Nancy Reagan, an Influential and Stylish First Lady, Dies at 94

[Raesene]

RIP

NY Times

[Darth Lucifer]

No.

[Simon_Jester]

Er... no to what?

[TimothyC]

Er... no to what?

No to her resting in peace.

[K. A. Pital]

Thanks for supporting your right-wing asshole husband, dear Nancy. If there's an afterlife hope you get caught in the samsara wheel for a long time.

[Simon_Jester]

Er... no to what?

No to her resting in peace.

That seems more than a little malign and spiteful; I'd hoped it was something else.

[Purple]

I do not think we can blame a person for supporting their spouse. That's what spouses are supposed to do. Not to mention the whole love thing. Seriously. You might disagree with the couple on political terms but this is too much.

[LadyTevar]

Darth Lucifer, TimothyC, KA Pital, please, tell me this: Were you alive during Reagan's 8yrs in office?

And by alive, I mean above the age of 8, when you're smart enough to understand what was going on.

If the answer is "no", as I fully expect none of you are my age, then apologies for being dickheads and GTFO.


Nancy Reagan was a woman who wanted to make the country a better place, thus her "Just Say No" campaign against Drugs. At the time, Drugs were either more rampant, or finally being recognized as more wide-spread amongst teenagers, and especially hit low-income families hard. Mrs. Reagan was also a movie star, so I'm pretty damn sure she knew how bad it was at all levels of society. While "Just Say No" did lead to the badly-designed "War on Drugs", in itself, it was a earnest effort to protect young people from themselves. For that, she was a Good Woman.

But the whole astrology thing was a big giggle.

[Gandalf]

Darth Lucifer, TimothyC, KA Pital, please, tell me this: Were you alive during Reagan's 8yrs in office?

And by alive, I mean above the age of 8, when you're smart enough to understand what was going on.

If the answer is "no", as I fully expect none of you are my age, then apologies for being dickheads and GTFO.

Does this rationale apply to all historical commentary?

[Broomstick]

The fact she used her position as First Lady to promote a social cause (reduce drug abuse) actually made her more influential and activist than pretty much all her predecessors, and she was the first of what we now consider normal, publicly activist First Ladies.

Also keep in mind that Ronald Reagan was significantly more liberal than most Republicans today, despite their near-worship of his memory. Among other things, he saw fit to raise taxes when the country needed more revenue and believed government had a role for the nation. If he was running today he'd be declared a RINO and would never make it through primaries.

Which is not to say I approve of his term - I didn't like him then, still don't care much for his politics.

[Flagg]

Abstinence only (just say no) and ignoring facts about, and outright lying about, drugs and the ridiculous "gateway" BS arguably led to more people trying them. I was in school getting the "just say no" treatment and when I smoked pot and never felt the need to start smoking crack or injecting heroin into my eyeballs I was left in a "so they lied about weed, were they lying about the hard drugs too?"

That said, it has no place in a thread about a First Ladies death any more than a First Ladies death has a place in N&P since death threads generally go in OT, but whatever. I give condolences to her children.

[Flagg]

The fact she used her position as First Lady to promote a social cause (reduce drug abuse) actually made her more influential and activist than pretty much all her predecessors, and she was the first of what we now consider normal, publicly activist First Ladies.

Also keep in mind that Ronald Reagan was significantly more liberal than most Republicans today, despite their near-worship of his memory. Among other things, he saw fit to raise taxes when the country needed more revenue and believed government had a role for the nation. If he was running today he'd be declared a RINO and would never make it through primaries.

Which is not to say I approve of his term - I didn't like him then, still don't care much for his politics.

Reagan sold weapons to Iran to fund far right wing South American death squads because the democratically elected governments were too far left for his taste. He also ignored AIDS and even said it was punishment from God for the "sin" of homosexuality.

None of that has anything to do with Nancy Reagans death, but until Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or fake billionaire Donald Trump commits what can be accurately called treason, I don't care if he was to the left of Bernie Sanders.

I just think we should stick to +1 RIP posts rather than argue over policy positions she didn't have much if any input on.

[Flagg]

Damnit, I forgot: Nancy Reagan went against the conservative tide and came out in favor of embryonic stem cell research. That's the only good legacy I think she left, and the one we should focus on.

[Flagg]

Darth Lucifer, TimothyC, KA Pital, please, tell me this: Were you alive during Reagan's 8yrs in office?

And by alive, I mean above the age of 8, when you're smart enough to understand what was going on.

If the answer is "no", as I fully expect none of you are my age, then apologies for being dickheads and GTFO.


Nancy Reagan was a woman who wanted to make the country a better place, thus her "Just Say No" campaign against Drugs. At the time, Drugs were either more rampant, or finally being recognized as more wide-spread amongst teenagers, and especially hit low-income families hard. Mrs. Reagan was also a movie star, so I'm pretty damn sure she knew how bad it was at all levels of society. While "Just Say No" did lead to the badly-designed "War on Drugs", in itself, it was a earnest effort to protect young people from themselves. For that, she was a Good Woman.

But the whole astrology thing was a big giggle.

