Reagan commited punishable offenses
Re: Column “The loss of an anti-government president,” June 10
By celebrating former President Reagan as an alleged “man of principle” with ideas “based upon freedom and faith,” you aggrandize the legacy of a man who could not “recall” any number of crimes he perpetrated against humanity in the name of his espoused “principles.” Reagan redirected funds and lied about it; Reagan sent arms to Iran — an enemy of the United States — and lied about it; Reagan funded “freedom fighters” (military dictatorships) in South America that executed thousands and lied about it; all impeachable offenses and violations of both U.S. and international law.
Reagan supported Saddam Hussein. Reagan was responsible for huge deficits that the country did not recover from until the Clinton administration (remember the good old days?). Of course, Fowler cannot possibly consider that this could be because of Reagan’s tax cuts; it must have been (the conveniently Democratic) Congress that botched the economy. Conservatives fool themselves into thinking that massive debt is good to get the country out of debt, that prolonged wars are a means to avoid war. “With all the problems that humans face, Reagan always remembered that government wasn’t the solution.” Herbert Hoover always remembered that, too. In fact, in order to “protect” those “freedoms,” Hoover perpetuated the depression and left the nation to further deteriorate into an increasingly desperate economic and social quagmire. Mr. Fowler’s blind devotion to conservative ideology prevents him from seeing that government is sometimes the solution. What is more, the most lethal contemporary danger may be that of the corporate interests that Mr. Fowler is so interested in protecting (de-regulating). Mr. Fowler writes about how his “father was on unemployment assistance for six months;” if this is the case, why did he not just pull himself up by his bootstraps (as Mr. Fowler expects all others to do)? Why would he become another cog in the repressive government machine? Mr. Fowler writes about how he “isn’t rich” and “makes just $6 an hour.” He should thank his local liberals (and union organizers) for the fact that he can even make that much. If it were up to the people that own whatever corporation Mr. Fowler aspires to work for, he would make $2 a day working 70 hours a week. Isn’t accepting less than your boss wants to pay “infringing on their freedoms?”
It is time to realize that “trickle-down” economics do not work because when someone is dying of thirst, a trickle doesn’t help.
Jared Toney and Daniel Bertwell are graduate students in history.