Ken Ficara

It’s about time a few people in the media broke away from the chorus of unthinking praise being heaped on Ronald Reagan. (Anyone with any remaining illusions about the “liberal media” must have missed the NPR segment on Saturday that said Reagan had inspired the economic boom of the ’80s by firing the air traffic controllers.) Not that we should trash the dead, but let’s not completely lose sight of reality.

Clyde Haberman reminded us about Reagan’s anti-city politics, and Paul Krugman reminded us that many of the canards about Reagan are just that (Clinton was both more popular and presided over a larger economic boom) but also notes he at least learned from reality:

President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts.

So, Reagan will be missed — he was a more Presidential figure than W. could ever be. His “big picture” approach did seem to be driven by a consistent vision: Just compare “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” with Bush prancing around on an aircraft carrier. And Reagan’s scandals were the real thing — secret deals with terrorists are much more fun than stained dresses. But at least Elliot Abrams is back in government.

Reagan was never a big fan of the press, and by dying on Saturday, he must have made a lot of journalists’ lives miserable. Perhaps that’s why Time and Newsweek both managed to choose the exact same photo of him for their covers this weekend.

Conservative columnist (and novelist) Mark Helprin continued The Wall Street Journal’s hammering on the Bush administratin’s conduct of the war with a genuinely thoughtful column on Monday, saying that the present mess is “the consequence of a fiscal policy that seems more attuned to the electoral landscape of 2004 than to the national security of the United States.” He asks,

Why do the generals, in patently identifiable top-down-speak, repeatedly state that they need nothing more than the small number of troops (for occupying such a large country) that they are assigned? Why do they and the administration steadfastly hold this line even as one event cascading into another should make them recoil in piggy-eyed wonder at the lameness of their policy?

He of course lambastes Democrats as well, and he’s on point in a few respects.

Just as many Republicans detest the idea of international governance but glow at the prospect of empire, many Democrats are reliably anti-imperialist yet dewy-eyed about world government.

I’m encouraged that Bush’s misconduct is finally having some consequences, but I heard a radio interview with a right-winger who said that he does not approve of Bush, but feels that he’s not being strong enough in defending the conduct of the soldiers in Abu Ghraib and so on. So how many of the people who are currently disgusted with Bush would vote for Kerry? And, as the NY Times pointed out yesterday, it’s not October yet.

“Who in fact handles public relations for the Bush administration? Michael Jackson?”

—Daniel Henninger in today’s The Wall Street Journal.