If you’re one of those people who detest former President _______, do you apply a different standard of appropriate behavior than you would for former President ______, whom you revere?
I think you do.
Let’s imagine that former President Clinton were to die. Would all the people currently claiming “It’s okay to say ‘Reagan was a saint, a decent, humble, kindly, beneficient masterful leader, because it’s only the truth, and if you can’t agree then shut your disrespectful mouth’” be as content to allow words of uncorrected praise of Clinton’s legacy and character be uttered with nary a word of dissent?
If you’re all pissed off about the protesters at his funeral, would you be more forgiving if someone showed up (as someone will) at Clinton’s funeral with a sign reading “Clinton in Hell”? Is there a part of you that, in Clinton’s case, would be saying that was okay, or that was free speech, or even saying “That’s in poor taste” while smiling tolerantly (as you care not doing today regarding Reagan’s protestors)?
As someone who dislikes both Presidents, I’m suspicious that much of the current partisan discussions about Reagan will have a whole different set of rules (and a whole different set of people defending those rules) when it’s Clinton’s turn.
Is there a Reagan fan who would commit to same exact standards of decorum for Clinton? If not, why not?
Rude behavior is wrong whomever does it. Ther was a GD thread about Reagan’s policies which I thougt could have been entirely in good taste. As it turned out, it mostly was. At least when it was compared to pit or some of the MPSIMS threads. This thread, deserves special mention.
And for the record, although I was talking about Carter when I made the promise in that thread, I promise now that when Clinton is buried, I will observe his funeral with the respect that a dead president deserves. I will add, that anyone who does not maintain a proper level of decorum will recieve the same scorn from me that I felt for those who laughed or joked at Reagan’s.
Having said all that, I do not think that no one is allowed to mention what they consider policy failings of a dead president. Claiming the Reagan provided us with large deficits is not out of bounds. Anouncing that you have a full bladder and want to know where Clinton will be buried is.
Hell, I voted for Clinton and disagreed with a lot of the things that he did. When he dies, I will be bitching about him, just as I bitched about Reagan.
So, it looks like some Reagan fans promise to maintain decorum when Clinton dies, and a Clinton voter will rag on him.
Now, Ford and Carter I was too young to vote. But I’m gonna piss and moan when Bush pere piles it in, too.
As I consider it a near certainty that huge numbers of Republicans will rag endlessly on Clinton when he dies, I feel free to say whatever the hell I like about Reagan now.
I know a few Republicans will prove me wrong here, but I am also sure enough that many, many, many Republicans will prove me right that I am not exactly dismayed at the prospect of facing their scorn.
Taking the nature of your question at heart and assuming that a president comes along whose death would bother me in the slightest, I wouldn’t be going around saying that people should shut up and let me talk about engraving his face into a mountain.
My take is that some amount of dissent is healthy and understandable. I’ve not been actively dissing Reagan the past few days, but I don’t mind those who are, presuming that they stay within the bounds of reasonable discourse. I find the “speak no ill of the dead” or “a President deserves respect” arguments to be not particularly convincing.
Then again, I voted against Reagan both times. I voted for Clinton twice, and, when he dies, if there are those who are voicing their disapproval, I’ll give them the same leeway I give the Reagan-bashers: dissent if you wish, but be civil.
So I guess I’m at least consistent, which seems to be what the OP is asking for.
And calling them fascist/commies who wish fervently that the world was still living under threat of MAD. And that they hate America. And kick puppies. And eat kittens.
In part, though the problem is that the bad things most often said about Reagan (rightly or wrongly) are primarily policy issues: Iran/Contra, the deficit. (I’ll exclude the merely sophmoric “He was dumb.”) The main bad things you hear of Clinton are personal failings: he was self-absorbed, he lied and embarrassed the country about Monica.
(And because the shrill partisans will say it, yes, Reagan had personal flaws and Clinton had policy failures. Read it again.)
They’re different types of failings, and I think people genuinely feel differently about them. Some people are ready to forgive policy failings if they think the person was sincere in pursuing them and apologizes afterwards; others are willing to put up with a dishonorable person in the office provided he “does the job well.” It’s a values thing, and people can malign one and praise the other consistiently.
