Presidential Pardon

Even though I am conservative, I have never understood the love affair with Ronald Reagan. Yes, he came across at times as a humble man who loved his country. But the greatest? Debatable, especially if one lived during his days in the White House or have read accounts of his administration. Recently, I finally got around to reading historian Michael Beschloss' Presidential Courage, languishing on my bookshelf for a few years now, which chronicles major issues and decisions presidents since Washington have had to face. The final chapters discuss Reagan, an objective and critical analysis of his administration in dealing with the Soviet Union and the “end” of the Cold War. Certain points Beschloss raise are indeed frightening, including indicators that Reagan indeed suffered from the onset of Alzheimer's while still in office.       

Americans Say Reagan Is the Greatest U.S. President (Gallup)

Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower Whole Time They've Been Praising Reagan (The Onion)

Of course, the overall point is that it is a stressful and, at times, pitiless job being president. As Beschloss’ title suggests, it takes courage. Currently, 44 men have held the distinction; a plethora of others have declined even running for the position. As our second president, John Adams, said, “No man who ever held the office of president would congratulate a friend on obtaining it.” His own son, John Quincy Adams, preferred a return to Congress than to seek the presidency again – a sentiment Lyndon Johnson also hailed when he became president.

Who is the greatest president? I have my favorites, and I am glad to see that all five make Gallup's poll. In no particular order:

      1. George Washington
      2. Abraham Lincoln
      3. Theodore Roosevelt
      4. Dwight D. Eisenhower
      5. George W. Bush

Why these five? All leaders who withstood pressures from the opposition concerning their policies, and all maligned during their presidencies. Yet, three (Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt) overlook the Dakotas from atop Mount Rushmore in tribute of their greatness. Two (Eisenhower, Bush) were considered aloof and affable during their presidencies, yet one (Eisenhower) has since been vindicated by history as a not-so-aloof effective leader during multiple crises. Undoubtedly, it will not be long before the tide of history turns for the other, whose due credit for influencing current events in formerly oppressed regions has been eschewed by mainstream media and revisionists solely in favor of the current administration. The fact that love ‘em-or-hate ‘em George W. Bush comes in at #10 on Gallup's poll – out of 44, and higher than his more admired, and latest Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient, dad George H.W. Bush – seems at least an indicator.

©2011 Steve Sagarra

Happy Birthday, Famous Dead Person!

A weird phenomenon, celebrating the birthday of a person who long-ago passed away. This is especially true of celebrities and historical figures, succumbing to the mortal coil years, decades and even centuries ago. It is understandable wanting to commemorate through remembrance the life lived, but is it necessary to expound upon the abstract of “had they lived…”? To ponder about this or that in terms of such seems ridiculous, and for one reason:  the individual in question is dead.

Take Jules Verne, and what would be his 183rd birthday this year. Some have entertained the idea that had he lived to see 2011, the prolific writer of science fiction would notice many of the incredible creations of his imagination having come to fruition. That’s fine, speculating on the merging of fiction and reality. What would be even more fantastical though is Verne reaching his 183rd birthday, and living to see 2011! Frankly, it takes away from Verne’s foresight in his time that has seen the development of those ideas in our time. Had Leonardo da Vinci lived to the 20th century, he would have seen many of his inventions as well; he also would be over 500 years old. That though is why men like da Vinci and Verne are recognized as visionaries, because they never saw the fruits of their imaginations in their own time. Instead, generations have passed the torch as a natural progression of human existence to make it happen.

In the case of some, rather than celebrate their birth we reflect on their death. This seems more natural, if not more reasonable. Remembering how they were, rather than how they might have been had they lived. When was John Lennon born? Off the top of my head I have no clue, but I can tell you he died December 8, 1980. Forever 40 years old. (I looked it up.) Had he lived, he might have been a Justin Bieber fan; we will never know though, because a deranged stalker murdered him before the pop sensation was even born. The same is true of many others whose death overshadows their birth in remembrance – John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King instantly springing to mind, as well as the 27 Club. Shortened lives whose impact is recognized more in their passing than in their beginning. We cannot know what might be had they lived.

Definitely, the world would be a different one had any deceased person lived to celebrate more birthdays. The truth is every birthday reached also reminds that we are all one year closer to the greatest equalizer. If you care to celebrate thereafter…just make sure you get me something nice. After all, it’s the thought that counts.

As for George Washington…happy birthday Mr. President, 279 years old today had you lived!

©2011 Steve Sagarra

Giving Due Credit For Mideast Uprisings

Could not have said it better myself. Not Chris Matthews idiotic statement; Noel Sheppard's, of NewsBusters, argument for its idiocy. As Sheppard astutely points out, the seeds of today were planted long before the Obama Administration. Matthews obviously has not kept track of the President's, and equally his predecessor's, record on the issue of democracy in the Middle East, nor considered the internal factors throughout the region for current events that has caught the entire world by surprise. The typical political clamoring for credit - by no means, nothing new in politics at any level - is akin to those who maintain Ronald Reagan toppled the Soviet Union and won the Cold War. Reagan gets credit because he was president at the time it happened, and not necessarily from any influence of his administration. Only people with a narrow understanding of history and the forces at work make such absurd generalizations.

Sheppard makes another valid point on the situation:  taking credit, publicly on record no less, means taking the blame as well if things go against expectations. Again though, it depends on one's viewpoint.  

"Chris Matthews On Egypt And Mubarak: 'It Took Obama To Have This Happen'," by Noel Sheppard (NewsBusters)

"The Egypt Warnings Obama Ignored," by Jackson Diehl (Washington Post)

"Social Media Sparked, Accelerated Egypt's Revolutionary Fire," by Sam Gustin (Wired)

©2011 Steve Sagarra