Unlike law professor Jonathan Turley, I think it would be a great idea to put Ronald Reagan’s image on U.S. currency, and I also think Reagan is every bit as deserving of a place on Mount Rushmore as Teddy Roosevelt was. I agree with the professor that now is a time for mourning, and not the appropriate time to debate the issue. Still, I see no evidence that anyone is attempting to Wellstonize Reagan’s death, and thus have a rather difficult time swallowing a line like this one:

The urgent move among Republicans in Congress to replace Hamilton and [Franklin D.] Roosevelt may involve some genuine respect, but it certainly also reflects some opportunism by disciples eager to strike while Reagan critics are forced to observe a respectful silence.

What “urgent move” is he talking about? Perhaps Mr. Turley would care to name the specific legislation currently pending in Congress. Any legislation introducedprior to June 5, 2004 does not count, unless there is evidence that the proponent was “tipped off” to Reagan’s pending demise, and intentionally timed the legislation to lead to a debate at the time when Reagan’s critics were … and I’ll try to say this with a straight face … “forced to observe a respectful silence.”

Still, unlike the liberal vermin I’ve complained about over the past few days, most liberals are in fact decent people, and have behaved decently under the circumstances. I have no illusions that all 100,000 people who visited the Reagan library over the past few days were conservatives. Most probably were, but many were not. Other liberals have remained silent, which is fine. Others still, like Presidential candidate John Kerry, have made laudatory remarks about the man, which is even better. Alas, some conservative commentators, such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, have criticized these Democrats for being “phony” in lauding the man in death whom they attacked when he was alive. Please. Of all the bad things a liberal can do, acting too politely or too sympathetically at an opponent’s funeral does not rank high on the list. Both the decent and the indecent elements of the left underscore, however, the importance of not debating the issue right now. If the public debate is held today, it will be between Reagan’s staunchest supporters, on the one hand, and his most deranged opponents, on the other, with everyone else left out altogether. That would not be a good thing.

Turley further notes, correctly, that if/when we “canonize” Reagan, we should be mindful of which Presidents or other major historical figures we end up “decanonizing” in the process. Like Turley, I agree that obscure jurists like Salmon Chase, along with Presidents McKinley, Cleveland and Jackson, all make better candidates for de-canonization than Franklin Delano Roosevent or Alexander Hamilton do. Still, I have to take issue with his snide remark about FDR being credited with “such small feats as saving the nation from the Great Depression and the world from fascism.” The notion that FDR’s quasi-socialist policies “saved” the country from the Great Depression is questionable at best; some economists would that they actually extended it. FDR did play a huge role in saving half of Europe from fascism; unfortunately, however, he also played a key role in delivering the other half to “Uncle” Joe Stalin’s evil empire. And even while simultaneously fighting one kind of fascism and enabling another abroad, FDR offered up at least two varieties of “friendly fascism” back at home. None of this is to suggest that he didn’t earn his place in history, which he certainly has. But it does mean that FDR was human, and certainly no less flawed as a man than Reagan or any other President was. And while it does not automatically mean that Reagan necessarily deserves as much credit for his role in winning the Cold War as FDR gets for winning World War II, it does mean that this possibility should not be dismissed out of hand.

Indeed, I would argue that the popular view of FDR as an unblemished hero who could do no wrong is one of the best arguments against delaying such decisions until 25 years after a President’s death, as Turley advocates. By 2029, Reagan will have been out of office for 40 years, I’ll be 62, and anyone who was old enough to vote for or against him in both terms will be 67. By then, entire generations will know nothing about Reagan’s Presidency, beyond whatever subsets of it have found their way into school textbooks. At that point we won’t be voting on Reagan the man at all; we’ll be voting on whatever version of Reagan has made it into the school curriculum.

So for now, let all people of good will hold hands, sing Kumbayah, and do all that other corny, touchy-feely stuff I would ordinarly poke fun at people for doing. Everything else - coins, Mt. Rushmore, train stations, whatever - can wait. Twenty five years is much too long, so how about sometime after the next election?