche: Citizens United (corporations are people), firing 11,359 air traffic controllers . . . Remember when he said, “ The 9 most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Remind people in the red states who are recipients of the most federal dollars. Mitch McConnell rules over one of those states. They’re always first in line after a disaster. And Reaganomics? “trickle down economy?” What we’re seeing today in this country is the embodiment of all of that. And remember, he was an actor—a showman.
I agree, Jan. I was one of those air traffic controllers. It sickens me when I hear his name in regards to something good for America. I will never consider calling Washington National Airport by any other name. Trickle down economics is more appropriate to associate with his name.
Or John Wayne airport. Seems to me Reaganomics harks back to feudalism; the preponderance of wealth in very few hands and stratified, authoritarian rule.
Foreshadowing Trump- a conman. Both conmen so far as I could see, but Trump is even a deeper sociopath. They both despised a republican (small "r") form of government and preached the glories of plutocracy. They both use(d) big lies. They both rule(d) with stagecraft over statecraft, both maliciously, but Trump out-Orwell's Orwell; “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and of your ears.", and now the last flicker of reason of your brain.
Reagan was pretty out of it in the White House, and even the press noticed, yet (mostly) smiled. I always suspected that "The Gipper", while genuinely right wing, he was more the mouthpiece for the plutocratic coup than the author; but I have not researched enough to prove it.
I agree - it was Reagan who called government "the problem" and not "the solution" a position that they have tried to hammer home for decades and decades, characterizing those who receive governmental services (even Social Security and Medicare, which we pay into) as parasites, and the rich as the "makers" - when mostly what the rich make is more money.
The rich aren’t makers as much as they are takers. Petroleum industries get government subsidies; Musk’s wealth is based on government contracts and subsidies advantageous to his companies; obscenely wealthy people and corporations that pay little to no taxes. But make no mistake. What Elon is trying to do to this country is to break it to line his pockets. How can millions of people be thrown out of work without the country going into an economic meltdown?!
I's sure it's just lore, but "Alexander the Great" supposedly wept because he found no more worlds to conquer. History seems to illustrate the notion of unaccountable power corrupting absolutely. Or do only the corrupt even seek power that is absolute? At some point many of those with more cash than some nations become obsessive enough to want it ALL.
I distinctly remember coming back to America after growing up overseas just as Reagan was voted in. I thought it bizarre how much invective was thrown at Air Traffic Controllers and US Postal Service especially the postal carriers. In short, government workers with powerful Unions who had daily contact with Americans--doing jobs that definitely made paying our taxes seem worth it because what they did was indispensable to the country running properly.
They sure didn't seem to be lazy to me, but were continually reviled, portrayed as the enemy. There was so much pressure on these poor people who were just trying to do their damn job--which wasn't easy even without Americans yelling at them. "Going postal" became a phrase back then, when people went mad with anger.
Thinking about it now, I realize the entire Republican plan for decades has been to make our own government "the other" to steadily wear away trust in our Democracy. That "welfare queen" bit was particularly vile, attacking poor black women in urban areas (and yes, it was definitely aimed at black women). That's where the racial component came in, hard.
Reagan barely kept the John Bircher types under control back then. He wasn't as greedy as Trump. For him, there was a limit. But I still think this should all be traced back to Reagan and his deep cynicism and that false cowboy image. The country started changing back then.
I don't give Reagan any credit for holding back. He started it, he owns it. He was fine with it so long as it voted Republicans in. Pretty much how McConnell behaved.
I recall when a local TV station was running a feature with the evening news called "It's Your Money" and it was always about government waste, or perceived waste, like research into things that seemed weird without knowing the context. Never a word of praise or examination of the vast web of services we take for granted because they are part of (our) life. There have been a lot of such outlets for excoriating government, virtually always one sided. I recall Bush the Elder on national TV claiming it was "outrageous" that tax money went to measuring the methane output of livestock. I saw that lampooned in the newspaper as well. Never mind that methane is a potent "greenhouse gas", and yes. animal agriculture releases a LOT of it.
