There are moments that come a bit too late and the death of Ronald Reagan is one of them. I hope his family is doing well. The Washington Post has a good obit by his biographer, Lou Cannon. As others have noted, this has been a long time coming, and many had ready made comments, retrospections, and honored remembrances ready for the occasion. Some, including I, will not have much good to say about the guy. See here and here for a taste of what I mean.
Many love Reagan because of the uplifting vision of this country that he promoted, though even many of his supporters admitted it was somewhat akin to his successful interview for his first radio job -- a reenactment of a game in which he played for which he provided a happy ending that didn't happen. In fact, ironically, during the Yankee radio broadcast today (when I first heard the news), the announcers suitably referenced his days as Cubs broadcaster for a station in the Midwest. They recalled a favorite moment of his in which the teletype machine malfunctions, thus he had to wing it. It wasn't quite true, but hey, the listeners liked it. More true than the truth, perhaps?
A telling example is one I discovered when investigating his position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, given he was a Goldwater supporter, who opposed it (one might recall Sen. Goldwater was a tad upset at his ertswhile supporter in the 1980s over President Reagan's Central American follies; Goldwater was also pro-choice and pro-equality for homosexuals). A popular Google hit was Reagan's quote: "I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary." Interestingly enough, though, this was spoken after it was passed. Before then, he was a lot more dubious about it.
A somewhat scary comment was made today that Reagan actually had more of a reality filter than the current occupant of that office. This in actuality is a valid statement, since Reagan's rhetoric often did not meet his more politically realistic actions. He supported a liberal abortion law as governor, did only so much against abortion as President, and opposed force in various cases in which those currently in power would have supported it. Other times, of course, he just seemed hypocritical. The great savior for the religious right was divorced, rarely went to church, and had a messed up family. It is rather ironical, akin to naming an airport after a man famous for firing air traffic controllers in an area that was one of two places that supplied electoral votes to Mondale in 1984.
And then there is always his shots at the welfare state, his famous support of FDR notwithstanding. This harkened back at least as far back as his Goldwater for President days:
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help! Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so! We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted social security as a step toward meeting the problem.
And, finally, many of our current problems harkens back to his presidency. The ends justifies the means foreign policy, including if the means is a violation of the separation of powers and unsavory overseas adventures. A particularly extreme politicization of the federal judiciary, including the previously more independent leaning solicitor general, and the appointment of young conservative sorts to the bench. Dirty political tactics, even if the candidate himself staid above the fray. Patently corrupt economic policies advanced with the rhetoric of financial conservativism when in fact it is quite the opposite. A selective distaste for governmental power, at least in regard to regulations that protect the general welfare, not select groups that provide financial contributions to the party. A conservative crime policy that is unjust and counterproductive. And so forth.
What do we have to counter such things? His efforts against the Soviet Union. The top links call into question the breadth of such efforts as well suggest the down side of some of aspects of them. I'd say the net result here is mixed. His cheerful nature and moral integrity? Ronald Reagan, like George Bush, was not as stupid as he is portrayed, but a lot of that cheer was happy facade to hide an underlining emptiness below. The morality of Iran Contra, scorn on fictional welfare cheats, and refusal to accept the true duty of government to protect its citizens is suspect in my eyes. Finally, one can respect his political savvy (and learn from it), while arguing that his success was partly a result of some unsavory political maneuvers.
The 1980s was a necessary development in the ebb and flow of history [deregulation, build-up of a US military presence in the Mideast, and desire for moral leadership was already apparent in the late Carter years], but the necessity of a Reagan in control is as questionable as the net benefits of such leadership. For good or ill, Reagan was a symbol of an important aspect of our culture. This doesn't quite mean he was an ideal one.