The night Ronald Reagan was elected I watched the whole sorry spectacle on the TV in the student lounge at my small college in the Pacific Northwest. It wasn't a surprise - it had been clear ever since the debate with Carter that Reagan was going to win. The media had already started the death watch even before the polls opened that morning.

I tried to convince myself it didn't matter - that one capitalist hack had simply been replaced by another. I was way out in left field in those days, and had voted for - and worked for - Barry Commoner, the candidate of the Citizens Party, an early forerunner of the Green Party). We carried our precinct (essentially, the college dorms) and I was proud of that.

But I was in a distinct minority. There were a lot of students from Californian at the school - people who'd grown up with Reagan in the governor's mansion. And some of the faculty had been at Berkeley when he sent the cops in (earning him the counterculture title of "fascist gun in the West." Some of them were walking around the campus that night with stunned looks on their faces. They couldn't believe the senile old huckster they'd known and hated had just been elected president of the United States.

I walked back to my dorm that night with an uneasy feeling that maybe I was wrong - that Reagan's election marked some kind of turning point. Which it did, of course - as we discovered over the next few years.

In hindsight, it's easy to see that Reagan's election was the end of many things - the end of the '70s, and the mood of experimentation that went with it (the '70s were when the '60s went mainstream); the end of the "Vietnam syndrome," and the temporary popular revulsion against imperial military adventures; the end of the political alignment that emerged from the New Deal, the end of the New Left and its hopeless ambitions - the end, really, of the post-World War II era.

I found it hard to hate Reagan - even though I detested most of what he stood for, believed and sought to do. Yes, he was as ignorant and stubborn and incapable of rational thought as our current president, but he wasn't arrogant - or at least, he didn't come across as arrogant. He lacked Bush's infuriating sense of entitlement, and his nasty temper. Reagan smiled, he didn't smirk.

With the benefit of distance and hindsight, I can also admit that not all of Reagan's economic policies were reckless and incoherent - although his fiscal policies certainly were, and eventually had to be undone at great cost. (See Stockman, David, The Triumph of Politics)

But the economic policies of the Nixon, Ford and Carter years weren't exactly models of prudence and effectiveness either. For all his flaws, Reagan inspired confidence in the business community - which, like it or not, controls the economy and creates the jobs. His deregulation policies were, by and large, a success - it that a Democratic House was there to curb his worst excesses. He allowed the Volcker Fed to do its job of breaking the inflationary spiral. Reagan's attacks on organized labor, on the other hand, were brutal, and helped set the stage for the cuthroat corporate downsizings of the '80s and early '90s, and the dramatic rise in income inequality that's seperating the haves from the have nots. He was, for all his cornball folksiness, the ultimate class warrior - or class front man, anyway.

But I'll leave the pluses and minuses of Reaganomics for the historians. At this late date, it's hardly worth arguing about. Reagan's foreign policies, on the other hand, still make my blood boil, even after all these years. His decision to challenge the Soviets on every front - which, given the senility and paranoia of the Breshnev-era Soviet leadership, could easily have led to war - is, of course, relentlessly promoted by the conservative propaganda machine as the masterstroke that ended the Cold War. In reality, it was the end of the Cold War (made possible by Mikhail Gorbachov's rise to power) that headed off the disaster that Reagan's recklessness might otherwise have triggered.

The legacy of Reagan's policies in the Middle East, meanwhile, are still being paid for - in blood. The cynical promotion of Islamic fundamentalism as a weapon against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the alliance of convenience with Saddam Hussein against Iran, the forging of a new "strategic relationship" with Israel, the corrupt dealings with the House of Saud, and (perhaps most ironic, given Reagan's tough guy image) the weakeness and indecision of his disastrous intervention in Beruit - all of these helped set the stage for what the neocons now like to call World War IV, and badly weakened the geopolitical ability of the United States to wage that war.

But all this pales in comparison to Reagan's war crimes in Central America. We'll probably never know just how stained his hands were by the blood of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of defenseless peasants who were slaughtered in the Guatemalan highlands, or the leftist politicians, union leaders and human rights activists kidnapped and killed by the Salvadoranian death squads, or the torturned in Honduran prisons, or terrorized by his beloved contras.

Did Reagan's men covertly support these murders? Or did they just look the other way? Did Reagan ever know just what kind of charnel house he helped create? Or did he live completely in his fantasy world of freedom fighters and "founding fathers"? Either way, it was in Central America that Reagan most clearly earned that nickname the hippies pinned on him back in Berkeley: "fascist gun in the West."

Looking back, it's also easy to see the propaganda connections between Reagan's war in Central America and the current Orwellian nightmare in Iraq. There were the same moral oversimplications - pure goodness versus absolute evil - the same flowerly rhetoric about freedom and democracy (to be administred to impoverished campesinos with machine guns and torture chambers.) There was the same lurid hype about the dire danger to the homeland - as when Reagan famously warned that Nicaragua was just a "two-day drive from Harlington, Texas."

And of course, we're even looking at some of the same actors - Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, Colin Powell. To a large degree, the Reagan administration's covert wars in both Central America and the Middle East formed the template for how the war in Iraq was packaged, sold and - unfortunately - fought.

So, while Reagan - like the entire decade of the '80s - has long since faded into historical irrelevence, I certainly won't mourn his passing. And I suppose I'll just have to grit my teeth and do my best to ignore the glowing tributes and bipartisan praise we'll be subjected to over the next few days - just as I did when Nixon died. The ritual deification of Ronald Reagan has become one of the essential bonds that holds the modern Republican Party together - not to mention a lucrative fundraising vehicle for some of its leading lights. The rest of us will just have to make the best of it.

To me, the tremendous conservative nostalgia for Ronald Reagan is a sign of a movement that is, if not in decline, then poised on the cusp of it. It's an implicit admission that the golden age, when a conservative ideologue like Reagan could win the support of an overwhelming majority of Americans (and not just the instinctual cultural loyalty of red state America) has passed away.

The contrast with Bush the younger - desperately scrambling to avoid defeat in a bitterly polarized electorate - is painfully clear. In it's obsessive desire to glorify Ronald Reagan, the conservative movement is retreating psychologically into its own past. It's a sign that the political era that opened the night Reagan was elected may also be nearing its end.

To which I can only say: Rest in peace.

I’ve been threatening to write a long, complicated post on the economy for awhile now, and this weekend I finally got around to doing it. After the past few months of obsessively watching every twitch and shudder of the Iraq fiasco, I figured it was time to take a hard look at the pocketbook issues – and where the trends seem to be leading us.

If attacking Kerry because he "looks French" was silly, this is silliness turned into a form of political dementia:

The Bush-Cheney campaign this week stepped up its assault on Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for being a rich guy. No, make that for being a really, really rich guy. "Most Americans can't afford yachts, private planes, thousand dollar haircuts or homes in Nantucket," Republican National Committee spokesman Jim Dyke said in a news release announcing a new video game on the RNC Web site. The game is called Kerryopoly. It's similar to Monopoly, but the properties belong to the Kerry family.

Actually, Kerry isn't the one with all the dough, it's his wife - the widow of the late Republican Senator and ketchup heir John Heinz. I guess Kerry's real crime, from a Bush family point of view, was marrying above his station - and, of course, vacationing in Nantucket, as opposed to someplace earthy and down home and full of regular folks, like, say, Kennebunkport.

But I like the idea of creating a game to match each candidate's personal history. You could easily design one called Bushopoly - all players would start with a $1 million trust fund, but would still end up in bankruptcy after the first turn. Then the bank would pay off all their mortgages and give them each a $100,000, interest-free loan.

Or you could have Cheneyopoly - each time you landed on one of the ultilities, you'd get a $10 million bonus and an unlimited get-out-of-jail-free card.

Or how about a special Middle Eastern edition of Risk - let's call it "Insane Risk" - in which the players try to invade and conquer the region's major oil producing nations?

Oh wait, the Republicans have already created one of those ...

According to Prince Bandar, the Saudis hoped to fine-tune oil prices over 10 months to prime the economy for 2004. What was key, Bandar knew, was the economic conditions before a presidential election, not at the moment of the election.

Bob Woodward
Plan of Attack
April 2004

“They’re [oil prices] high. And they could go down very quickly. That's the Saudi pledge. Certainly over the summer, or as we get closer to the election, they could increase production several million barrels a day and the price would drop significantly.”

Bob Woodward
60 Minutes interview
April 18, 2004

"The allegation that the kingdom is manipulating the price of oil for political purposes or to affect elections is erroneous and has no basis in fact."

Saudi foreign affairs adviser Adel al-Jubeir
Press statement
April 19, 2004

“I don't say there's a secret deal or any collaboration on this. What I say in the book is that the Saudis . . . hoped to keep oil prices low during the period before the election, because of its impact on the economy. That's what I say.”

Bob Woodward
Larry King Show interview
April 19, 2004

BANDAR: I don't understand; what's so wrong with oil prices going low? I thought that is good for America, American economy, for the American people, and it's definitely good for us and my country.

MR. RUSSERT: It may be good for George Bush's re-election.

BANDAR: It may be good for anybody in the White House and the American people. And we don't see the difference.

Prince Bandar bin Sultan
Meet the Press interview
April 25, 2004

It will be most interesting if all of a sudden oil prices do go down and gasoline prices at the pump are much less as we get into the fall election campaign.

Bob Woodward
Meet the Press interview
April 25, 2004

Saudi Arabia's oil minister urged OPEC on Monday to raise its production ceiling by 1.5 million barrels a day when it meets on June 3 … The change came only weeks after Saudi Arabia denied a report that its government agreed with the White House to increase oil production to drive down U.S. gasoline prices in advance of the Nov. 2 election.

