I agree with Bill Chin, especially about needing MORE ritual, not less. To argue against a huge public funeral (including its cost) really is to question its value of engendering nationalism and patriotism, probably because one is uncomfortable with those concepts.
Do we need to feel unified as Americans? If so, what are the ways that will maintain it? A grand ceremonious memorial to a popular, two-term president seems appropriate to me. There are really only a few outlets that create this: ticker tape parades, inaugurations and perhaps large-scale permanent monuments, besides state funerals. FWIW, I will probably wince when Clinton gets similar treatment, if I live so long to see it.
The President was celebrated in the Capitol and out West, in an ultra-symbolic way. As sick as I was by the coverage, I was stunned by the effect of our setting West Coast sun on the hilltop ceremony. I only saw a small part of it but that a heroic departure that resonated deeply in my Californian (and to the cynical, perhaps Hollywood) heart. Our left-leaning paper published a wonderful full page photo of him on his white horse today. Somebody appreciates and wants a hero, I guess, even yet.
I know that some of the arguments against it are more personal, that this was more voyeuristic than idealistic and I can see that line of thought, too.
I felt that the coverage of the Princess Diana car accident remains the single-most overhyped event of my lifetime relative to its importance, that is.
But back to the original point, many post-Vietnam thinkers are so opposed to nationalism, distrustful of patriotism and suspicious of military ceremony (some even “loathe the military”), that this public outpouring causes discomfort. Having once had those inklings, I can relate.
I have been surprised and even suspicious at the major networks coverage of this event. I feel that they went so far over the top that a backlash and resentment was inevitable. And to an extent, here it is on the Chiffboard. I can barely believe that the irony-based talking heads of the media have contributed to possible hagiography and a general rehabilitation of the President (having heard them interviewed on other topics) that they probably loathed.
There were a lot of people who intensely disliked everything Mr. Reagan stood for in this country, right down to his mannerisms and delivery, especially here in California. To repeat myself, I have been surprised at how marginalized his detractors have been presented in the media.
But as a final thought I have to say that the presence of so many world leaders, especially Gorbachev, has to shake to the core the convictions of so many Reagan detractors. Nobody made him come, though apparently Putin asked him to represent Russia. I think that these leaders understanding of world affairs and maybe even their personal interactions with the man made them feel compelled to pay respects. That was noble indeed, especially if you caught any of Gorby’s actual remarks to the press, etc. He did not need to say the things he did.
And the purposeful rejection by Chirac? That speaks clearly, too. Oh yes, and who can forget Fidel Castro’s pronouncement that Reagan “should never have been born?” Indeed.
