If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
It's too soon to tell whether Reagan fits the bill
Notice the irony at the end of the following piece:
It's too soon to tell whether Reagan fits the bill By JONATHAN TURLEY http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2625617 UNTIL last week, the status of Alexander Hamilton appeared not only secure but on the ascent as one of the central figures of the American Revolution. However, on the very eve of the 200th anniversary of his death, Hamilton is now facing the equivalent of decanonization - a congressional act to remove him from the face of the $10 bill and replace his image with that of Ronald Reagan. In fact, as Republicans vie to satisfy what is becoming a cult-like obsession with Reagan memorials, Franklin Delano Roosevelt may be replaced by Reagan on the dime. The urgent move among Republicans in Congress to replace Hamilton and Roosevelt may involve some genuine respect, but it certainly also reflects some opportunism by disciples eager to strike while Reagan critics are forced to observe a respectful silence. If the decanonization of Hamilton and Roosevelt is premature, so is the canonization of Reagan only days after his death. What is lacking is the objectivity needed to weigh the relative contributions of leaders such as Hamilton, Roosevelt and Reagan. For six centuries, the Vatican employed a priest called the devil's advocate to challenge any sainthood candidate, arguing his or her flaws and failings to test the claim of saintliness. In Reagan's case, few in Congress are eager to question the relative credentials of an American icon in the aftermath of his death. At one time, Reagan supporters were content with their stated desire to have their man on the dime rather than Roosevelt, credited with such small feats as saving the nation from the Great Depression and the world from fascism. Roosevelt is long dead, however, and what has he done for us lately? Hamilton appears doomed by two factors: the declining value of the dime and the fact that he graces one of the most used bills - making his decanonization far more attractive for Reagan supporters. Finally, Hamilton lacks any lobby or constituency beyond a few endomorphic academic geeks. Reagan, by contrast, has an actual committee - the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project - which spends all its time trying to get things named after Reagan. In Washington, it seems, one may soon be able to move from Reagan memorial to Reagan memorial without touching non-Reagified ground. There is a move to give Reagan a memorial on the Mall, like Abraham Lincoln. Congress built a $338 million, 3.1 million-square-foot government complex for Reagan. Then someone noticed that the capital's airport was named after some president named George Washington, so it was promptly renamed after Reagan. There is a mountain in New Hampshire named after Reagan, as well as an aircraft carrier in the Pacific and thousands of other "legacy" memorials. Congress members are also pushing to squeeze Reagan onto Mount Rushmore. At the least, Congress could give us the choice of which prior leader to discard in favor of Reagan. There are far better candidates for decanonization. There is William McKinley on the $500 bill and Grover Cleveland on the $1,000 bill. Former secretary of the Treasury and Supreme Court Justice Salmon Chase was given the $10,000; he - not such greats as Chief Justice John Marshall or justices Louis Brandeis or Oliver Wendell Holmes - is the only jurist on a bill. Better yet, we could remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill. Jackson is hardly a figure worthy of such an honor. Whereas some of the others did little good, Jackson did much harm. After the Battle of New Orleans, Jackson exercised dictatorial powers and engaged in outrageous attacks on his critics. He later defied the Supreme Court and, in open violation of the Constitution, ordered the eviction of the Cherokees from their land - an act that led to the infamous "Trail of Tears" and probably would be defined today as a crime against humanity. The effort to replace Hamilton and Roosevelt proves the need to have a moratorium on any government memorial to a president for 25 years after his death. There is already such a moratorium for Mall memorials, which some members are seeking to override. It was a law signed in 1986 - by Ronald Reagan. ----- Turley is a law professor at George Washington University and is writing a book on Alexander Hamilton. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Do any of the "Reagan lovers" remember that the Reagan family doesn't want the
late President's portrait on any money? As much as I think RR will be remembered as one of the greatest presidents of all time, I happen to agree a nice silver commem would be sufficient; one year, one coin. Period. Jerry ----- supports the Reagan family's wishes "Edwin Johnson" provides: Notice the irony at the end of the following piece: It's too soon to tell whether Reagan fits the bill By JONATHAN TURLEY http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2625617 Remainder of post snipped for brevity. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Edwin Johnston" wrote in message ...
Notice the irony at the end of the following piece: It's too soon to tell whether Reagan fits the bill By JONATHAN TURLEY http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2625617 At one time, Reagan supporters were content with their stated desire to have their man on the dime rather than Roosevelt, credited with such small feats as saving the nation from the Great Depression and the world from fascism. Roosevelt is long dead, however, and what has he done for us lately? Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR took office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939 the unemployment rate was at 20%. Roosevelt's new deal policies exacerbated and prolonged the great depression. He didn't save anyone from it. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"James McCown" wrote in message
om... "Edwin Johnston" wrote in message ... Notice the irony at the end of the following piece: It's too soon to tell whether Reagan fits the bill By JONATHAN TURLEY http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2625617 At one time, Reagan supporters were content with their stated desire to have their man on the dime rather than Roosevelt, credited with such small feats as saving the nation from the Great Depression and the world from fascism. Roosevelt is long dead, however, and what has he done for us lately? Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR took office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939 the unemployment rate was at 20%. Roosevelt's new deal policies exacerbated and prolonged the great depression. He didn't save anyone from it. Well, it didn't seem to bother the Americans, who kept electing him term after term. Any schoolkid knows that it was the war -- war spending (Keynesism) -- that got us out of the Depression. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
But he was a master of manipulating the media, and of using the force
of government to do so, in effect FDR was able to rewrite history as it happened. Of course, George III (and every other president) do exactly the same thing. Geroge III does it with unusual crassness. Bob, did you see the State Dept report on Hannity's show or Limbaugh's show telling how terrorism was down thanks to the policies of George III? They didn't report that a week later the State Dept and Colin Powell were forced to admit that it was a pack of lies and that we were actually less safe under George III, with terrorism up sharply during his term of office. Few people remember that by the time FDR took office the economy was actually trending up again. Few indeed. No sensible people, no historians--just a few John Birchers who have no regard for the truth. A similar situation is now in effect where the economy has been trending strongly upward for almost a year now, yet most people only hear the doom and gloom. It's a legitimate question for the voters. If someone adopts disastrous policies that eliminate 3 million jobs, should they be reelected if they recover 1 million in the year before the election or should they be replaced because of their net loss of 2 million? If the middle class has been ravaged by tax cuts for the rich. should the proponent of those tax cuts be reelected because Bill Gates is doing great? FDR's economic policies, especially the defacto devaluation of the dollar by 40% caused great economic disruption and only WWII saved the US economy. I have often wondered if FDR was almost forced into going to war due to his inability to deal with the economy in a successful way. You are right that the economy was very sluggish right up until the war. The reason for that is very simple. At that time, the dawn of Keynesian economics, the mechanisms of fiscal policy were poorly understood, and neither party really knew how to dig us out of the hole. The difference, and the reason for the confidence of the American people, was that FDR was willing to relentlessly take action to reverse the effects of the Great Depression. He legitimately felt the pain of the average American and was willing to experiment with new means to deal with the problem. Hoover just sat there and denied there was a problem. His job creation record was--famously--aboutt as bad as George III. Regards, Tom |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"James McCown" wrote in message om... "Edwin Johnston" wrote in message ... Notice the irony at the end of the following piece: It's too soon to tell whether Reagan fits the bill By JONATHAN TURLEY http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2625617 At one time, Reagan supporters were content with their stated desire to have their man on the dime rather than Roosevelt, credited with such small feats as saving the nation from the Great Depression and the world from fascism. Roosevelt is long dead, however, and what has he done for us lately? Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR took office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939 the unemployment rate was at 20%. In 1937, Roosevelt began to worry about the deficit and cut back on spending. That plunged the economy into a recession. The unemployment rate which had been as high as 24.9 % in 1933 and had dropped to 14.3%, began to rise. It reached 19% in 1938. But had started to come down slightly to 17.2% by 1939. With a European War looming on the horizon, Roosevelt again resorted to deficit spending, borrowing and spending a billion dollars to rebuild the military. By 1940, the unemployment rate had dropped to the 10% range. It's no accident that we haven't seen unemployment rates that high since then. We haven't had a depression since then, although we had a depression or a financial crisis every 10-15 years or so before the Great Depression. The closest we've come was during Reagan's 1st term when, in November 1982, the unemployment rate hit 10.8% a year and a half after Reagan's tax cuts, and stayed above 10% for almost a year, Before that the highest was 9% in May 1975 under Ford. Is it an accident that everytime you get a Republican president, the unemployment rate goes sky high. These are real people who are out of work. Reagan, of course, spent his way out the problem he created running the highest deficits of any president up to that time. . Roosevelt did the same with the problem Hoover created. Roosevelt's new deal policies the great depression. He didn't save anyone from it. His change of policies may have exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression. Once he got back on course, things began getting much better. -- Richard A thought: Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body. But rather it's to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a ride!!!" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"James McCown" wrote in message om... "Edwin Johnston" wrote in message ... Notice the irony at the end of the following piece: It's too soon to tell whether Reagan fits the bill By JONATHAN TURLEY http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2625617 At one time, Reagan supporters were content with their stated desire to have their man on the dime rather than Roosevelt, credited with such small feats as saving the nation from the Great Depression and the world from fascism. Roosevelt is long dead, however, and what has he done for us lately? Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR took office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939 the unemployment rate was at 20%. In 1937, Roosevelt began to worry about the deficit and cut back on spending. That plunged the economy into a recession. The unemployment rate which had been as high as 24.9 % in 1933 and had dropped to 14.3%, began to rise. It reached 19% in 1938. But had started to come down slightly to 17.2% by 1939. With a European War looming on the horizon, Roosevelt again resorted to deficit spending, borrowing and spending a billion dollars to rebuild the military. By 1940, the unemployment rate had dropped to the 10% range. It's no accident that we haven't seen unemployment rates that high since then. We haven't had a depression since then, although we had a depression or a financial crisis every 10-15 years or so before the Great Depression. The closest we've come was during Reagan's 1st term when, in November 1982, the unemployment rate hit 10.8% a year and a half after Reagan's tax cuts, and stayed above 10% for almost a year, Before that the highest was 9% in May 1975 under Ford. Is it an accident that everytime you get a Republican president, the unemployment rate goes sky high. These are real people who are out of work. Reagan, of course, spent his way out the problem he created running the highest deficits of any president up to that time. . Roosevelt did the same with the problem Hoover created. Roosevelt's new deal policies the great depression. He didn't save anyone from it. His change of policies may have exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression. Once he got back on course, things began getting much better. -- Richard A thought: Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body. But rather it's to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow! What a ride!!!" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
From: James McCown
Turley is repeating the greatest myth of the 20th century. FDR took office in 1933. In 1937 the stock market crashed again and by 1939 the unemployment rate was at 20%. BRBR Actually, it wasn't. The average unemployment rate in 1939 was 12%, which was where France was at the height of soclialist prosperity in 2000. eric l. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Few people remember that by the time FDR took office the
economy was actually trending up again. BRBR Actually, when FDR took office, the banking industry was collapsing and the entire economy was shutting down. The depression bottomed out in the spring of 1933. eric l. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NYT ed. opposes Reagan likeness on coins and currency | Edwin Johnston | Coins | 45 | July 8th 04 07:33 PM |
CNG Position on House Bill | Jorg Lueke | Coins | 0 | April 14th 04 03:50 AM |
EURO BILL TRACKER REACHES 1 000 000 REGISTERED BILLS | Geerts | Coins | 0 | August 12th 03 02:00 PM |
FS: 1982 "Bill Cosby Himself" VHS Video Cassette | Jim Sinclair | General | 0 | July 9th 03 06:15 AM |