Yet, if we fancy, as we are (or were) taught in school, a " government of the people, by the people, for the people"; if such a government sucks, who is blame? And if it's not "the people", why not?
I agree. Reagan used that faux folksy persona to begin a radical assault on our system of government. People don't talk about Iran-contra, and other actions by Reagan.
RR: "I think you all know that I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
My family has believed this sentiment for my entire 63 years. Now when things go south with all the firings, they won't blame Trump or Musk, they'll still blame "the Government".
"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves---in their separate, and individual capacities.
In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere."
Lincoln was definitely not a Reagan Republican. The "legitimate object", right?
It's Karma, a Republican president, laid the groundwork for an oligarchy of a morbidly rich, ruling class. Regan, W and the orange blight all increased the deficits while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Now we are discovering what it is like to live under an oligarchy of the morbidly rich and morally bankrupt. It is cruel, frightening and chaotic.
Probably little all by itself, but democracy is inherently a form of communication, and cannot exist without it, with those who speak in our name and between one another. I think that's an essential part of the role of democratic citizen that Blinken talked about. If we are really to be a government of, by, and for the people, there is no other choice than to be well informed about our options, to think ahead with the help of others, and to set a focused agenda for the political agents we chose to advance our will. And that requires that sort of interchange I believe happens here. Some of it is just lets off steam, but much exchange is educational and conversational.
Tyranny thrives on division and confusion. Progress requires clarity; "keep your eyes on the prize". It would not be wise to neglect general vigilance, but yet it's important to seek to maintain fruitful, foundational foci. What democracy isn't is choice restricted to someone else's proprietary menu, flipping between "channels" of top-down, pre-packaged content.
Grass roots innovation was easier when communities communicated in taverns, or the town square. We are now awash in information, both accurate and deceptive; and some have megaphones much louder than the voices a small collection of assembled citizens. In that respect, "money doesn't talk it swears"; very loudly. That said, Lincoln claimed that,
“In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.”
Just because Lincoln said it doesn't prove it, but I think there are historical illustrations, and of "nuclei" of concerted efforts that gained
Reagan was the first president ever to declare that the government is the enemy. He also was the first to declare that teachers are “ the new welfare queens” thus indicting servants of the people or federal employees as “takers”. Then he fired the air controllers en mass and for life which, frankly, is why there’s always a shortage as it is not regarded as a secure job. i used to know how many open positions there are for teachers….thousands. So few are going into teaching now that Schools of Education have shut down across the country. Chris Christie who is now making a living talking about the psychology of Trump, expanded on Reagan’s negative opinion of teachers by saying that all public workers are the new welfare queens. You understand the racism inherent in this “ kill two birds with one stone” comment as the original welfare queens in the minds of Republicans are Black unwed mothers. So for forty plus years the Republican ideology which seems to have always, since the Twentieth Century devolved around a Calvinistic belief in money proving who are the chosen people and who aren’t also rested on the notion that the common man, woman and child, the aren’ts are little more than freed slaves and deserve their contempt which they lavishly dish out to this day. That was very obvious to me in the tongue lashings of Trump, Vance, and the presumptive right of the reporter to “dress the dishonored guest down” with comments about Zelensky’s non suit. Who does that guy think he is, by the way? The whip in hand overseer?
I think Reagan used the power of media to conceptually estrange us from the concept of "government of the people, by the people, for the people"; and sold the idea that America would be way better off when ruled by the rich. We are now seeing the logical result of that path taken. That said, I think Trump's subservience to his Russian patron, and the rough Mafioso manner of Team Trump would have deeply offended him.
It still galls me that Reagan’s name is invoked as the hallmark of the common good. His administration was the snowball running down the mountain that became an avalanche: Citizens United (corporations are people), firing 11,359 air traffic controllers . . . Remember when he said, “ The 9 most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’” Remind people in the red states who are recipients of the most federal dollars. Mitch McConnell rules over one of those states. They’re always first in line after a disaster. And Reaganomics? “trickle down economy?” What we’re seeing today in this country is the embodiment of all of that. And remember, he was an actor—a showman.
