June 13, 2004
The Teflon President on the Ten Dollar Bill? It Won’t Stick.
In the late seventies and early eighties I was just coming out of college into the work force and I was a big fan of the British Sci-Fi cult classic, Doctor Who. For those of you not familiar with this quirky television series Doctor Who was a time lord who traveled from one adventure to another as he battled bad guys along with an evil time lord who was out to steal the key to time.
The good doctor’s main mode of transportation through space and time was a time machine called the TARDIS which was spacious on the inside but looked like a British police call box on the outside. Many a villain tried to break into the TARDIS using hammers, blow torches, and even bombs but in all cases the TARDIS would emerge unscathed and without a scratch. Doctor Who was once asked why the TARDIS seemed impervious to the physical methods used to break into it and the doctor replied, “Because it is not really there”. An amazing defense for a machine that can drift in time.
It was during this same time that I began to become more of a tax payer and consequently I became much more interested in politics. Growing up and going to school in California as I did made Ronald Reagan a central figure in my new forays into the political landscape. I initially found Reagan to be an engaging and interesting figure who had successfully made the transition from acting to political life. It wasn’t until I had the opportunity to hear him speak at my college during one of his campaigns for governor that I realized he may not have made much of a transition at all. During this event Reagan gave an opening speech that was phenomenal. It was like listening to a motivational speaker and he really pumped up the audience. Then came the Q&A and whatever gubernatorial image Reagan had generated came crashing down as it became apparent that he was unaware of many of the major issues facing California at that time. I realized that our governor was just some charming guy who gave a good speech. Whatever governing that was taking place was conducted by persons unknown who operated behind the scenes. First impressions are often lasting and often accurate and my first impression of Reagan as a mere figure head was only reinforced as he moved up the political ladder.
The Reagan presidency itself was marred by more scandals then I thought could have comfortably fit into eight years. The most prominent were Iran-Contra and the Savings and Loan fiasco. Through it all Reagan remained unscathed and this earned him the term “The Teflon President”. His presidency itself only ever enjoyed mediocre approval ratings but Reagan himself managed to remain a popular and likeable guy. Looking back on this I believe the secret to the Teflon President was that, like Doctor Who’s TARDIS, Reagan wasn’t really there and therefore it was difficult to damage him. I think many Americans instinctively realized that Reagan was not really acting as President and therefore could not personally be held accountable for the transgressions of his presidency. I remember back then that criticizing Reagan was almost looked on as being cruel. Why pick on this sweet old guy when everyone knew it wasn’t his fault?
So now as we mourn Reagan’s passing the Republicans, hungry to have their own FDR or JFK, are ratcheting up the hype as they try to turn Reagan into one of the major world leaders of all time. Flipping through the news channels I have heard him described as the best president the United States has ever had. All we need to do now is figure out how to honor this giant of a leader. The two ideas I hear tossed about the most are to have a likeness of Reagan added to Mount Rushmore and to have Reagan’s picture placed on the ten dollar bill. I hope these ideas fade into the sunset. The same Teflon qualities that protected Reagan from harm during his presidency should now keep him from undue accolades by the American people. Reagan was a decent man who gave great speeches and in the end fought a brave battle against Alzheimer’s. If the Republicans, or the Democrats for that matter, want another FDR or JFK then they had best take their hands out of the pockets of the special interests and start doing the work of the American people. Reagan was a nice guy but the Teflon president doesn’t fit the ($10) bill. It just won’t stick.
Posted by William Flynn at June 13, 2004 06:20 PMYou may be able to argue that FDR was a “greater” president than Reagan- although if you want to talk about “scandals” during a presidency, interment of the Japanese is far worse than Iran-Contra (dont forget his attempt to undermine the supreme court). Moreover, his unwillingness to act before Pearl Harbor cost millions of innocent people’s lives in WWII. Moreover, I doubt anyone can seriously argue that JFK was a greater president than Reagan or that the country owes him more in terms of praise or honors. I will not rehash all of the arguments for the great things that Reagan did over his 8 years- that has all been taken care of in the last week and a half (and you want to dispossess yourself of the myth of “Reagan-was-simple-minded” I suggest you read his letters that have been published recently).
What I will say is that JFK did not do very much during his presidency (of course that was not his fault). In the very LEAST Reagan is like JFK in that he inspired a great number of people and is respected and beloved by a large portion of our population. At most, he did everything that JFK did (inspire people) and also accomplished a lot of great things during his presidency (JFK’s only serious accomplishment as president was his masterful handling of the Cuban missile crisis, of course. But one great event does not make a great presidency or a great president).
This just goes to show you that while you may be able to poke holes in Reagan’s presidency (he had many flaws- especially his so-called ‘drug war’), one can do that to every president in our history. I will put Reagan up against anyone since Lincoln.