Associated Press
Saudi Arabia urges OPEC to increase oil production
May 10, 2004

"Saudi Arabia will encourage OPEC to increase its production ceiling by more than 2 million barrels per day. We have determined, after reviewing updated projections for oil supply and demand, that this increase in oil production is necessary to maintain stability in the market and growth in the world economy."

Prince Bandar bin Sultan
Press Release
May 21, 2004

OPEC ministers failed to support a proposal by Saudi Arabia on raising oil output to reduce surging prices, with the cartel putting off a decision until its next official meeting in June … Some countries even appeared annoyed at the fait acompli put to them by Saudi Arabia, which is the cartel's most influential member, with Venezuelan Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez terming the proposal a "unilateral position."

Agency France-Presse
No immediate OPEC support for Saudi oil output hike plan
May 23, 2004

As crude prices fluctuate around $40 per barrel, [Saudi] officials are weighing options to increase Saudi Arabia’s capacity above its current level of 10.5 million barrels a day. The options include raising production at the kingdom’s existing oil fields and tapping as many as four new ones, the executives said.

Associated Press
Saudis debate boosting crude oil output capacity
May 28, 2004

Several OPEC members expressed support yesterday for a Saudi plan to raise the group's oil production ceiling by 10.6 percent in the hope of calming jittery markets and reducing crude prices from near record heights. Oil prices sank more than 5 percent in trading in New York and London.

Associated Press
Oil prices sink as OPEC talks of higher output
June 3, 2004

"Once traders realize there is plenty of oil ... we believe market sentiment will begin to change and we will see it (the price of oil) trending downwards."

Saudi foreign affairs adviser Adel al-Jubeir
CNN Interview
June 3, 2004

Bush administration officials, who have grown increasingly anxious in recent weeks about the political and economic fallout from high gas prices, voiced satisfaction that yesterday's news might signal some relief for motorists in months ahead. "OPEC's announcement today, coupled with recent inventory and import data, should be viewed as positive developments for the oil markets," Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said in a written statement.

Washington Post
Oil-Price Pressure Eases
June 4, 2004

I said a few days ago that the true test of the new/old Iraqi government's survival prospects would be whether it would be actively opposed, or quietly tolerated by the Ayatollah Sistani.

Well, after several days of portentive silence, the Ayatollah has finally given the Governing Council 2.0 what appears to be - at best - a highly ambivalent endorsement.

For once I have to agree with the bastard. This cover story makes absolutely no sense:

Government officials say they started the investigation of Pentagon officials after learning that Mr. Chalabi had told the Baghdad station chief of Iran's intelligence service that the United States was reading their communications. Mr. Chalabi, American officials say, gave the information to the Iranians about six weeks ago, apparently because he wanted to ensure that his secret conversations with the Iranians were not revealed to the Americans.

But the Iranian official apparently did not immediately believe Mr. Chalabi, because he sent a cable back to Tehran detailing his conversation with Mr. Chalabi, American officials said. That cable was intercepted and read by the United States, the officials said.

Perle's take:

"The whole thing hinges on the idea that the Baghdad station chief of the MOIS commits one of the most amazing trade craft errors I've ever heard of," Mr. Perle said, referring to Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security. He said it defied belief that a seasoned intelligence operative would disclose a conversation with Mr. Chalabi using the same communications channel that he had just been warned was compromised.

"You have to believe that the station chief blew a gift from the gods because of rank incompetence," Mr. Perle said. "I don't believe it, and I don't think any other serious intelligence professional would either."

On other hand, Perle's own explanation - that the Iranians framed Chalabi in order to drive the United States away from him - also doesn't make a lick of sense. Even if Chalabi is not an Iranian spy, why would the hardliners who control Iran's intelligence service want to break up the neocon-INC axis of incompetence, which has done so much to drive the U.S. occupation of Iraq into the ground?

I'm assuming, of course, that the hardliners want the Great Satan to fail in Iraq, and would like nothing better than to destabilize the entire Persian Gulf region. If on the other hand, they fear destabilization, and would prefer to see Iraq put back into some kind of working order before the United States bugs out, maybe they would want to help tilt the bureacratic playing field back towards the realists.

But that's too many wheels inside of too many wheels for me. I think trying to second guess this bizarre affair is probably a waste of time right now - there are too many of Rumsfeld's unknown unknowns.

To draw yet another historical parallel, it kind of reminds me of the dark, convoluted plotting that ultimately deposited Vladimir Lenin on the platform of St. Petersburg's Finland Station in the summer of 1917, and that brought the Bolsheviks to power a few months later. (For an interesting look at a very Chalabi-like figure from the period, google the name "Alexander Parvus.")

Historians are still trying to hash out the plot line of that earlier non-fiction spy drama. Assuming history isn't an obsolete discipline, I'm guessing this one will keep them busy for many years to come as well.