When do we put Reagan on Rushmore?

Great Debates
1

This post is NOT about whether or not we should put Reagan on Mt. Rushmore – I don’t think we should put anyone else there, ever.

And it’s NOT about whether we should put him on money; I’m open to the idea, but I think it’s a bit soon.

But thinking of that did get me thinking about the question of when it would not be too soon. FDR was barely cold before they were sticking him on the dime, Ditto JFK on the half-dollar coin; so maybe we don’t need to wait so long. OTOH, looking in hindsight, maybe JFK was a mistake, and people were overemotional.

So my question is: when do we have enough distance from events to view them semi-objectively? When would it be soon enough to think about Reagan’s place in history? Is this something the nation can debate now, or should we wait until 2010, 2020?
For purposes of this thread, it is a given that 1) Reagan is/was very, very popular, and 2) most journalists and historians at this point seem to be agreed that so far, his policies have been mostly validated. I’m not interested in hearing from those who want to say how Reagan was terrible and horrible, nor from those who wish to deify him. There are other threads for that.

2

This is not a given. Even with the tact and decorum of obituaries and tributes, there have been plenty of dissenting voices about aspects of Reagan’s presidency. Wait a few years, and there’ll be a much more dispassionate view.

3

Good grief, GorillaMan, “For purposes of this thread”. What’s a “few years” that’s what the OP is asking for crying out loud.

Personally, my thought is “one lifetime”, ie, when the majority of the people alive at the time of the “event” (in this case, his term in office) are no longer alive. That’s probably on the order of 50-60 years and may be way too conservative, but it’s just my gut feel that people who lived through something will always have a difficult time viewing it dispassionately.

4

It would/should take at least 25 or 30 years to consider carving Reagan into Mount Rushmore.

And it couldn’t happen until after I was dead because I would personally do everything I could to make sure it never happened.

5

I don’t think you can make a really fair assessment of a historical figure at least until everybody who knew him or personally remembered him was dead. Judging President Reagan’s place in history right now is difficult because

  1. President Reagan’s policies and philosophies still have a direct influence. Something like SDI is still being proposed and debated. The events in Iraq and Afghanistan right now are a direct result for the Reagan administration’s support of the mujhadeen in Afghanistan and Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. His political philosophy still influences the Republican party today.

  2. People who have made strong opinions of him while he was President still tend to hold those opinions today, and President Reagan was a polarizing figure. There are those who are reluctant to view any Reagan administration negatively. On the other hand, there are others who can’t find anything positive about Reagan at all.

Give it 100, 200, 500 years, and we might be able to start looking at his place in history.

6

Better we should put Bonzo the Chimp.

And the airport in Washington should be renamed “Bonzo International.”

7

To judge a person from a historical perspective you probably need at least fifty years. Time to seperate out the short term from the long term.

On a personal judgement, I’d reccommend a one year waiting period on all major memorial tributes like currency, stamps, and Mount Rushmore. The immediate aftermath of a person’s death tends to create an overwhelming sentimental flood that needs time to abate before decisions like this should be made.

By the same token, I feel that now is not the time to be condemning Ronald Reagan’s legacy. I certainly have my doubts about many of the things he did, but now is not the time I’m going to express them. When a person dies, I think we should all make an effort to remember them in a positive light.

8

This sounds like one of those “slippery slope” deals, where once we let Reagan get on the mountain, eventually Monica will be up there sucking Bill’s dick.

Leave the monument alone. Can’t they come up with something original, for chrissakes? Suggestion: Do it simply, powerful, and classy, like Kennedy’s eternal flame. I don’t think Reagan himself would at all approve of his Irish mug up there next to Lincoln, despite their Illinois origins. He’d probably want something simple, inviting, approachable.

9

That I would pay to see! And you think that George Washington’s nose is big. I’m not at all sure how the good people of Rapids City would react.

10

Mount Rushmore History
So a minimum of a decade, say 2015, Plus we need to add a few years, say 30, to show decent respect for the integrity of the Artist’s original vision. That gets us up to 2050 or so. If Reagan’s reputation holds up that long, it’ll be time to think about adding him to the monument.

11

There are a couple of “givens” in the OP that I just don’t think are true. I’d say several decades would be an approriate wait. Also, someone posted to a different thread (maybe one about Reagan on the dime) that Mt. Rushmore can’t support any more faces, so if someone even tried to put Reagan on there, it would probaby collapse.

