Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Maher DESTROYS the myth of Reagan (video + full transcript) (127 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You cannot destroy a myth (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm sorry but you cannot destroy a myth. There will always be those that grasp the ashes of the myth and fling them into the fire to re-summon the myth.  The definition of a myth is - a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

    The key here is without a determinable basis of fact.  The Repubs will always dredge up Regan and give his myth properties that were not attributable to him.

    If you want to get rid of the Regan myth, do not speak of it ever, do not answer those that speak of it, do not acknowledge those that speak of it. Every time the name echos through the cosmos it reawakens those that believe in the myth.  In short it is dead when you hear "Regan who?"

    •  That just gets us out of their way. (0+ / 0-)

      So they can keep putting forth their narrative with no challenge from anyone else.  No--he has to be spoken of, by us.  The solution is to put up our own narrative that defines Reagan for what we believe him to have been, so that when he's spoken of he's spoken of our way.

      The problem, of course, is that that narrative must reclaim the Sixties, because Reagan represents a reaction against the Sixties.  Neither Establishment Dems nor the "liberal creative community" want to do any such thing:  
      (1) The Establishment Dems think the hippies screwed up the Kennedy narrative (and after all this time they're still the party of Kennedy), making the Reagan reaction possible; and
      (2) The "creative community" has invested too much in being the left wing of the reaction against the Sixties and playing the Square Is The New Freaky card to find it easy to stop now.  It would mean admitting they'd been wrong All. This. Time.  And it's hard to break into the community if you don't share their views in the first place (especially "punks rule, hippies drool"), so how do you put forth a new narrative?

      We also have to deal with the question of 1980 and how Reagan could've gotten elected in the first place; the question of 1984 and how Reagan could've been re-elected in a landslide (to say nothing of Nixon in 1972); and the question of 1988 and how Bush could get elected when the country was showing signs of being ready to leave Reaganism behind.  A long line of bad choices by both the liberal community and the Democratic Party are at least as much to blame as the NSGOP for where we are right now.

      The '60s were simply an attempt to get the 21st Century started early; don't mistake an unfulfilled dream for a lost one. A dream has no deadline!

      by Panurge on Sat Jun 08, 2013 at 11:29:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site