As for the 10 dollar bill, Alexander Hamilton was one of the key founders of our country (Even though he walked out of the Constitutional Convention and wanted to adopt a monarchy in the US). He did a lot to get this country going as the central figure in the Washington administration, and we should not disrespected him by taking him off of the 10 dollar bill…
Well, I don’t like Reagan and don’t want him on any currency. Twenty years from now the only people still using paper money will be the poor — requiring them to look at Reagan’s face every day would be a sadistic irony.
If I had to compromise, however, I’d much sooner have him on the $20 than on the $10, insofar as Andrew Jackson was a bloody bastard whose likeness needs to be removed from our money right away.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 13, 2004 08:46 PMI agree about Jackson (responsible for the Trail of Tears, among other rotten deeds). I think Reagan would look great on the twenty, which is more commonly used than the ten anyhow. Plenty of poor people love Reagan too—his was a philosophy of turning twenties into hundreds through personal creativity and inititiative.
Posted by: Martin at June 13, 2004 11:01 PMhis was a philosophy of turning twenties into hundreds through personal creativity and inititiative
Turning twenties into hundreds by pretending the national debt doesn’t matter, you mean? ;-)
Posted by: ceejayoz at June 14, 2004 12:31 AMI’m not sure the national debt does matter, actually.
Do you think it matters?
I’m not taking a position just yet, but I know it’s a more complicated question than most let on.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/751120.html
Posted by: Martin at June 14, 2004 12:53 AMI bring this up because it really is a main complaint by the left against Reagan—his lack of concern for deficits, which may or really may not be a real worry. In fact, there is a compelling case out there for the debt actually being a good thing. I do know that dwelling on debt accumalation while ignoring wealth creation and a host of other factors is a real problem with the debate.
Here’s the quote:
“Suppose that an individual kept his books under the rules that the federal government uses to measure the budget deficit. If he managed to buy a million dollar home for only a thousand dollars, he would seem to have acted imprudently, since, in the year of purchase, he would have increased his deficit. This transaction would be treated identically to losing a thousand dollars at the racetrack. If he instead sold a million dollar home for a thousand dollars, or agreed to pay someone a million dollars next year in exchange for a thousand dollars today (assuming that this was not classified as a loan), he would have accomplished deficit reduction, at least under some versions of the measure, and thus would seem to have acted prudently.”
Was Reagan great or was he a bum? Right now is not the time to determine such a thing. Most presidents’ popularity rises after they leave office, since time erases some of the animosity towards them. Look at Nixon—-he is now seen as a fine statesman (which he was) but a flawed and paranoid personality, rather than the evil “Tricky Dick”. Look at Carter…he is seen aa a fine humanitarian (which he is) rather than the indecisive and poor leader of our country.
We should let time pass before making any decision on Reagan being on the currency. He was certainly a fine president in many ways, though the “left” won’t credit him with his stellar work on bringing down the wall and tearing apart the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the “right” will refuse to condemn him for Iran-Contra, which he either knew about and lied or didnt know about which might be even worse.
On the whole, history will judge him to have been a great president, in my opinion. But lets give history its due time.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 14, 2004 08:34 AMAnd the right won’t accept that his indifference to the AIDS crisis probably accelerated the spread of HIV and stymied treatment and a cure.
Posted by: Michael at June 14, 2004 11:19 AMmichael-
that’s the first I have heard mention of reagens policy (or non-policy) on hiv/aids since his death, but it surely should, and probably will be a part of his legacy, just as clintons “don’t ask don’t tell” will be looked at in the future with shaking heads. The same heads that now shake when we hear “seperate but equal.”
I am a libreal democrat who just said something negitive about the left, did you see that martin and joebag?
Posted by: martiniwitz at June 14, 2004 02:49 PMClinton intended “don’t ask don’t tell” to prevent gays from being ejected from the military - the fact that it had the opposite effect was not his fault.
On the other hand, Reagan’s flagrant disregard of the AIDS epidemic, even as he knew full well that thousands of Americans were dying, leads me to conclude that he intended to allow the deaths to occur. A more generous person would say that he was simply afraid to discuss AIDS lest he alienate his conservative base… but once the number reached five, ten, fifteen, and even twenty thousand dead American citizens, well, at that point the neglect can only be described as intentional.
I don’t think I’m overstating this. In the 1980’s, discussing AIDS as something gay people “deserved” was pretty commonplace, especially among the religious right, and it generally wasn’t the kind of talk that would get the speaker in any kind of trouble. Some couched it in scientific philosophy instead of in religious language, discussing the epidemic in Malthusian or Darwinian terms. Either way, it is clear that the Reagan Administration thought that the deaths of tens of thousands of American gays was not something bad.
Jerry Falwell (outspoken Reagan ally): “AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals.”
Pat Buchanan (Reagan’s communications director): AIDS is “nature’s revenge on gay men.”
C. Everett Koop (Reagan’s surgeon general), paraphrasing Reagan Advisers: “They are only getting what they justly deserve.”
