Something Real to Believe In…

By Kara Hopkins • June 26, 2009, 10:48 AM

CBS reports, “The White House hasn’t yet decided whether President Obama should issue a statement on the death of Michael Jackson.”

A 1984 letter from Ronald Reagan to the singer makes a strong case for executive restraint. After Jackson’s hair caught fire while filming a Pepsi commercial, Reagan wrote, “All over America, millions of people look up to you as an example. Your deep faith in God and adherence to traditional values are an inspiration to all of us, especially young people searching for something real to believe in.”

Surprisingly, “traditional values” and “real” aren’t words the obituary writers seem to be reaching for.

Posted in Culture.

11 Responses to Something Real to Believe In…

Veronica Nunez says:

June 26, 2009 at 11:43 am

As the elected leader of this country, I would like to see Obama take the initiative to do what HE thinks is rights, rather than worry about the flak. Of course, he should offer his condolences and sympathies. Jackson may be a tragic figure but we didn’t want to see him go!
Thomas O. Meehan says:

June 26, 2009 at 12:18 pm

It’s easy to feel revulsion for Jackson but I think Steven Sailor’s post at VDARE about Jackson’s tortured upbringing and its effect on his psychodynamics. He makes a good case that Jackson had little hope of avoiding arrested development. This is not to excuse his behavior.

It’s always a crap shoot for politicians to laud show business types. It’s best to wait till they are in their dotage to get too close.
E.D. Kain says:

June 26, 2009 at 3:57 pm

Perhaps Obama could release a statement strongly condemning the Iranian regime and commemorating Jackson at the same time…
Barney Rebble says:

June 26, 2009 at 5:55 pm

Kara Hopkins has proven that it is possible to insult Reagan’s 1984 knowledge, using 2009 knowledge. Very useful.

That will assist us in determining whether Obama sycophants, 2 years from now, will have been proven to be right on the Stimulus, and now the Cap and Trade bill.

We will know more about whether jobs are created, or chased overseas, whether or not we were able to bully the rest of the world into accepting our environment-standards, and whether or not the public could swallow +$1 per gallon gas, and +$125 per month electric bill, as well as federal regulation of local building codes. We’ll know whether the average Joe The Plumber was able to come to love their hybrid automobile.
MattSwartz says:

June 26, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Barney,
I don’t see this post as a slam on Reagan at all. Then again, what do I know. Jackson’s ruination by our cultural obsessions (sex, race, and fame) hadn’t yet been publicized at this point, and maybe not even completed.

Reagan, a famous entertainer in a past career, was simply giving props to one of his successors in the put-butts-in-seats profession.

I do wish TAC had blogged the Cap and Trade bill session a little more closely, though. I watched it on TV, since I didn’t have work today, and so I spent the afternoon watching them argue over this awful thing, which passed mostly (I think) due to Boehner’s complete failure as a persuader.
TomB says:

June 27, 2009 at 1:46 am

MattSwartz wrote:

“I do wish TAC had blogged the Cap and Trade bill session a little more closely, though….”

Hear hear. Although maybe “TAC” *has* blogged about it, it’s just that it ridiculously hosts some unknown multitude of blogs (5?), so meaning that on one or more of ‘em somewhere someone has said something informative and/or interesting about same and we just don’t know it because we aren’t nuts enough to try to follow every one.

Lots of interesting issues going on, and for some reason TAC and/or its bloggers don’t want to run one handy place to learn about same.

Nuts to ‘em I say: Go off topic Matt and tell us about this Cap and Trade thing, about which I’ve seen absolutely no succinct summary or critique. If TAC/its bloggers don’t wanna run one lively, wide-ranging, consolidated blog site we’ll just turn this one into same going off-topic as we wish.

My contribution (as hopefully distant from any Michael Jackson connection as possible): Has anyone noticed that recent SCOTUS decision saying that it’s unconstitutional for school administrators to strip search their charges? With Clarence Thomas being the only holdout, the rest voted to ban same.

Variety of interesting issues involved in same (e.g., the inability of public school administrators to recognize reason), but what gets me about “conservatives” on the courts these days is that their “conservatism” seems so weighted in favor of the State. For all their affection for “original intent” what about the beyond-fundamental fear of the Framers of the natural tendency of the government to impose upon liberty? How did modern judicial “conservatism”—so staunchly suspicious of the New Deal’s intrusions into private property matters—suddenly start defining itself as the paladin of governmental power?

Pure reactionism to the Warren Court? Given technology and the lessons that Mr. Bush gave us about the ability of government to strip search damn near the entire electro-magnetic spectrum of phone calls and emails and etc., isn’t it perhaps way past time for “conservatives” to rethink that seeming fundamental orientation?

Cheers,
Dennis Dale says:

June 27, 2009 at 2:35 am

Harper’s couldn’t resist excerpting this in their “Readings” section (which was snarky long before Snark) in last month’s issue, under the title, “GOPYT”.
They might be accused of presentism* (being a stalwart liberal publication they depend even more than most on this, our most common prejudice, so ingrained, constant and bipartisan as to be mostly imperceptible) but the point Ms. Hopkins is making is merely that discretion is the better part of posterity, when dealing with eccentric celebrities.

*if anyone knows an alternative to this horrible word, please provide it
Barney Rebble says:

June 27, 2009 at 7:26 am

MattSwartz – LOL

Entertainer – put-butts-in-seats profession, public pays price of admission

Politician – *keep*-butts-in-seats profession, public keeps paying

(Thanks for the thought. PS, Kara never slams the closest republican? Might want to check on that.)
Chris Moore says:

June 27, 2009 at 8:11 am

I see this post as a rightful insult to politicians who contribute to the infantilization of this country by joining the media in turning vacuous entertainment celebrities into national icons.
Barney Rebble says:

June 27, 2009 at 12:46 pm

@Chris Moore – excellent point.

We would wish that Reagan and Schwarzenegger would have ignored the industries from which they came, even if personal friends were involved.

Then we could examine the House of Representatives, and determine what percentage of the approximately 4,000 bills and resolutions (this year, so far), relate to “honoring” some local hero.

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/

Like you, Chris, I would wonder how our public employees find time to do the work we sent them there for… much less personally enrich themselves in such short amounts of time.
Scott Lahti says:

June 28, 2009 at 2:53 am

Dennis Dale: “presentism*

“*if anyone knows an alternative to this horrible word, please provide it”

Ahistoricism; neophilia