Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Amanpour and Company"
channel.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem with hagiography is that it denies the bad, not that it exalts the good. Demonization has the opposite problem.
I was a Reagan Republican. Over the years, I’ve recognized his many flaws. He was not as great as I thought, he was subject to the generational failings of conservatism, some of his policies were misguided, and he suffered from Alzheimer’s at the end of his second term.
But I also recognize his greatness which is both timeless and was transformational at the time. It’s important to understand the context and the national zeitgeist at the time: a demoralized America. We were in a bad spot as a country. Reagan was able to communicate a different vision, an optimistic vision about America’s place in the world and our place in society.
Perhaps Reagan doesn’t deserve the all the adulation Republicans gave him. But he earned the title “The Great Communicator”, and he fulfilled that function of the Presidency, that of a leader changing the course of the country and the world, as no president has since.
To sum up, Ronald Reagan should be appraised for both his positives and his negatives. My opinion of him, despite his flaws and failures, is still positive. I wouldn’t go so far as to call him the greatest President, but I can’t think of anyone greater since he was President. Maybe Obama might have been greater if he had not had to face the intransigence of racism so deeply rooted in our country.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The two are related, but experienced differently depending on your skin color, religion, and sexual orientation. So while I don’t disagree with what you are saying, I’m leery of your emphasis of one over the other. But don’t worry, we can walk and chew gum at the same time (the trick seems to be doing them in sync, haha).
However you made a BIG point. It’s up to us. I’ve heard the revolutionary left, the actual Marxists, say things like “Your institutions will not save you.” It’s meant to demoralize us and soften us up for their revolution. But they have a point, because our institutions won’t save us without our saving the institutions. If we want our institutions to save us, we must realize that those institutions are US, and must be strengthened and maintained. And in some cases, reformed from the foundations.
Anyway, I appreciate your point of view and your nuanced understanding of the various intersections of the social and the economic. I suppose we agree 90%, and the remaining 10% can be worked out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1