Coop D'etat wrote:I'm amazed how they asked a question that was essentially "how close are you to Ronald Regean?" Is there a comparable cult of a former political leader out there in other developed countries? Because we don't have that were I'm from.
Maggie Thatcher inspires a similar sentiment amongst die-hard Tories here, I believe.
They are overwhelmingly outnumbered (I think) by more liberal folk who were affected by the 1980s.
Dalton, what job do you do?
Can't keep my eyes from the circling skies,
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Coop D'etat wrote:I'm amazed how they asked a question that was essentially "how close are you to Ronald Regean?" Is there a comparable cult of a former political leader out there in other developed countries? Because we don't have that were I'm from.
Maggie Thatcher inspires a similar sentiment amongst die-hard Tories here, I believe.
They are overwhelmingly outnumbered (I think) by more liberal folk who were affected by the 1980s.
Dalton, what job do you do?
I was thinking de Gaulle might inspire that in right leaning Frenchmen but I doubt they all fall over themselves to justify themselves by comparison to their idol.
Please remember that these debates are among the most devoted partisans of the Republican Party- that distorts the perception and makes them more likely to compare politicians to a designated hero of the party.
The cult of a politician is... Hm. Something that happens fairly often in the Third World, I think. It's less common in developed nations, but if so, I think the nations you don't find it in are often just the ones who have no recent memories of 'great men' in their politics, in the sense of a single giant figure who dominates the political trends of a decade.
The American presidential system lends itself to that, for better and for worse.
Simon_Jester wrote:Please remember that these debates are among the most devoted partisans of the Republican Party- that distorts the perception and makes them more likely to compare politicians to a designated hero of the party.
The cult of a politician is... Hm. Something that happens fairly often in the Third World, I think. It's less common in developed nations, but if so, I think the nations you don't find it in are often just the ones who have no recent memories of 'great men' in their politics, in the sense of a single giant figure who dominates the political trends of a decade.
The American presidential system lends itself to that, for better and for worse.
In my country every strong Prime Minister gets to dominate politics for about a decade too. Some with very impressive lists of accomplishments. None of them ever get treated like a demigod even within their own party 20 years later. Maybe Americans don't notice it because the Regean cult seems such an every day thing in Republican politics but from the outside it looks like an awfully strange way for a politicians in a developed country to behave.
In France, lots of political old-timers on the right (or even on the left) tend to identify themselves as "Gaullists" , but it has less to do with some sort of personality cult ala "Reagan is my Lord and Savior", and more "The guy is a National Hero that allowed us to be on the winning side of WWII, he's the founder of the current Republic, I respect him and what he has done for us and I share some of his ideology.".
Simon_Jester wrote:Please remember that these debates are among the most devoted partisans of the Republican Party- that distorts the perception and makes them more likely to compare politicians to a designated hero of the party.
The cult of a politician is... Hm. Something that happens fairly often in the Third World, I think. It's less common in developed nations, but if so, I think the nations you don't find it in are often just the ones who have no recent memories of 'great men' in their politics, in the sense of a single giant figure who dominates the political trends of a decade.
The American presidential system lends itself to that, for better and for worse.
Here in Germany we had Helmut Kohl, who was Chancellor for 16 years - from 1982 until 1998. He oversaw the fall of the Iron Curtain, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany, the reunification of Germany, and the creation of the European Union.
According to the Wikipedia article George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton both proclaimed him as the "greatest European leader of the second half of the 20th century."
If that isn't "great man" potential, I don't know what is.
And yet you do not see this veneration of him - definitely not from the Left, but also from the center-right.
The fact that a man presides over something does not mean he is seen as responsible for it- I think that makes a difference.
No German is likely to think Kohl caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Many Americans think Reagan caused the fall of the Soviet Union, and it isn't entirely unreasonable to think so.* The difference in the scale of the results matters.
There's also a difference in political structure- in a parliamentary democracy, a prime minister never acts alone, and their power derives from the consent of a large body of people. Even when the prime minister succeeds, much of the credit belongs to the legislature, which dilutes any cult of personality that may emerge around his politics. In a presidential democracy, and the US is one of them, certain accomplishments are definitely the president's. There is simply no way you can talk about something like the New Deal reforms without talking about Franklin Roosevelt, or the Civil War without Abraham Lincoln. Congress was certainly involved in those periods, but the leadership came from the White House, not Congress, and that concentrates attention and memory on whoever occupied the White House at the time.
*I don't want to get into an argument over whether it's true, because it's tiresome and I don't really think I believe it myself. But there's a difference between a belief that is untrue (but has supporting evidence) and a belief that is so much at odds with reality that you have to be out of your mind to believe it. Merely false beliefs have much more power in politics than totally insane beliefs, even though insane beliefs can still have a following.
