Download PDF of this full issue: v14n2.pdf (8.8 MB)

Reaganspeak: Fables, Half-truths, Prejudices and a Pleasant Smile

By Pete Zastrow

Probably no one but the most raving and rabid right-winger still believes much of what Ronald Reagan says. There's a new profession made up of those who try to interpret and explain away some of Reagan's more obnoxious blunders, paid, no doubt, with the taxpayers' money to make the President sound at least like he's got good sense. Often, they do not succeed.

For example: "A tax shelter is only a shelter if you lose your investment." A tax shelter provides tax write-offs in any case.

The first man to propose a nuclear freeze was on February 21, 1981, in Moscow—Leonid Brezhnev." Senator Mark Hatfield proposed a nuclear freeze in 1979.

"Because Vietnam was not a declared war, the veterans are not even eligible for the GI Bill of Rights with respect to education or anything." Time and time again VVAW has said that the education benefits weren't big enough, and that the Bill is pitiful compared to the World War II version, but at least we got it, declared war or not.

There are enough of these bleeps and blunders (not mistakes in the usual sense) that a couple or writers, Mark Green and Gail MacColl have put together a book entitled Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error (1983: Pantheon Books) which is stuffed with examples of Reagan not knowing what he's talking about (the book is also where the examples above come from). They range from funny to just plain sad.

To some Americans it may be funny to have a President who is also a dolt; a number of our presidents were none too bright and, for the most part, they muddles through all right. The country is still here and the Capital remains standing. For the most part, they had some aides or cabinet members or other keepers who kept them from wandering too far off the path. And it would be nice to be able to dismiss Ronald Reagan's blundering statements with a laugh and a shrug, thinking once again our chief executive has put mouth into gear without engaging the brain. The problem is that it's not so funny. And the reason it's not so funny is that Reagan creates his facts to back up whatever point he's trying to make. And that's not so funny because it could just get us all killed, which isn't funny at all.

For instance: Toward the end of April, Regain was preparing a proclamation for Law Day (the attempt by the U.S. government to make the people of the country forget May Day). "Without law," declared our President, "there can be no freedom, only chaos and disorder." A ringing statement to be sure, one worthy of a chief executive. Unfortunately, only the day before, Reagan & Company had announced that any decision by the World Court regarding the U.S. mining of the Nicaraguan harbors would be ignored.

We accept the rule of law so long as it goes our way. Or, perhaps, if we're caught in some grossly illegal and immoral act, then we declare the Might Makes Right and, superpower that we are, we are above the law. But the Reagan approach is not so refined. While legions of clerks and cabinet secretaries scurry around to find justifications for ignoring the World Court, for Reagan himself the solution is clear-cut: mining Nicaraguan harbors is a step forward in the fight to keep communism out of our hemisphere, and anything in that fight is justified. The World Court, or world opinion, or even the opinion of the America people is irrelevant, plain and simple.

Regain's history of Vietnam is also well tailored to fit with his concept of Vietnam as a "Notable cause," a phrase which he spoke with such resounding thud several years ago. A 1978 radio speech provided the Reagan history of Vietnam which included the remarkable fact that North and South Vietnam had been separate countries for centuries. That, and much else in the radio address, was soundly booed off the stage of history as it richly deserved. But did Reagan learn from the experience? No Ron. During an April (1984) press conference, with the eyes of America upon him, he wallowed through the same misinformation about Vietnam being two countries throughout history.

So why is Central America not like Vietnam (one of the questions which should be on Reagan's mind)? Because, among other mistakes and errors, Vietnam was always two countries (in it's long and rich history Vietnam has been in a number of situations, from a province of China to the ruling power over most of Southeast Asia; the "Two countries" were a recent creation and a colonial invention; for the greater part of history, Vietnam as simple been one.) Supporting the U.S. activity in Vietnam is easier if the U.S. is just trying to maintain an historical reality. Once again, facts must fall into line behind wished, and if you wish hard enough, well, there will always be a few facts to make up to fit perfectly.

One more example and I'll stop since the recital is pretty depressing: you may remember in Vietnam something we called "protective reaction" (the phrase was used when we had stopped "attacking" the enemy). What it was was bombing the hell out of the hostiles before they could attack us, but we would not have to say we had attacked them. We knew what it really meant; probably the hostiles did too. But we had agreed to call it something else and we all carried on the fiction that we were no longer "attacking" the enemy.

Reagan, however, comes up with a phrase like "The Peacemaker," a laughable phrase for the MX-missile. But to Reagan it really is a "peacemaker." A club is an instrument of love: if you wave the club at someone long enough, they will be agreeable to whatever you want. The MX keeps "peace" in the world (or it will if Congress lets him build enough of them).

Reagan's words, phrases, ideas and facts all exist to serve his single-minded pursuit of the communist menace. He sees himself as St. Ronald keeping the good lady America free from the evil dragon of communism. If there are little things like death squads in El Salvador, or a leader of Lebanon supported by almost no one in the country—small facts like these can be conveniently over looked when they conflict with something Reagan & Company wish to do in pursuit of their goal.

Reagan is not a stupid man, and those who work around him have reasonable IQ's. Unlike some before him, Reagan is not just a conniving dumbbell—hi is, far worse, a true believer.

When we listen to a Reagan press conference or hear about one of his speeches, what we need to watch is not the little mistakes or misstatements of facts: we need to watch where these misstatements are pointing. Remember: Ron believes them. And he's going to act on them. Not for years have we had a President less likely to get us all killed by accident, but more likely to get us all killed because he believes in what he is doing. He will push the nuclear button with a prayer of thanksgiving on his lips as he can wipe out millions of commies. The fact that it will start the final war will be just another fact conveniently overlooked.

There is, of course, a solution: send Reagan back to his ranch as quickly as possible. Let him make all the pronouncements he wants, based on whatever facts he can concoct. Just don't give him the chance to act on his delusions.

Pete Zastrow
VVAW National Office