Sunday, June 06, 2004
Editorializing (or not) Mr. Reagan
I find that the presence of an editorial on Mr. Reagan by the WaPo (in fact that's the only editorial run on the website so far today) and the lack of any mention of Mr. Reagan on the NYTs editorial page to be indicative of something. What that is exactly (one would think that the editorials on drug companies and Enron, issues that have been in play for months and even years, could wait another day), I'm not sure--but I think it demonstrates some fundamental flaw at the NYTs when Maureen Dowd can get column space and the Gipper can't get a mention. Maybe the NYTs is trying to differentiate itself from other papers that will run space on Mr. Reagan, maybe it's trying to cater to an audience that almost certainly has a general dislike of the Governor, and perhaps it will run something on Mr. Reagan tomorrow. But waiting a day, or not running anything, says something about the NYTs, something that inclines me to have a dislike and fundamental distrust of what it has to say, more than I did before (and as another hypothesis, maybe the NYTs isn't saying anything because it doesn't have anything nice to say at all and is at least prudent enough to realize bashing Mr. Reagan right now is not a politically wise decision). If the NYTs wants to be at the forefront of news and the culture of ideas, then why its not trying to be one of the parties in the historical, and unfortunately political, battle over Reagan's achievements and legacy is baffling. Mr. Reagan's legacy will be decided by a very important historiographic debate that will continue for many years come.
Looking at the WaPo's editorial, I find it interesting for what it chooses to say about Mr. Reagan and what it doesn't mention or misinterprets. The decisions that the WaPo editorial board made about what to say about Mr. Reagan most certainly provide a window into the thinking of those that run that paper and perhaps indicate the biases or at least tendency to go a certain way on certain issues at that paper. I know the role of an editorial is to express opinions, but despite that opinions can sometimes be wrong. In this case I think many of the opinions of the WaPo on Mr. Reagan are wrong.
Specifically,it seems that their take on his economic policies is unfair. The tax cuts helped to give America economic prosperity. But one must remember that the democratic congresses of the day were very culpable in the increases in spending that occurred in the 1980s, even when inflation is factored in. There is a very strong argument to be made that the way that the economy turned around under Mr. Reagan, which may have been due in a great part to his economic policies and defense spending that jolted the economy alive, have given us the wave of prosperity that we ride to this day.
Unfortunately, this debate over economics and history is one that will take many pages and many years to sort out. Hopefully an historian will begin the task soon, so that we may have a clearer view of Mr. Reagan. I suspect that he will fair even better in under history's gaze most believe.
Looking at the WaPo's editorial, I find it interesting for what it chooses to say about Mr. Reagan and what it doesn't mention or misinterprets. The decisions that the WaPo editorial board made about what to say about Mr. Reagan most certainly provide a window into the thinking of those that run that paper and perhaps indicate the biases or at least tendency to go a certain way on certain issues at that paper. I know the role of an editorial is to express opinions, but despite that opinions can sometimes be wrong. In this case I think many of the opinions of the WaPo on Mr. Reagan are wrong.
Specifically,it seems that their take on his economic policies is unfair. The tax cuts helped to give America economic prosperity. But one must remember that the democratic congresses of the day were very culpable in the increases in spending that occurred in the 1980s, even when inflation is factored in. There is a very strong argument to be made that the way that the economy turned around under Mr. Reagan, which may have been due in a great part to his economic policies and defense spending that jolted the economy alive, have given us the wave of prosperity that we ride to this day.
Unfortunately, this debate over economics and history is one that will take many pages and many years to sort out. Hopefully an historian will begin the task soon, so that we may have a clearer view of Mr. Reagan. I suspect that he will fair even better in under history's gaze most believe.
Comments:
Post a Comment