That is a completely untrue depiction of Helmut Kohl's role in the German reunification. He made several crucial steps - on his own initiative, without asking his coalition partners or the western allies - directly leading to the reunification - something that was definitely NOT a given.
He is seen as a "Father of Reunification" and was seen as the "eternal chancellor."
This is a person who was Chancellor for 16 of the most crucial years of the modern German state, was directly responsible for a lot of the stuff that happened during that time, and greatly influenced the following generation of CDU politicians (Merkel was known as "Kohl's girl").
There is no way of talking about the last 30 years of German history without talking about Kohl.
You may be misunderstanding my intentions. I'm trying to come up with a reason for hero-veneration to happen in the US and not in Germany, when I myself do not already know why it happens, and when I have no particular fondness of Ronald Reagan.
My view of Reagan reminds me of Churchill's view of Stanley Baldwin: I wish Reagan no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived.
So I am here not to praise him, but to try and figure out why he gets a personality cult and no one else does. "Parliamentary democracy diffuses the fame a politician gets for doing great things" seems like as good an answer as any. You'll note that Americans don't have personality cults around great Speakers of the House of Representatives, for example.
Simon_Jester wrote:You may be misunderstanding my intentions. I'm trying to come up with a reason for hero-veneration to happen in the US and not in Germany, when I myself do not already know why it happens, and when I have no particular fondness of Ronald Reagan.
My view of Reagan reminds me of Churchill's view of Stanley Baldwin: I wish Reagan no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived.
So I am here not to praise him, but to try and figure out why he gets a personality cult and no one else does. "Parliamentary democracy diffuses the fame a politician gets for doing great things" seems like as good an answer as any. You'll note that Americans don't have personality cults around great Speakers of the House of Representatives, for example.
Or it could be an deliberate act of the Republican party to lionise Reagan, as simple as that.
Seriously, for all the idealisation of Lee Kuan Yew here in my country, no politician would ever judge himself by how close he is to Lee. Hell, even his SON doesn't judge himself by how close a politician he is to Lee. Nobody uses a "what would I do if I was Lee" moment, whereas we have seen Reagan fans doing that.
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Simon_Jester wrote:
No German is likely to think Kohl caused the fall of the Soviet Union. Many Americans think Reagan caused the fall of the Soviet Union, and it isn't entirely unreasonable to think so.*
Completely Bull. Gorbachev gets credit first and foremost, then Kohl because he actually pushed for reunification and persuaded Bush, Mitterand and Britain to go along, thus pretty much breaking the Iron Curtain. Reagan is maybe a distant third.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Simon_Jester wrote:You may be misunderstanding my intentions. I'm trying to come up with a reason for hero-veneration to happen in the US and not in Germany, when I myself do not already know why it happens, and when I have no particular fondness of Ronald Reagan.
My view of Reagan reminds me of Churchill's view of Stanley Baldwin: I wish Reagan no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived.
So I am here not to praise him, but to try and figure out why he gets a personality cult and no one else does. "Parliamentary democracy diffuses the fame a politician gets for doing great things" seems like as good an answer as any. You'll note that Americans don't have personality cults around great Speakers of the House of Representatives, for example.
I am pointing out that your answer simply doesn't fit the facts. There are people in parliamentary systems who have the fame and recognition and influence to be "veneration material". Additionally, the vast majority of US Presidents are not venerated as heroes.
The answer that it is caused by the system simply doesn't work out.
So, going back to the original question: Why is Reagan venerated to the degree that he is?
Well, I'd say that he mainstreamed radical conservatism. He has become the symbol of radical conservatism. And so he is idolized, caricatured, and used for aligning one-self with radical conservatism.
Simon_Jester wrote:You may be misunderstanding my intentions. I'm trying to come up with a reason for hero-veneration to happen in the US and not in Germany, when I myself do not already know why it happens, and when I have no particular fondness of Ronald Reagan.
My view of Reagan reminds me of Churchill's view of Stanley Baldwin: I wish Reagan no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived.
So I am here not to praise him, but to try and figure out why he gets a personality cult and no one else does. "Parliamentary democracy diffuses the fame a politician gets for doing great things" seems like as good an answer as any. You'll note that Americans don't have personality cults around great Speakers of the House of Representatives, for example.
I am pointing out that your answer simply doesn't fit the facts. There are people in parliamentary systems who have the fame and recognition and influence to be "veneration material". Additionally, the vast majority of US Presidents are not venerated as heroes.
The answer that it is caused by the system simply doesn't work out.
So, going back to the original question: Why is Reagan venerated to the degree that he is?
Well, I'd say that he mainstreamed radical conservatism. He has become the symbol of radical conservatism. And so he is idolized, caricatured, and used for aligning one-self with radical conservatism.