I agree, Jan. I was one of those air traffic controllers. It sickens me when I hear his name in regards to something good for America. I will never consider calling Washington National Airport by any other name. Trickle down economics is more appropriate to associate with his name.
I always spell that as "tinkle down".
Or John Wayne airport. Seems to me Reaganomics harks back to feudalism; the preponderance of wealth in very few hands and stratified, authoritarian rule.
Foreshadowing Trump- a conman. Both conmen so far as I could see, but Trump is even a deeper sociopath. They both despised a republican (small "r") form of government and preached the glories of plutocracy. They both use(d) big lies. They both rule(d) with stagecraft over statecraft, both maliciously, but Trump out-Orwell's Orwell; “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and of your ears.", and now the last flicker of reason of your brain.
Reagan was pretty out of it in the White House, and even the press noticed, yet (mostly) smiled. I always suspected that "The Gipper", while genuinely right wing, he was more the mouthpiece for the plutocratic coup than the author; but I have not researched enough to prove it.
I agree - it was Reagan who called government "the problem" and not "the solution" a position that they have tried to hammer home for decades and decades, characterizing those who receive governmental services (even Social Security and Medicare, which we pay into) as parasites, and the rich as the "makers" - when mostly what the rich make is more money.
The rich aren’t makers as much as they are takers. Petroleum industries get government subsidies; Musk’s wealth is based on government contracts and subsidies advantageous to his companies; obscenely wealthy people and corporations that pay little to no taxes. But make no mistake. What Elon is trying to do to this country is to break it to line his pockets. How can millions of people be thrown out of work without the country going into an economic meltdown?!
I's sure it's just lore, but "Alexander the Great" supposedly wept because he found no more worlds to conquer. History seems to illustrate the notion of unaccountable power corrupting absolutely. Or do only the corrupt even seek power that is absolute? At some point many of those with more cash than some nations become obsessive enough to want it ALL.
He wouldn't have been offended if he could have profited from it.
Reagan was the Republicans' first useful idiot. He just had some (superficial) manners.
I distinctly remember coming back to America after growing up overseas just as Reagan was voted in. I thought it bizarre how much invective was thrown at Air Traffic Controllers and US Postal Service especially the postal carriers. In short, government workers with powerful Unions who had daily contact with Americans--doing jobs that definitely made paying our taxes seem worth it because what they did was indispensable to the country running properly.
They sure didn't seem to be lazy to me, but were continually reviled, portrayed as the enemy. There was so much pressure on these poor people who were just trying to do their damn job--which wasn't easy even without Americans yelling at them. "Going postal" became a phrase back then, when people went mad with anger.
Thinking about it now, I realize the entire Republican plan for decades has been to make our own government "the other" to steadily wear away trust in our Democracy. That "welfare queen" bit was particularly vile, attacking poor black women in urban areas (and yes, it was definitely aimed at black women). That's where the racial component came in, hard.
Reagan barely kept the John Bircher types under control back then. He wasn't as greedy as Trump. For him, there was a limit. But I still think this should all be traced back to Reagan and his deep cynicism and that false cowboy image. The country started changing back then.
I don't give Reagan any credit for holding back. He started it, he owns it. He was fine with it so long as it voted Republicans in. Pretty much how McConnell behaved.
I recall when a local TV station was running a feature with the evening news called "It's Your Money" and it was always about government waste, or perceived waste, like research into things that seemed weird without knowing the context. Never a word of praise or examination of the vast web of services we take for granted because they are part of (our) life. There have been a lot of such outlets for excoriating government, virtually always one sided. I recall Bush the Elder on national TV claiming it was "outrageous" that tax money went to measuring the methane output of livestock. I saw that lampooned in the newspaper as well. Never mind that methane is a potent "greenhouse gas", and yes. animal agriculture releases a LOT of it.
Yet, if we fancy, as we are (or were) taught in school, a " government of the people, by the people, for the people"; if such a government sucks, who is blame? And if it's not "the people", why not?
