Tears for Reagan Obscure His Complexities

The pitch of Reagan's charm was beyond us. Descriptions of its "universality" seemed absurd.

The test of any nation is its treatment of those who have less -- less money, less prestige, less opportunity. Under Reagan, many who started with less lost more -- the physically and mentally disabled, the urban and rural poor, farmers. Meanwhile, the rich and much of the middle class flourished as a president who wore $1,000 cowboy boots classified ketchup as a vegetable for needy children's school lunches.

Bill Fletcher, president of TransAfrica, the lobby for Africa and the Caribbean, believes that Reagan's appeal was based on telling many Americans what they longed to hear: Bigotry was a thing of the past, so there was "no need to redress the problems resulting from slavery, Jim Crow segregation, institutionalized racism," Fletcher recalls. Despite growing worldwide repugnance, the Reagan administration aggressively continued the Cold War policy of supporting South Africa's apartheid government.

That South Africa's black majority lived in de facto slavery "made absolutely no difference" to Reagan, Fletcher says. Should we forget that?

"It's almost as if there's been a decision made by somebody who's not accountable that Reagan's legacy will only be of this great, warm person who connected with people," says Fletcher, whose organization yesterday concluded a conference commemorating the 10th anniversary of apartheid's end.

In fact, the Reagan administration's anti-union tactics and illegal sale of arms to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan contras outraged millions. Under Reaganism, the number of families living below the poverty line increased by one-third, the AIDS crisis was ignored and the national debt nearly tripled.

The many who deeply admired Reagan should praise him -- and the incontestable accomplishments that have been lauded all week. Yet this beloved man was president. Assessments of his legacy should be tough and uncompromising. Princess Diana didn't craft hurtful policies; JFK Jr. never signed a bill that took food from a child's mouth. Those disenchanted with our 40th president aren't a marginal subgroup. When Reagan left office, his approval rating was lower than Bill Clinton's when he stepped down, Monica Lewinsky notwithstanding.

Which in one way doesn't matter at all. The last week has proven that many who disapproved of Reagan the president loved -- no, adored -- the man. I can't and won't judge them. Who can talk anyone out of, or into, loving someone? Negative views of Reagan's legacy, and the facts that explain it, won't loosen the former president's hold on many citizens' hearts.

A president has been laid to rest. In addition to the deferential and the truly grief-stricken, there are millions who can't pretend that this gifted politician's policies didn't wound and puzzle them -- and they shouldn't pretend. If they're silenced, what is democracy worth?

If Reagan's undeniable, very human complexities are ignored, what's history worth?