Here's the lesson of Obama's Reagan comment: don't publicly praise the talents of evil men

[jpgray]

"Wow, that Stalin sure knew how to push economic reform! Check out those five year plans of his!"

"Hitler was sure a hell of a great speaker and party organizer!"

Both are true, but it isn't always a good idea to say so in public.

An absurd comparison, I know. Reagan is not on par with the above two men for evil. And I don't believe Obama admires his policies or platform so much as his ability to symbolize a platitude for Americans. And say what you want, that -does- take talent. But Reagan, for the reasons we all know, is still -plenty- evil. Want to know where the media atmosphere comes from? Want to know where our corporate corruption comes from? Want to know where our modern style of freewheeling military and economic imperialism comes from? Direct homophobia from our head of state? Relentless image marketing and "character" issues promoted in campaigns to hide an ugly, unpopular platform? Reagan is where it all really picked up steam.

Usually even historically evil world leaders are men/women of ability. But when those abilities are used to promote some abhorrent, nasty policies, they are not deserving of public praise. Yeah, academically it's fine to say that some evil leader had talent for organization, for economic revitalization, for hiding evil policy in platitudes. But saying it in public is going to piss people off. And it should. It's a fucking stupid thing to do, unless you admire the policies and practices of the man/woman you're praising, -don't- praise the abilities of such in public. Just don't do it, at least not without some explicit qualification. That goes for all the candidates, by the way, who I'm sure have also done this to some degree.

[sandnsea]

1. Which is why we need a transformational leader

to change the trajectory away from all of that shit you listed for the precise reasons you listed it.

Nobody Praised Reagan.

[jpgray]

5. I'm not going to excoriate Obama, but the reason it leaves a bad taste is he didn't qualify it

And yeah, a candidate can get bogged down in excessive qualification, but it wouldn't hurt to at least make clear Obama's break with Reagan as far as policy, if you are going to hold him up as an example for effecting change. Make sense? I would like any Reagan evocation to include a more explicit condemnation of the direction he led this country, not just a statement of the fact that he was able to do it.

[sandnsea]

21. Where'd it come from?

Go ahead, give the context.

[Bicoastal]

2. Yeah, Obama should definitely be campaigning for the idiot vote more strenuously.

Facts are not important! It's all about spin!

[jpgray]

10. It's about both facts and spin. Were you paying any attention in 2000?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Isn't the lesson...

don't criticize Obama for "praising Reagan" when Clinton and Edwards have done the same thing?

[Bicoastal]

4. Whoah, have you posted those yet?

'Twould make a good OP right about now. I've SEEN the Kucinich quote.

[redqueen]

6. The one from the funeral?

Unreal, the spin...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Not me.

They're in other threads though.

I also think I remember Clinton having kind things to say about Dubya back in late 2001, 2002.

[jpgray]

9. The lesson is to criticize all of them for such remarks, if they are of the same tenor

Some qualification is necessary. If you're going to state the fact of a nasty leader's abilities, best to say also that you deplore the changes that were effected as a result of that ability.

[redqueen]

8. Good luck.

This point has bounced off more heads in the past 24 hours than I care to think about...

[jpgray]

11. Since they like and trust Obama, they can't see the comment as anything negative

Whereas for the rest of us, it would be nice to see a condemnation of the -way- he changed the country in addition to stating the fact that he changed it.

[gaspee]

12. Ask the people of south and central America

Just how evil Raygun was. I bet they would equate him with Stalin. Not Hitler, but at least Stalin.

[Kashka-Kat]

13. Understanding the appeal of someone is not "praising" him - need to take some remedial reading

& comprehension classes...

[jpgray]

15. Why hold up Reagan as an example of change? Why not FDR?

Why use an evil man to make the point? All of the evil that these men do and intended to do are inextricably tied to them, and there is no reason to praise or hold up their abilities for example when there are plenty of beneficent leaders who accomplished the same feat. There's absolutely no reason to do so publicly. Would you have no problem if he held up Hitler as an example of change? It's just as true, no?

[AtomicKitten]

14. He didn't -- He said Reagan put the country on a new trajectory.

I wonder at what point the Clinton camp will realize that twisting Obama's words and just making sh*t up is flying right back in their face.

[jpgray]

17. But why use an evil man as an example of putting the country on a new trajectory?

Why not use a positive example?

[AtomicKitten]

18. Why do people at DU try to control what everyone says and does?

Jeezus H. Christ. You may as well put your arm up Obama's ass and try to use him as your own personal handpuppet to say what YOU want him to say using you-approved words.

I am overwhelmed by the controlling behavior of people here at DU, their fiery declarations of boycotts only to be forgotten a week later, loyalty oaths, etc. Feh.

[jpgray]

19. Obama can say what he wants. What's upsetting to you is that people disagree with him at times

And that is ridiculous.

[AtomicKitten]

25. Oh, don't even try to go there.

I disagree with Obama on a issues, but this has nothing to do with that.

This is a series of orchestrated hit jobs based on purposeful misinterpretations or flat-out made up BS, and I think you know that.

Keith Olbermann has showcased a couple times this week where Hillary and surrogates come out all blustery about statements that are figments of their imaginations because OBAMA NEVER SAID what they are railing against.

It's not a secret. And that has nothing to do with support or protectionism. It has to do with truth. Something that is being assaulted in this election from own side of the aisle with Clinton mimicking vile GOP behavior like voter suppression.

Open your eyes.

[sandnsea]

22. Because WE'RE STILL ON THAT TRAJECTORY

jesus mother of god can anybody THINK in this fucking place.

[jpgray]

24. Did Obama say any of that? No. You are inserting your own motivations and context

Why? Because you support Obama. Is that thinking, or is that rationalizing?

[sandnsea]

31. Watch The Damn Interview, hell yes

that's what he said.

[jpgray]

34. But in relation to the "excesses" of the 60's and 70's, no?

[sandnsea]

36. No. Watch the interview and quite distorting n/t

[Luminous Animal]

Yes he did say that...

He also said that Reagan responded to the excesses of the 60s and 70s. Those excesses being, of course, the expansion of the social safety net, stronger civil rights and gains in economic justice. Reagan's campaign was not optimistic, as Obama claimed, but rather it was an appeal to bigots. It was based on fear, not hope.

This is what I specifically take Obama to task for. He is part and parcel of the rehabilitation of Reagan.

Here is a lesson for Obama. Reagan's campaign was not inspirational to the vast majority of people in the 60s and 70s who fought like hell to get a seat at the American table. His campaign was criticized for his dog-whistle racism then and he is criticized for it now.

Reagan's campaign was not optimistic. It played on people's fear of change and fear of the other. It was cynical and despicable.

Reagan did not unite. He threw the weakest (and their allies) under the bus for political gain.

[AtomicKitten]

32. You are extrapolating and expounding -- I just saw the interview and beg to differ.

People at DU perhaps frustrated at their keyboards like to GO OFF on issues regardless of the truth or reality of their genesis. Misinterpretations purposeful or otherwise are used as springboards for rants. In my opinion, it is a kneejerk reaction to the last two decades, but the truth prevails and matters to some still.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

16. AW SHUCKS, THIS IS THE TRUEST POWT IN A MONTH

Error: You've already recommended that thread.

[Radical Activist]

20. Yes, we should let people who make simple, knee-jerk reactions to everything

limit our public debate at all times. Sounds good.

[jpgray]

23. Why hold up Reagan as an example of change publicly? Why do it?

No one has adequately answered this question. There is simply no good reason to do it. The facile idea that you can separate out Reagan's electoral tactics from his evil is just appalling to me. The demonization of Jimmy Carter, the Machiavellian separation of optimistic public appearances from the draconian and evil public policies--is this what we want to hold up publicly as an example of change? Why would -anyone- do that?

[Radical Activist]

27. You were answered three times in another thread

in three different ways. If you don't like the answers then say why they are unsatisfactory to you. But please stop posting the same question over and over while pretending that no one has answered.

[jpgray]

29. Again, you have nothing. You don't answer the questions, because you don't have answers

You insert your own context and motivations into a comment where neither is clear, simply because you like and trust Obama. How is any of that reasonable or responsible? Do you enjoy it when other candidate supporters engage in the same useless, dissembling behavior? Be honest with yourself.

[Radical Activist]

30. Reagan is the most recent modern example

FDR, who you brought up, is irrelevant to our time. Obama didn't praise Reagan's actions as President and you seem unable to comprehend that.

You haven't responded to a single thing I wrote. You just repeat the same thing over and over. That doesn't suggest you're using your brain.

"Reagan bad! Reagan bad! Reagan bad!" That's not a debate or rational argument.

[jpgray]

37. But how did he do it? What was behind his "hope" and "optimism" nonsense?

They were empty, useless platitudes. They didn't mean anything. They hid horrible policies, campaign tactics and corrupt motivations. Why use -Reagan's- "hope" and "change" as an example when they irrevocably represent all those things?

[FrenchieCat]

26. Here's the lesson that I learned....

Don't overestimate how many would be intelligent enough Internet keyboard commandos transform themselves into dumbasses and don't know their asses from their mouths while inserting themselves into political campaigns.

[themaguffin]

33. Unfortunately yes

[jzodda]

28. Maybe we should examine why Reagan is loved so much outside DU circles

Because if he is evil, then are we an evil country? He is held in high esteem in many places, most notably historians and pundits from across the political spectrum. They talk about his presidency in very reverent terms. At least from what I have seen and read over the years. They talk about the man with reverence in places like the history channel and the news channels, magazines like Time, newsweeek. Biography's on the man have sold very well. All the candidates on OUR side mention him in the general election with some positive things along with the negative. Bill Clinton did, John Kerry did, Al Gore did. I realize why, because they want right leaning people who would consider a democrat to vote for them but what does that say about our country? Our political system? Our education system? Our view of history?

[OneGrassRoot]

35. Maybe someone can do a DU poll...

of the age group of those who think his statement was ill-advised versus the age group of those who don't see a problem.

[sandnsea]

38. I'm 50, nobody is praising Reagan n/t