Pretty amazing stuff, and I remember it very well even though I was only a teen.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 14, 2004 03:51 PMChristopher:
I’ve always looked at AIDS as a consequence of having unprotected sex, not as a specific message from God. Now, God does say that we should not be having sex with others than our marriage partners, and if we all did that, then AIDS would not spread as it has between both gay and straight people.
Buchanan and Falwell mean well, but if their belief is as strident as those quotes, then I would consider their belief structure incorrect as i see it.
While I do believe there are consequences to our actions, and God tells us this in the Bible, I dont believe them to be as specifically targeted as to say that AIDS is due to homosexuality. I also see homosexuality as a sexual sin, but no greater nor less than any other sexual sin (adultery, promiscuity etc.)
I dont expect you to necessarily agree with my position, but am in hopes that you might understand it more completely. I dont like people like Falwell being quoted on things like that—-part of it is that he is a loudmouth boor and part of it is that he is often quoted out of context, or incompletely.
anyway, I’m not all that up on Reagan’s AIDS policies, but just wanted to respond to your comments on those quotes.
Joe, all I can say is that I sincerely thank you the frankness of your words and the insight you’ve offered by sharing them.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at June 14, 2004 06:43 PMI am all for another annual day off, but I think it’s ridiculous to put Reagan’s face on the $10 bill. This man, from what I’ve been told, racked up the National Debt to a record high during his term. He started the practice of “trickle-down economics” or “Reaganomics” where a Republican president gives hefty tax breaks and other kickbacks to the wealthy in the hopes that it’ll stimulate the economy (through increased investments). Based on that history, I’d suggest creating a new currency called the Debt Dollar with Reagan’s face on it. Here’s how it’ll work. If it is in your possession, it represents $1 of debt. It will contain some sort of tracking device or some other method of accountability so you cannot simply destroy it. If you are caught destroying one (or losing one or in any way disassociating a Debt Dollar), you will receive a fine (or more debt dollars!). You get rid of them by cashing them in with regular dollars. For example, you can go to the bank and give them 10 Debt Dollars and a $10 bill, and call it even. Or, if you buy a shirt for $9, you can give the cashier a $10 bill and a single Debt Dollar. Perhaps, to start things off, everyone could receive an extra $100 cash in their paychecks each month (to stimulate the economic) but everyone will also receive 100 Debt Dollars that they’ll need to take care of at some point. Isn’t that the American Way: create wealth out of debt? Like this, everyone will have a personal sense of collecting an unsurmountable pile of debt and therefore keeping our happy memories of President Reagan alive.
Posted by: Rob Fisch at June 15, 2004 10:59 AM“Clinton intended “don’t ask don’t tell” to prevent gays from being ejected from the military - the fact that it had the opposite effect was not his fault.”
It seems to me that Clinton was comprimising with his conservitve voter base instead of taking away the ban on gays in the military, that he promised in his campaign. To say he intended it to have the a different effect than it did is wrong. If he wanted to allow gays in the military he should have moved for that bill.
Reagen had a similar problem when it came to aids, only it was way worse because he allowed people to die, rather than admit there was anything even happening. Him on the Ten dollar bill would be like putting andrew Jackson on the ten dollar bill, wait… oh a um, man our country is messed up.
Posted by: martiniwitz at June 15, 2004 03:08 PMNew poll out shows the majority of Americans do NOT want to change out any of our bills in order to put Reagan’s mug on it.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 16, 2004 06:22 AMReagan on the deficit dollar bill? I like it. One of the things I admire about George Bush Sr. is that he realized that the economy was in shambles with such huge deficits and took steps to correct it. He paid a political price for this when he was forced to eat his words “Read my lips. No new taxes.” and I admire him for that. It took Bush Sr. and Clinton twelve years to put the economy and the budget back on track and it took our current administration three short years to wreck it. How long will the recovery take this time?
Posted by: William Flynn at June 17, 2004 07:53 AMJFK was the last prez to go onto the money.
Since his death it’s been the money going onto the presidents.
Posted by: Ciggy at June 18, 2004 12:01 AMAs a descendent of Hamilton’s (7th Great Grandaughter) I am shocked by the discussion of replacing Hamilton w/ Reagan.
He was the organizer and principle author of The Federalists papers, one of General George Washington’s most trusted military aides and a representative of New York in the Continental Congress. He was the nation’s first Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, the founder of the U.S. Coast Guard, the creator the nation’s banking system and a strong defender of a powerful military and of freedom of the press.
Although, I liked Reagan I really don’t think he deserves to be on our currency. Hamilton definately does not deserve to be replaced by him. If anything, remove Andrew Jackson, but not Hamilton.
Does anyone have any websites that are directly connected to this topic and Congress? I would like to read for myself exactly what ideas are being tossed around there.
Also, for those who don’t know… This July 10-12, will mark the 200th Anniversary of Hamilton’s famous duel and death. The New York Historical Society will be puting on a bunch of different events and a re-enactment of the duel in NYC.
