Saturday, 19 June 2004
Burying Reagan and the times that were - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER - On reflection, the Reagan state funeral and burial last week gives much to think about, following the immense outpouring of memorialising on cable and network television. The pomp and circumstance of military honours and the flag draped casket (some 400 pounds) borne by the honour guard gave Americans much of the regalia that is lacking from their political and cultural consciousness. They lack the monarchy that Canadians and the British have, and so the passing of former presidents, once commanders-in-chief and heads of state, all of them, require that they're sent off with a little more than the normal rites.
There are many images that remain vivid in the minds of many following the Reagan tribute. Along with the requisite hagiographic obituaries and the sort of directional move to finalising Ronald Reagan's place in history, came the realising of Nancy Reagan's place in history. Once the dragon lady who it is alleged, had Donald Regan fired, who it is alleged spent frivolously on White House china, and who triggered the estrangement had between the first couple and their children, Mrs. Reagan's visible and wrenching mourning, rehabilitates her reputation (if it did need any rehabilitating at all). We realise nonetheless that she is perhaps one of the more prominent first ladies in the 20th century, right there with Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy. Like Roosevelt and Kennedy, and unlike Pat Nixon, Betty Ford or Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Reagan carved out her own distinctive niche next to her husband, yet did not avail herself to her own infamy.
Nancy Reagan clutching the arm of her escort, Major General Galen Jackman, throughout the week of mourning, gazing longingly as they transported her husband's remains, was particularly poignant. Whether she was as prominent an influence on her husband, we'll know in time (if we don't know already), she was nonetheless at his side. At his death, it was saddening to see her, still there to watch over him. The scenes at the Capitol rotunda, where the former president lay in state, as well as Mrs. Reagan kissing the flag draped casket, and talking to it, while running her hands, was particularly touching. Even the toughest of observers couldn't help but feel the need to shed a tear at the scene that clearly and so vividly embodied the love that both had for each other. For a long time, for the first time, perhaps since President Reagan went into the depths of Alzheimer's disease, he could hear and comprehend just exactly what she was saying.
Her frailty obvious, Mrs. Reagan's composure during these past few days was remarkable, if not inspiring. The ravages of Alzheimer's have been particularly devastating to her and after bearing all that and this very public memorial, Mrs. Reagan has endeared herself to many. The New York Times called it an exhausting and emotional test, which she carried off with great grace and dignity. Much the same dignity, one might add, as her idol as first lady, Jacqueline Kennedy.
The tributes had in Washington, both at the memorial at the Capitol and at the National Cathedral yielded some splendid examples of good oratory in the form of the eulogies delivered. President Bush's eulogy at the National Cathedral was well delivered and very good. It was reminiscent of the last major address that the President made at the same cathedral, his remarks at the service following September 11, 2001. This President, whose communication skills are rather dimmer than that of the former president he eulogised, can count his eulogy of President Reagan alongside his better performances, namely that eulogy after September 11th and his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 2000.
The remarks made by President Bush, George H.W. Bush, Bush 41, were wonderfully heartfelt and touching. Unlike the current President's, this speech was more poignant if not heartfelt considering that he was Reagan's Vice President. At times humorous, Bush 41 struck the right note, something that President Reagan would have appreciated. The Bush's and Reagan's have not been particularly close, and one would think that after Ron Reagan's scathing jab at the current administration at his father's California burial, they probably won't be so chummy. However up to the point of President Bush's eulogy, as well as his son, their connection in history is solidified. The political legacy borne from the Reagan Revolution is established, however frayed it may now be.
I found Dick Cheney's remarks at the Capitol, perhaps the best. Two snatches from the Vice President's remarks are so powerful and grand: "When you mourn a man of 93, no one is left who remembers him as a child in his mother's arms," and "Fellow Americans, here lies a graceful and gallant man." Taken out of context they are pretty limp, but considering the totality of Cheney's remarks, it's quite powerful and apt in front of the cream of the Congress in that majestic rotunda.
Brian Mulroney's eulogy was, as the former prime minister's speeches always are, very good. Mulroney has been considered by many in this country talented at mixing bullshit with brie whenever speaking or glad handling people. It's part of the Mulroney persona one supposes that he exhibits an air about himself of being a charmer who's also well connected. His talk at the funeral, delivered in that conspicuous baritone, captured Reagan at his finest. As a Canadian, I was quite proud of Mulroney's performance, not to mention delighted by references such as to the Irish heritage that both and he and Reagan shared by quoting Yates, as well as his quoting of Thomas D'Arcy McGee to a worldwide audience. The lack of a constructive, viable and strong Canada-US relationship was palpable from listening to Mulroney's eulogy. One naturally pines for the days when cooperation and mutual respect existed between our two nations. By virtue of Mulroney's inclusion in the service it is clear how very high in esteem he is held in the United States. It is curious, that Canadians do not endear Mulroney to them equally; as well that Canada's apparent reputation has been permitted to deteriorate under the watch of his successors, Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. Paul Martin's absence from the funeral also speaks volumes. To be overshadowed by Brian Mulroney may have been a consideration, but frankly it would have been a nice gesture had he attended.
The Baroness Thatcher's own remarks, albeit taped some time ago, were particularly strong. The American media got a great kick out of using the term "Iron Lady" to contrast her now with that of her prime during her premiership. Obviously old age has been devastating to Lady Thatcher, though her appearance though considerably aged, frail and a shadow of her once vigorous self was not as dour as some have suggested. True she is not as she once was (especially since her Denis died last year); she did manage to rekindle much ferocity in her eulogy, as well as dignity by being there in person, both in Washington and in California. A delightful scene at the funeral at the National Cathedral was the pleasant chatter seemingly had between former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, Lady Thatcher and Brian Mulroney. Gorbachev appeared to ask a question about the order of service, and Mrs. Thatcher pleasantly attempted to answer his query with an uncharacteristic smile.
This revisiting of the funeral of Ronald Reagan, and with it the revisiting of the 1980s and the lives of those that dominated that era was both poignant and timely. Ronald Reagan's mortality, Mrs. Thatcher's frailty and the disintegration of alliances that once were, point to a past that's far away, as well as not so far. It is far away in the sense that much has happened in the interim, but not far away considering it's but a generation that's passed. In a way it is a particularly touching bookend to the times that were. While Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney generally faded from public view and generally laid low in the 1990s, there was much haggling and wrestling (often by the principals themselves, especially by the latter two) over what legacy was shaped by their times and work. Though it wasn't really Camelot, perhaps for the era of the Reagan Revolution and Thatcherism, King Arthur's declaration is appropriate. To paraphrase: Don't let it be forgot, that once there was a spot; for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot.
-30-
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .