Hugo Schwyzer: An enchanting bear, and some quick thoughts on Reagan

« "It's a sin not to vote?" | Main | When Reagan really was Right »

June 06, 2004

An enchanting bear, and some quick thoughts on Reagan

Before I comment on our 40th president, let me note that yesterday morning, while running on the White Saddle trail above Monrovia, two of my companions and I came face to face with a bear. We were within forty feet of the creature, and it blocked our path as we careened downhill. We all came to a sudden stop. The bear (full-sized, but of indeterminate sex) didn't move. My friend Sharon shrieked and started back up the hill. I was transfixed, having always wanted to see a bear on a trail run, and so I began to slowly walk towards it (I wasn't really thinking very clearly). My buddy Mark was the calmest (he was the only one to have had past bear/running experiences.) Mark held his ground and began to shout loudly at the bear, and eventually I joined in, yelling "go home" (I couldn't think of anything else, though given where we were, it was a wildly inappropriate thing to say!) After watching us with mild interest for a moment, the splendid creature walked off the trail and rumbled down into the canyon. It made my day, though next time, I will need to be more cautious. It wasn't that I was brave -- I'm not -- it was that I was so enchanted by seeing something so damn cute that I wanted to get as close as I could. Sigh. I'm such a sucker for adorable, furry mammals of any size.

It occurs to me that my youngest students at the college (most of whom were born in the mid-1980s) have little or no memory of Ronald Reagan. Yesterday, watching coverage of his death on various cable news channels (while also enduring the heartbreak of the Belmont Stakes), I was struck by how many memories hearing that marvelous voice of his brought back for me! I hadn't heard his speeches in years, and last night, there they all were. I was thirteen when he was inaugurated, twenty-one when he left office. He was the president of my youth and of the years of my political awakening, and as a result, had a huge impact upon my politics.

I walked precincts for Carter-Mondale in 1976, as a nine year-old boy. In 1980, I wore an "Anderson of Illinois" button; my mother was unwilling to vote for Jimmy Carter but was desperately opposed to Ronald Reagan. In 1984, I wore a Jesse Jackson button in the primaries (for which I endured considerable ridicule at my conservative, upper-middle class high school), and was grieved by decent Walter Mondale's trouncing that November. The secular liberalism of my childhood was rooted in a belief that we, the fortunate, had a moral responsiblity to help those less fortunate than ourselves -- and that responsibility could not be carried by individuals alone, but was the appropriate task of the state. To a great extent, I still believe that.

So, I loathed Ronald Reagan's politics. The tax cuts, the firing of the PATCO workers, the invasion of Grenada, the bombing of Libya, the Iran-Contra scandal; I denounced them all with the fiery certainty of adolescence. But even as I hated his actions, I loved to listen to him speak. I found him impossible to dislike. And unlike many liberals, I never thought he wasn't bright. The recent publication of many of his handwritten notes and letters make clear that he wasn't the "amiable dunce" that many of us on the Left insisted that he was. (Jonathan Dresner briefly disagrees here). From what I've read, he was a surprisingly subtle thinker with a fine layman's knowledge of history and superb political instincts. I see no reason why we on the Left cannot simultaneously abhor a man's politics while declaring him to be a bright, well-intentioned and fundamentally decent person. Reagan always seemed to be gracious to his adversaries; I only wish all of his adversaries had been equally gracious in return.

He often made me cry. That's not hard, mind you, I'm a very sentimental guy. National Review put up his 1989 farewell address today, and re-reading it, this thorough-going socialist puddled up. In some small way, I loved Reagan because I felt I had a kindred spirit in this sentimental man who preferred moving personal stories to dry and impersonal facts. I too longed for a shining city on a hill, though my current fixation on Anabaptism renders me suspicious of any possibilty of transforming the state into such a place. Anyhow, read the speech -- and amidst the half-truths and the folksiness, perhaps you too will see something beautiful and compelling.

UPDATE: Conservative gay Trojan blogger Boi from Troy has a roundup of various bloggings on the passing of the Gipper. Some are touching, some are profane, some are self-righteous, all are genuine. And I really liked the way John Kerry phrased his tribute; read it here. Jonathan Dresner has also expanded on his comments about Reagan's intelligence, the clarification is here.

June 06, 2004 | Permalink

Comments

I didn't think Reagan a "dunce" (though I still suspect that the Alzheimer's affected him more during his presidency than his inner circle has let on), any more than I think Bush is an idiot: I don't, and I've said so before. Both are/were smart men, certainly above average and probably my equal or better in some ways. My point was about the relatively simplicity of their agendas and tendency to leave details to subordinates. Both expressed anti-intellectualism in ways that enhanced their reputations as "not that smart" which tended to make people who took that seriously underestimate them; very clever, really. I don't approve of the tendency, or the rhetoric. But I don't really believe that someone as dumb as Bush and Reagan were believed by my liberal allies would have made it into the presidency. But there is a difference between being dumb, and being not quite smart enough for a job that important and complex.

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner | June 06, 2004 at 05:42 PM

It is great to hear those kind remarks about a person you obviously disagreed with in the political arena. That's more than some can bring themselves to do.

In 1979 Hubert H. Humphrey died, and at that time I was living in Minnesota. I remember listening to WCCO radio give an all night tribute to the Senator. Having never voted for him, having disagreed with him vehemently in my college and young adult life, and having written him letters detailing my disagreements, that night was different. I simply listened to the reports and mourned the passing of the senator. That night I was an American. The next day I was a Republican again, but not that night.

Posted by: Joy Paul | June 06, 2004 at 06:18 PM

This really has been a sad weekend for me. When I was in Jr High, I read RR's auto-bio, "An American Life," and it got me hooked on politics. Everything I have done since, and will do in the future politically is a direct result of my admiration for that man. It really crushed me thta he is no longer around.

That said, I am amazed beyond words at the vehemence of some of those on the Left. The Danny Glover's and the Democrat Underground's of the world showed the kind of hatred that truly lies in their hearts. Measure that versus Reagan's sunny optimism, and you see why he was always so successful. However, more than that - their behavior really was just disrespectful. Had it been Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton who had passed, the guys at National Review wouldn't have been popping open champegne bottles. As you say Hugo, like him or not, President Reagan was/is a larger than life hero.

It just really bothers me, that if nothing else, these people can't offer their condolences, wish he rest and peace, and offer a prayer for his loved ones. He'd have offered them no less.

Posted by: Flying Monkey | June 06, 2004 at 11:26 PM

Mr. Monkey,

Perhaps the National Review folks won't applaud loudly when Clinton or Carter pass, but the Free Republic folks will, I suspect, and the Ann Coulter-Rush Limbaugh fans. There are unpleasant people on both sides.

But civility does not necessarily mean a suspension of criticism: The Reagan administration did some very troubling things and set some very troubling patterns in motion.

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner | June 07, 2004 at 12:19 AM

I certainly didn't like Reagan's policies (and was quite young during his presidency), but he did have class, which I think is missing from this current administration. I watched a bit of "60 Minutes" last night which used clips of his comebacks and snippets of speeches. What a great speaker. Plus, he was in one of my favorite classic movies, "One for the Book, or The Voice of the Turtle". Reagan, Eleanor Parker and Eve Arden. You just can't go wrong with that mix. I know he will be missed. I think I'll watch my tape of that movie tonight.

Posted by: elizabeth | June 07, 2004 at 09:03 AM

Schwyzer:

Dude, You are truly gay. Every time I post a comment on your site you delete it. I guess your into censorship.??? Anyhow, Your politics, religious views and overall people views are insipid and simple minded. Reagan was not the great guy everyone is making him out to be. Cowboy Ronnie and his politics were just as lame as yours and George DubYah's. Call us when the shuttle lands Clown!!!!

Big Mark

Posted by: Big Mark | June 14, 2004 at 11:50 AM

Thank you guys.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra
biagra [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/search/google?keywords=site%3Aforumlivre.com%20biagra]biagra[/url]

Posted by: biagra | August 02, 2007 at 01:29 AM

Ronald Reagan was known as a staunch conservative, a cheery optimist, and an implacable foe of Soviet communism. Reagan began his career as a sports announcer on radio, then moved to Hollywood and became a movie star.
thanks

Posted by: viagra online | October 28, 2010 at 05:02 AM

Please one more post about that.I wonder how you got so good. This is really a fascinating blog, lots of stuff that I can get into. One thing I just want to say is that your Blog is so perfect

Posted by: xanax | August 01, 2011 at 08:55 PM