I agree. Reagan used that faux folksy persona to begin a radical assault on our system of government. People don't talk about Iran-contra, and other actions by Reagan.
Contras were right wing terrorists.
RR: "I think you all know that I've always felt the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
My family has believed this sentiment for my entire 63 years. Now when things go south with all the firings, they won't blame Trump or Musk, they'll still blame "the Government".
"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves---in their separate, and individual capacities.
In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere."
Lincoln was definitely not a Reagan Republican. The "legitimate object", right?
I recall that Nancy Reagan wanted the WH to return to "glamor" in fact, I think she made a statement by wearing fur coats?
And what could be more glamorous than Nancy Reagan in a fur coat?
Reagan is a bit like a piece of See’s chocolates, nuts and chews, sweet on the outside,
nuts on the inside. Trump is not even sweet on the outside.
What you see is what you get. Indigestion. Time to regurgitate him and musk out of our system.
Rancid nuts for Reagan I'm afraid. It's stomach churning to even image what the the equivalent of Trump would be.
It's Karma, a Republican president, laid the groundwork for an oligarchy of a morbidly rich, ruling class. Regan, W and the orange blight all increased the deficits while cutting taxes on the wealthy. Now we are discovering what it is like to live under an oligarchy of the morbidly rich and morally bankrupt. It is cruel, frightening and chaotic.
Does it offend you JL? Then call (202) 224-3121 and say so. This thread is an echo chamber. It feels good but accomplishes NOTHING.
Probably little all by itself, but democracy is inherently a form of communication, and cannot exist without it, with those who speak in our name and between one another. I think that's an essential part of the role of democratic citizen that Blinken talked about. If we are really to be a government of, by, and for the people, there is no other choice than to be well informed about our options, to think ahead with the help of others, and to set a focused agenda for the political agents we chose to advance our will. And that requires that sort of interchange I believe happens here. Some of it is just lets off steam, but much exchange is educational and conversational.
Tyranny thrives on division and confusion. Progress requires clarity; "keep your eyes on the prize". It would not be wise to neglect general vigilance, but yet it's important to seek to maintain fruitful, foundational foci. What democracy isn't is choice restricted to someone else's proprietary menu, flipping between "channels" of top-down, pre-packaged content.
Grass roots innovation was easier when communities communicated in taverns, or the town square. We are now awash in information, both accurate and deceptive; and some have megaphones much louder than the voices a small collection of assembled citizens. In that respect, "money doesn't talk it swears"; very loudly. That said, Lincoln claimed that,
“In this age, in this country, public sentiment is everything. With it, nothing can fail; against it, nothing can succeed. Whoever molds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes, or pronounces judicial decisions.”
Just because Lincoln said it doesn't prove it, but I think there are historical illustrations, and of "nuclei" of concerted efforts that gained
momentum over time.
Reagan was the first president ever to declare that the government is the enemy. He also was the first to declare that teachers are “ the new welfare queens” thus indicting servants of the people or federal employees as “takers”. Then he fired the air controllers en mass and for life which, frankly, is why there’s always a shortage as it is not regarded as a secure job. i used to know how many open positions there are for teachers….thousands. So few are going into teaching now that Schools of Education have shut down across the country. Chris Christie who is now making a living talking about the psychology of Trump, expanded on Reagan’s negative opinion of teachers by saying that all public workers are the new welfare queens. You understand the racism inherent in this “ kill two birds with one stone” comment as the original welfare queens in the minds of Republicans are Black unwed mothers. So for forty plus years the Republican ideology which seems to have always, since the Twentieth Century devolved around a Calvinistic belief in money proving who are the chosen people and who aren’t also rested on the notion that the common man, woman and child, the aren’ts are little more than freed slaves and deserve their contempt which they lavishly dish out to this day. That was very obvious to me in the tongue lashings of Trump, Vance, and the presumptive right of the reporter to “dress the dishonored guest down” with comments about Zelensky’s non suit. Who does that guy think he is, by the way? The whip in hand overseer?