The "War on Drugs" started under Nixon. Cocaine use among Wall Sreet Reagan backers was at an all time high (hee hee) during his term. It wasn't until crack (affordable cocaine that poor people, especially poor black people) came around that suddenly drugs were the scourge of America and the abstinence only nonsense of "just say no" started. But frankly that's been the case through America since the early 1900's. Once a drug starts being used by blacks, the white male establishment freaked out and banned it.

And if you honestly think drug use was higher among teenagers in the 80's as opposed to the 60's and 70's...

But I don't think what she was doing and the message she was spreading was intentionally bad. It just didn't work. She had good intentions, anyone who says different has a screw loose, but you know what they say about the road to hell and good intentions paving it. Not that I believe in such nonsense as "hell".

But really, taking out hatred of Ronnie Ray-Gun on his widowed wife is wrong headed. It's not like she was a bitch like Barbara Bush is.

[Simon_Jester]

My issue here, and I think Broomstick and Tev share this, is that there's something deeply toxic about the habit of hating everyone who's "on the wrong team," including spouses and children if they allow themselves to be seen publicly aligning themselves with that "wrong team."

It's one thing when you can't (or choose not to) say good things about someone when they die if they actively screwed things up and were malevolent and harmful and corrupt and so on.

It's another matter entirely when people who, by all evidence, meant no harm and had some respectable virtues, but who happened to be aligned with the side that in retrospect led to problems we now face is so thoroughly hated that you can't even say "rest in peace" about them without someone deciding this is somehow grounds to dump on them and everything vaguely associated with them.

Hatred is a toxic thing. Hating people you disagree with is still a form of hatred, even if we think we have a reason for doing it.

[this is not me dumping on Flagg]

[Flagg]

Darth Lucifer, TimothyC, KA Pital, please, tell me this: Were you alive during Reagan's 8yrs in office?

And by alive, I mean above the age of 8, when you're smart enough to understand what was going on.

If the answer is "no", as I fully expect none of you are my age, then apologies for being dickheads and GTFO.

Does this rationale apply to all historical commentary?

Yeah. Thank Bowie for time travel, am I right?

[K. A. Pital]

I just hate the rich. But even more than the rich I hate the pro-rich, the politicians who made their public and open agenda to serve the rich.

Why does it suddenly become less OK to express joy at the death of a rich and powerful person? How about "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" for Maggie Thatcher?

You know, when a nobody from my class dies, none of the rich even know about that. They don't express hatred or joy. They are ignorant of the fact that small people routinely die as a consequence of the decisions they make above.

Therefore I find it perfectly acceptable to hate those in power and express my joy when they die. It is a position forged by lifetime experiences and it will not change just because it is impolite or improper or something.

[Thanas]

My issue here, and I think Broomstick and Tev share this, is that there's something deeply toxic about the habit of hating everyone who's "on the wrong team," including spouses and children if they allow themselves to be seen publicly aligning themselves with that "wrong team."

I agree to this and liken this to the civilian/solider divide. A spouse and child is usually not a "combatant" in the political process. Going after them is cheap, hurtful and pointless.

However, Nancy Reagan wasn't some uninvolved spouse. She was her era's Hillary Clinton in that she argued and pushed for politics based on her political beliefs. I see no reason to think that she should be immune from criticism just because she was a spouse if she argued for and got harmful politics implemented.

[Flagg]

I just hate the rich. But even more than the rich I hate the pro-rich, the politicians who made their public and open agenda to serve the rich.

Why does it suddenly become less OK to express joy at the death of a rich and powerful person? How about "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" for Maggie Thatcher?

You know, when a nobody from my class dies, none of the rich even know about that. They don't express hatred or joy. They are ignorant of the fact that small people routinely die as a consequence of the decisions they make above.

Therefore I find it perfectly acceptable to hate those in power and express my joy when they die. It is a position forged by lifetime experiences and it will not change just because it is impolite or improper or something.

Oh I take great joy at rich bastards and those who help them become and stay rich dying. Unfortunately they tend to die in bed surrounded by family as opposed to being nailed to gilded crosses lining Wall Street after being ripped from their penthouse offices and horsewhipped like in my better dreams.

But in a case like Nancy Reagan, she was just a failed actress who married a failed actor who became President by using dog whistle racism and not so dog whistle racism (the infamous "Welfare Queen") but other than being married to Bonzo, what did she do besides telling kids not to do drugs and give Ronnie advice based on her voodoo reading sessions?

I mean after the Traitor in Chief finally became worm food, she at least tried to use the clout she had by being Ronald Ray Gun's former mistress-turned-wife (family values!) to push for stem cell research (and was ignored). But she tried. I mean to my knowledge she's not a horrid bitch thunder-cunt like Babs Bush, nor has she killed anyone like Laura Bush. She never came out from under a bridge full of half-eaten children like Lynn Cheney to lob idiotic criticism and quasi racist barbs at DrOnebama.

So she's no Maggie Twatcher, IMO.

Like I said before, even though the abstinence only "just say no" drug nonsense was a spectacular failure on every level, it was born from good intentions. I mean I'm on the "legalize everything short of meth and PCP and tax it" fringe of drug politics, but I don't want kids under 18 (if they can be sent off to get blowed up, they can use legal drugs or raise the draft age to 21) using them.

