Parry writes: "Possibly never in history has a 'populist' movement been as protective of the interests of the rich as the Tea Party is. But that is because it is really a political cult dedicated to the most extreme rendering of Ronald Reagan’s anti-government philosophy."
President Ronald Reagan gives a thumbs-up to reporters as he boards Air Force One in Phoenix, 08/21/82. (photo: Jeff Taylor/AP)
Parry traces the roots of an ideology that convinces many in the Working and Middle Classes to vote against their economic self-interest. -- JPS/RSN
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |








Comments
When his tax cuts failed, he started taxing the tips of waitresses and increased the FICA tax. He waged a war on white union members in the form of breaking the air traffic controllers union and despite that many white men still worship him and vote for the GOP as they ship jobs over to china.
Two excellent books on Racist Ronnie are" Tear down that myth " by Will Bunch and "Sleepwalking through History" by Hanyes Johnson. If you think that Reagans was actually able to think, please read the writing of Dr Helen Caldocott where she discusses the time when his daughter arranged for her to speak with Racist Ronnie and he came to the meeting with cue cards that he mixed up during their conversation
I always thought he was a bad President, I am sad that I was right, for that man did so much to destroy our country.
I know many, many others feel the same way, So I was in total disbelief, when the country was in deep mourning when he died. Americans have such short memories.
They totally forgot what he did to us.
It is happening again, Now people are swooning over a Bush on steroids, A tough guy "who tells it like it is"
A stupid, but politically smart operator.
FOR HEAVENS SAKE WAKE UP BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. PRESIDENT PERRY WOULD BE THE END OF AMERIKA.
A few years ago I heard talk about putting Reagan on a bill. I got so mad that I wrote this song.....
http://www.papadish.com/music/reagan-dollar.mp3
This article really nails it the truth.
I was just horrified at the notion of carrying around little portraits of Reagan in my pocket, with all the memories it would conjure up.
So I wrote it like a grown-up children song................Papa Dish
Any democrat can tell you that. They are just as much under that power as republicans.
I have heard that he does nothing in the governor's ofc and that his LT. GOv. does all of the work and that he us just for show.....sounds so much like Bush to me.....these repugs scare me to death b/c they just don't care about anything but the rich, but how can then continue to be this rich w/o the american people working too.....we need jobs...I'll keep screaming, we need jobs....
As many said above - he was actor on the string of neocons.
Now we have "democratic" Reagan - Obama - jumping as neocons direct.
Stock market and capitalism are sinking - computer traders are making fortune - Obama is speaking of better America ... what a bizarre country we are.
stupid is another
yep, works!
And I'll keep on screaming that we need jobs, not more money printed, we need to generate the distrubution of money and not the printing of it...We need jobs...we need jobs...
and now they are putting homeless people in our town in jail (90) days and fine ($1000) for SLEEPING under the bridge.
This is what TOTALITARIAN regimes do.
Problem is that there will be more and more homeless people - and more profit for privatized jails.
Yeah. Privatization. Brutality is common in those jails, so there is the true fine in being homeless and in jail.
There are not enough volunteers to help the homeless, in spite of those who are willing. Those volunteers can tell us just how many homeless there are, and deniers would be shocked. A sad comment on the 21st century in the U.S.A.
Here's a thought that is percolating just below the surface and no one seems willing to say: separation of the U.S. into one or more new nations. Don't laugh. In our time we saw the Soviet Union dissolve. (granted, not because of political differences) But all the rhetoric, the climate of the times, is frighteningly similar to pre-Civil War. Instead of a fight - How about we divide into a Red US and a Blue US? The borders are roughly drawn already. Give a grace period and assistance for those who need to move in order to live under one system or the other. People would later be free to come and go between the nations and emigrate as well - depending on immigration laws, etc. An amicable divorce.
This nation has been at a great ideological divide for its history. Why not entertain this common sense approach and see where it takes us?
The Reagan "phenomenon" would not have been possible without the wholesale cooperation of both the Democrats and the mainstream media. Thomas Ferguson and Joel Rogers in 1986 in their book "Right Turn" (South End Press) showed through polls that in reality, at similar points in his and their presidencies, Reagan was among the *least* popular presidents of the postwar period, in 1982, for example, beating only Nixon and Truman. His "Teflon presidency" was a product of the media's refusal to criticize most of his policies as they, too, celebrated the return of far right politics to the center stage, documented by Mark Hertsgaard's "On Bended Knee."
What facilitated this approach was the desire of the Democratic congressional establishment to court the Right as a means of recovering the influence they lost with the McGovern reforms of the nomination process, which for the first time took the power of the kingmakers away from them.
O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired."
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm
Hence, as the late Walter Karp describes in detail in his "Liberty Under Siege," the wily Congressional leadership that had been so effective when Nixon was president was somehow unable to approve the simplest palliatives proposed by Jimmy Carter, a fellow Democrat. This set the stage for Reagan's "triumph, and for the prompt surrender by those same leaders on Reagan's reactionary budget,even before he officially presented it to them. (Speaker Tip O'Neill, legendary for arm twisting, suddenly announced that he had no means of rounding up enough support in the Democratic House to pass the Democratic proposed budget, so he shelved it.)
Thus Reagan's policies were largely rubber-stamped, and he became a potent symbol of consensus, even though, as Noam Chomsky showed, the general population was, if anything, to the left of that of the sixties in its attitudes.
The indispensable role of the media and nominal "opposition" in the construction of the Reagan legend makes it clear that this was part of a united effort by both factions of the ruling stratum to push the country in a desired direction, that of neo-feudalism. In this, they were aided immeasurably by the CIA as well, as the late Steve Kangas described in an on line history. The elites have waged a one-sided class war, and they are winning.
I remember when Reagan was elected, the crowing of the right-wing people I worked with at the time and my horror that such a mean-spirited (he was a fink for McCarthy in Hollywood) and superficially amiable, but obviously shallow glitter-bug could fluff so many people.
But then consider.
The US has how many shopping channels? How many game shows? how many nerdy and vapid sitcoms and how much over-hyped commercially-sponsored mega-sports seasons with logos all over their uniforms or whatever they wear.
All this as flavorless stuffing between their sponsor's commercials which even have a following of their own.
Milton Friedman must have been delighted at Reagan's ascent backed by hugely corporate-financed commercials, bringing political infotainment to a new height in politics and reducing campaigning to a sitcom lacking in any content (He was never much of an actor).
Trouble is, in spite of all his anti-government rhetoric, he INCREASED government spending and size by 189% whilst in office, so what are his current-day acolytes braying about?
Fortunately, I was working and living overseas for much of his two terms but spent almost two years watching first hand what his appalling political soul-mate Thatcher did to the UK.
One major difference: love her or hate her she was no dummy, unlike her US buddy.
When he became a commercial spokesman for GE, I REALLY wrinkled up my nose - still a little boy.
When he announced his candidacy for governor of California I smacked my - by then late tean-aged - brow, and exclaimed to the ceiling, "Oh no, next he will be president of the United States"!
Oh, how I wish I had been WRONG !!
The absolute worst thing that ever happened to the USA.
Death was kind to him. He didn't where he was at the time.
His favorite saying was as (he grind and shook) his head, There he or they goes again.
The man was a class B if not a C actor and president....he was a GOP puppet.
This country can not stand anymore trickle down economics. Revenues must be raised by "JOBS" Mr. House speaker.
RSS feed for comments to this post.