It's because he was the last Republican to receive any sort of support from the left. Democrats actually voted for Reagan, and because of that the current Republican leadership has decided that the way to pull more people to the right is to try to compare themselves to him because if they're like him, Democrats should want to vote for them too. It's bullshit of course, but it's not that they actually deify him (though some of the idiots that vote Republican do), it's just a cynical political ploy on their part.
He was remaned over into a symbol because I don't know if you've noticed, every President excepting Eisenhower and Regan were fuckups by Republican standards.
Look at this list, newest to oldest ending on Roosevelt.
George W Bush
George Bush
Ronald Regan
Gerald Ford
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Herbert Hoover
Calvin Coolidge
Warren G. Harding
William Howard Taft
Theodore Roosevelt
With the exception of Regan, Eisenhower and Roosevelt everyone on that list was a fuckup in one way or another. Some of them were massive fuckups. When Democrats talk about great US Presidents they can just hop back to Clinton or LBJ or Kennedy (only Carter is on the shit list.)
And finally the most important reason for the Regan veneration among Republicans, something often overlooked....
Most of the Republicans in political office got their start in the Nixon or Regan Presidencies, since Nixon is verboten they ID with Regan. The people setting the narratives and writing the stories on the right look back fondly to those times in the 70s and 80s when it felt like anything was possible. Thus what was once a simple average President who attended over a great historical moment is transformed via veneration into a full blown Saint and many blessings are offered so that his legacy remains free of the taint of his actual actions.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Simon_Jester wrote:You may be misunderstanding my intentions. I'm trying to come up with a reason for hero-veneration to happen in the US and not in Germany, when I myself do not already know why it happens, and when I have no particular fondness of Ronald Reagan.
My view of Reagan reminds me of Churchill's view of Stanley Baldwin: I wish Reagan no ill, but it would have been much better if he had never lived.
So I am here not to praise him, but to try and figure out why he gets a personality cult and no one else does. "Parliamentary democracy diffuses the fame a politician gets for doing great things" seems like as good an answer as any. You'll note that Americans don't have personality cults around great Speakers of the House of Representatives, for example.
But the opposite is probably true when you compare the American system to a parliamentary one. A strong parliamentary leader can do pretty much whatever he/she wants with the confines of the law so long as they have the confidence of the house whereas the ability to get things done is pretty diffuse in American politics. In parliaments the leader of the ruling party is in position to be directly or indirectly responsible for everything while accountability and responsibility is pretty muddled between Congress and the Presidency in America.
In Canada Pierre Trudeau is pretty much responsible for overseeing the transformation of the country from a British ex-colony of uncertain legal status into the modern Canadian state with a written Consititution, control of its own legal destiny, the shift to a more progressive social system than our southern neighbour and a new identity as a multi-cultural society. But even his own party doesn't define themselves by his accomplishments or venerate the man in this manner.
Even if the politicians themselves don't believe it, the fact that this is something they feel the need to do to pander to voters is pretty telling. Or that someone who used to be on this forum would refer to him as Ronaldus Magnus without a hint of irony.
I think a large part is narcissistic nationalism. The US revere its constitution likes its a religious text. The idolization of the founding fathers, etc. In WWII they up-play their own effort and downplay the soviets etc.
So in the narrative of a collapse of the soviets you needed an angle where it was less about internal soviet issues and more about how they were defeated by the US in an epic struggle, who better to fit such a narrative than he who "forced the commies to build more nukes than they could afford" etc.
I mean Kennedy with all his faults is also hailed like some larger than life person.
Such narratives are commonplace in the US where most countries downplay their leaders to more realistic levels.
I admit I had other plans for the debates so I missed the first two. However, I did manage to catch the third and of the four, Paul is the only one who stands out as something other than a complete fuck-up. And that's saying something. The debate focused mostly on Newt and Romney, since the two are the obvious front runners, but I wasn't impressed with either one. They both come off as children. And these are the best they could scrape up to go against Obama? I'm going to buy a giant bottle of whiskey and drown myself in it on election night this year because I know where this is heading.
One of the things I thought was stupid was that one of them (Newt, was it?) attacked NASA for not having a lift vehicle. Yeah, NASA retired it because they were new when Mr. Regan himself was in office. They're old and can't do the job anymore. There was a replacement scheduled, the Constellation, but they slashed the budget and told NASA to go fuck itself. Then they came around and attacked NASA for not having the funds in the first place. Wow, that's like slashing the budget on a hospital and wondering why there's so many sick people lying around. Great job! Only thing they won't cut the budget on is the government itself, which is where it is because of... who was it? Oh yeah, Regan. Jesus Christ, I'm going to upgrade to a barrel of liquor and just hope the Mayans were right so I don't have to live through this shit.
"I subsist on 3 things: Sugar, Caffeine, and Hatred." -Baffalo late at night and hungry
"Why are you worried about the water pressure? You're near the ocean, you've got plenty of water!" -Architect to our team