I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions about the appropriateness of that fact. :wink:

12

Disclaimer: I’m not going to play by the ground rules in the OP, but I will discuss them in a (hopefully) rational manner.

Reagan himself signed a bill that required a 25 year waiting period to pass before there could be a memorial for someone placed on the National Mall. Cite. That seems like a reasonable guideline.

People’s view of former Presidents also change over time. According to Gallup, Reagan’s average job approval rating, as measured during his term, was lower than those of Clinton, Bush I, Johnson, Kennedy, and Eisenhower. (Truman, Nixon, Ford, and Carter rank lower than Reagan.) On the other hand, people’s view of Reagan has improved, desipte some hiccups: in 1988, 53% approved of him, in 1992, 50% approved of him, in 1999, 71% approved, and 2000, 66% approved.

So do poll numbers justify a memorial? Of course not. But they do show that people’s view of someone changes over time. Mt Rushmore, the National Mall, or the $10 bill won’t suddenly be better if we stick Reagan’s face on 'em this year or next. America will be around for a while, we do not need to be in a rush.

One concern I do have is that the haste to build memorials colors people’s view of the subjects. Look, Kennedy’s death was a tragedy, but do you really think that Kennedy was a really great President? Like, FDR, Washington, and Lincoln great? Eh - I’m not so sure about that… but I think the near-idolization of Kennedy – note the 83% retrospective approval rating in that poll above – is more legend than accomplishment. I personally wonder whether naming all those high schools and half-dollars had something to do with that.
A well-considered memorial speaks more to the greatness of a person than one that is hastily erected.

Let’s not be so quick to judge Reagan a complete success, nor a spawn of the devil.

13

Then your choice for a thread title was probably fairly poor.

People are still overemotional. Someone posted a national poll where he was ranked the second greatest president in US history (behind Lincoln - I guess everyone loves a martyr. Curiously enough, FDR was third, making the top three all presidents who have died in office. Of the three, I think FDR has the most merit.)

[quote]
So my question is: when do we have enough distance from events to view them semi-objectively? When would it be soon enough to think about Reagan’s place in history? Is this something the nation can debate now, or should we wait until 2010, 2020?

I/O ERROR. DOES NOT COMPUTE.

I/O ERROR. SYSTEM FAILURE. WHAT ARE YOU DOING, DAVE? DAIIIIIISIIIIIIIIEEeesssssssss…

You start a thread about turning the side of a mountain into the man’s face, and you say you aren’t interested in deifying him? May I point out that your objectivity may be a teensy weensy bit in question?

In any event, I don’t agree with the whole, “until everyone that knew him is dead” line. People who were alive during FDR’s reign and WWII are still alive, but we are comfortable talking (historically) objectively about them.

I don’t think there is a set number of years. It is kinda like the whole - how long until it is acceptable to make a joke about it type of thing. It depends on the incident. JFK’s head popping, people joked about years ago. The holocaust, well, you are welcome to joke about that if you want. It depends on the severity.

So for Reagan, who remains extremely controversial, it will probably be at least another generation. I wouldn’t hold my breath. However, I suspect that in the meantime, you will see some level of deification happen. My theory is… re-release of an odd coin (maybe the dollar) with Reagan’s head plastered onto it. He already has an airport and ship named after him. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pubbies went ahead and built a monument to him on their own, though. :wink:

14

Maybe so, but if we operate under the assumption that he was mediocre, this thread has no point.
I was suggesting Mt. Rushmore as hyperbole; I don’t think even Rush Limbaugh would go that far. The more restrained ideas have included the Pentagon and the $10 bill. Personally, I think the DC airport was enough, though I wouldn’t mind seeing the currency shaken up just for the hell of it.

15

Not until the rest of the Reagan Presidential papers get unsealed and into the light of historical scrutiny.

The fact that some folks are very eager to keep these papers under wraps, even after the traditional 12 years out of office, leads me to suspect they’ll be a major embarassment for the followers of St. Ron.

16

First cold day in hell should do nicely :smiley:

17

Pffft, like anyone would stop calling it “the Pentagon”

I will warn you one time, and one time only. Don’t f* with Hamilton.

Can’t you just mess with Grant? Who decided he was so great, anyway?

18

The Rea-gon just doesn’t sound right. :wink: And for Mt. Rushmore, I do think Rush would go that far.

19

Very punny.
Maybe when the army switches to energy weapons, they can call it the “Rea-gun.”

20

Now that I think about it, a Rea-gon would be a geometric figure that could not recall how many sides it had.