In both cases, I think intrusions on the actual ceremonial stuff are totally out of line. Elsewhere, name-calling and the like say more about the name-caller than about the deceased; I’m for intellectual praise/criticism, no matter how pointed, but I think name-calling is stupid.
I’m also all for critiquing, and even ridiculing, the media treatment. When Clinton dies, I sure hope we won’t be in for six and a half days of “all Clinton, all the time” media coverage, the way we were with St. Ronnie. But of course we won’t; Clinton was a ‘controversial’ President, but ‘everybody loved Ronnie’ - despite Clinton’s approval ratings being generally higher. The people who didn’t like Clinton just had a better media machine.
At any rate, chances are it’ll be a long time before Clinton dies. But Ford recently turned 90, and Bush I just turned 80, as will Carter later this year. We’ll have plenty of opportunity to see how the media treats other dead Presidents.
I don’t know whether to be amused or depressed at the idea of talking heads grasping desperately for something, anything, meaningful to say about Ford.
I never said Reagan was in Hell, I merely believe he shouldn’t be deified.
Nor should Clinton. If Clinton were to die, I’d probably react the same way-I prefer Clinton types to Reagan types, but I sure as hell ain’t gonna participate in a sugar coating of Clinton.
What Guin said. Take away the Ken Starr witch-hunt, and the Clinton Presidency was primarily one of a mixed-bag middle-ground administrator, who managed to annoy both sides to varying degrees while plotting a center path. I don’t know of anyone who worships the ground Clinton walks on, and the only people who believe Clinton was a Satanic Destroyer of the Nation are folks who think Fox’s claims of being “Fair and Balanced” is a warranty.
Of course, IMO those also tend to be the folks most eager to venerage St. Ron, which means we can expect them to really go nuts when Bill finally gets planted.
I think for the most part, those of us that disagreed vehemently with Reagan’s policies were appropriately respectful of Reagan the person and his family during the mourning period. The Reaganophiles are getting a bit carried away by talk of putting his face on currency and Mount Rushmore, but that will fade as perspective is gained. The death of a president should transcend partisanship and I believe in this case, it did pretty well. Kerry suspended his campaign and paid his respects to the deceased. I would expect that when Clinton’s life ends that his opposition will behave appropriately as well.
I can honestly say that I would expect and give the same level of decorum when Clinton dies as when Reagan did. In threads/discussions of legacy and effectiveness of their respective administrations, I think any discourse (on a basically civil level) is fine. However, in threads/discussions of mourning, I have seen/heard (here and elsewhere) things that have gone way too far. If people are expressing their sadness at the passing of the man, then I think comments like “I’ll go get my dance shoes” are way out of line and I would find them offensive no matter who the dead was.
[quote]
In part, though the problem is that the bad things most often said about Reagan (rightly or wrongly) are primarily policy issues: Iran/Contra, the deficit. (I’ll exclude the merely sophmoric “He was dumb.”) The main bad things you hear of Clinton are personal failings: he was self-absorbed, he lied and embarrassed the country about Monica.
[/quote=furt]
And this right here is an excellent example of what the OP is talking about. I ain’t trying to single you out to make an example of, furt, but what you’ve said demonstrates the OP rather than refutes it. You say that the attacks on Clinton were personal and therefore unjustified. But the attacks on Reagan were over policy. Yet you show us an example of a personal attack on Reagan. And find justification to dismiss it outright. The same tactic is engaged in by every partisan when they make the claim that their attacks on their ideological pet are worse than the attacks on their ideological opponent.
I can. And quite easily. Immediately at hand, there’s Stoid.
I would hope so, but unfortunately I can’t expect so. Opposition to Reagan was based mainly on his policies, but few would claim to have disliked him personally. Policies’ effects fade over time or are superseded into irrelevance, though, while respect for a person remains. Opposition to Clinton was essentially entirely personal, and of an extremely venomous nature, not policy-based. The hatred we saw, and still see, of him simply transcends any connection to the world of policy or even reality, and hatred typically does not soften over time if it is nursed at all. While Clinton’s policies will be even more historically irrelevant to the far-distant day of his death than Reagan’s were at his, the remaining basic respect for the man that allows us to say nice things at almost any man’s funeral won’t be there in his case - because it never was there at all.
I’d like to be proven wrong, of course - but it would help if we had less Clinton-bashing on this very board even this many years after his departure from the White House.