Democratic Underground  

Reagan on Mount Rushmore? Not Good Enough, I Say!
June 18, 2004
By Bucky Rea

Ronald Reagan on Mount Rushmore? The twenty dollar bill? Not good enough, I say!

It demeans the greatness of the man to merely offer him the slot on the twenty dollar bill. Ronald Reagan should be on the hundred dollar bill and the fifty dollar bill to boot! But not on anything smaller than the ten, because that's just chump change.

And putting Reagan on Mount Rushmore? Well, that's a good start, I suppose. But why just have him up there once? Sure he's on a level with Jefferson and Washington and Lincoln. But Teddy Roosevelt? TR was a Republican, but the man was, frankly, soft on redeveloping the environment. And as for all that "trust-busting" he did... well, let's just say the Hero of San Juan Hill was no Alan Greenspan.

I tell you, Mount Rushmore would be far more dignified a shrine to America's conquest of nature if we had two Gippers carved up on that rock - and no tree-huggers whose names rhyme with "Roosevelt."

But is that enough? I don't think so.

Lately Bill Frist says we ought to rename the Pentagon the Ronald Reagan National Defense Building. At first blush this seems like a good idea. No one better symbolizes America's militaristic pride than Ronald Wilson Reagan - noble, shiny, polished, high-tech-savvy, and perhaps a bit lacking in long-term memory recall. But think about it in pragmatic terms. People have always called that building the Pentagon and even if we rename it, it'll still be shaped like a pentagon. People will still want to call it the Pentagon. What an insult to our Founding Gipper!

No, it's not enough to rename it. After all, we renamed the Washington National Airport the Reagan National Airport and yet people still insist on saying "I'm flying into Washington" instead of the far more respectful "I'm flying into Ronald Reagan." What we need to do is reshape the entire Defense Department headquarters - Halliburton could probably handle the reconstruction for a song, or two - and make the whole thing look like a replica of Ronald Reagan's head. This would honor the man in a fitting manner and also leave room for the addition of new office space in the former Pentagon where the pompadour poofs out.

But is that enough? I say, is that enough? Hardly.

Washington state should be renamed Reagan state. That would honor the man who saved America - Washington state included. Heck, when George Washington was around we didn't even own the Pacific northwest. While we're at it, we better rename Seattle "Ronald." Then we could say, "Bill Gates lives in Ronald, Reagan" or "All the best coffee comes from Ronald, Reagan." That sort of thing.

Of course this way you're only naming one of fifty states after the man who helped the hostages get out of Iran when they did. This is the guy who freed eastern Europe from Communism and western Europe from Nazism and saw to it that so many people in Central America quit suffering. He shaped our world, our century, our very lives. We could rename Oregon after him, too. Call it "O'Reagon." Or Illinois, the land of Reagan, could be called "Reagan-nois." We could call the Potomac the "Rontomac River." Connecticut? What about "Great Communicaticut"? Or let's try "Gipperwood, Reagafornia."

Or better yet, let's redub this whole country "The United States of Ronald Reagan." Anyone who watched television last week can tell you that that would truly give a measure of the importance of the man.

But is that enough? Seriously, is it enough?

Well, you know, I always thought the name "moon" could stand a makeover...

Bucky Rea is a Texas high school teacher who stakes out his World Wide Web turf at the Brown Bag Blog.

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Democratic Underground Homepage