[Simon_Jester]

Therefore I find it perfectly acceptable to hate those in power and express my joy when they die. It is a position forged by lifetime experiences and it will not change just because it is impolite or improper or something.

I will only observe that practicing this inability to just stop hating people even for a short time, such as at the hour of their death, has a drawback with consequences. Namely, it is very good practice for becoming insane and malevolent and utterly, utterly lacking in perspective when one actually gets any power.

Practicing some minimum degree of graciousness toward designated 'class enemies' at certain times is not a weakness. It is an affirmation of the idea that civilization has values more important than hatred, such as the belief that death is undesirable and sad.

My issue here, and I think Broomstick and Tev share this, is that there's something deeply toxic about the habit of hating everyone who's "on the wrong team," including spouses and children if they allow themselves to be seen publicly aligning themselves with that "wrong team."

I agree to this and liken this to the civilian/solider divide. A spouse and child is usually not a "combatant" in the political process. Going after them is cheap, hurtful and pointless.

However, Nancy Reagan wasn't some uninvolved spouse. She was her era's Hillary Clinton in that she argued and pushed for politics based on her political beliefs. I see no reason to think that she should be immune from criticism just because she was a spouse if she argued for and got harmful politics implemented.

She's not immune from criticism, but there's criticism and then there's being ghoulish.

Saying "Nancy Reagan's involvement in the War on Drugs was detrimental to the American people" is criticism.

Saying "Gee, I sure hope she doesn't rest in peace now that she's dead, on the sole basis of her involvement in the War on Drugs" in a thread discussing her death, is ghoulish.

[Broomstick]

However, Nancy Reagan wasn't some uninvolved spouse. She was her era's Hillary Clinton in that she argued and pushed for politics based on her political beliefs. I see no reason to think that she should be immune from criticism just because she was a spouse if she argued for and got harmful politics implemented.

Especially true in Nancy's case, because she was known even at the time to have her husband's ear. She certainly had more input than she should have in regards to presidential aides.

She was also most certainly a child of privilege. I don't think she had an animosity towards the poor and less fortunate, but I doubt she had any empathy for them, either.

[Simon_Jester]

Given her sheer age, any empathy she did have for the lower class would be likely to date back to the economic realities and era of the Great Depression.

Sometimes, misplaced empathy based on the (false) assumption that times haven't changed in fifty years can be worse than a coldly logical analysis of the problems people really face in the present...

[Flagg]

My issue here, and I think Broomstick and Tev share this, is that there's something deeply toxic about the habit of hating everyone who's "on the wrong team," including spouses and children if they allow themselves to be seen publicly aligning themselves with that "wrong team."

I agree to this and liken this to the civilian/solider divide. A spouse and child is usually not a "combatant" in the political process. Going after them is cheap, hurtful and pointless.

However, Nancy Reagan wasn't some uninvolved spouse. She was her era's Hillary Clinton in that she argued and pushed for politics based on her political beliefs. I see no reason to think that she should be immune from criticism just because she was a spouse if she argued for and got harmful politics implemented.

I find the idea that if you "weren't alive or over <insert arbitrary age here> then you don't get to have an opinion" far more odious than the idea that she's "off limits" because she was a spouse despite her giving political advice based on what some con artist she paid (I'm assuming) a fuckton of money to see and get "readings" from said.

But as much as I despise her racist traitor husband, I've never heard or seen evidence that she participated in said racism or treason. And I'd be the first to drop a house on the bitch if I had.

[Gandalf]

Yeah. Thank Bowie for time travel, am I right?

Indeed. I guess it's necessary under Tev's "You must be this old to have an opinion" rule.

[Simon_Jester]

I find the idea that if you "weren't alive or over <insert arbitrary age here> then you don't get to have an opinion" far more odious than the idea that she's "off limits" because she was a spouse despite her giving political advice based on what some con artist she paid (I'm assuming) a fuckton of money to see and get "readings" from said.

To be fair, there's an argument that people who never actually experienced what it was like to see Nancy Reagan as First Lady, and who never experienced the social and cultural environment in which she did what she did, lack context that might be needed to judge her. And that without this context, one should think twice about judging her as harshly.

Which, I will note, you did. You thought twice, if not for the reason I'm mentioning.

It's very, very easy, and frankly very cheap, to just say "everyone affiliated with the enemy 'team' must have been a villain because they believed X and I can think of all kinds of horrible consequences associated with X."

Then you back up and realize X was itself a reaction to circumstances U, V, and W, that it makes a lot more sense in that context. Or that people actually (gasp) didn't know then what they know now. Over they were optimistic about the chances of something succeeding because they'd never seen it fail. The list goes on.

So yes, actually, I do think it's reasonable to consider "lived through X" an important extra qualification for "understands X and its consequences."

Should this be expressed in the form "did you live through X? No? Then shut up." Not normally.

But then, normally people don't make utterly blind and arrogant and clueless remarks about how very very much they hate old dead people for things that happened before they were born.

And there is a reason for such restraint! It's a good habit, because it stops us from making dumb assumptions about the past.