If you ask me, I’d guess he was satisfied with the airport and the aircraft carrier named after him.
Here we go. The conservative canonization of Reagan is about to kick into overdrive. They’ve already been trying to name half of D.C. after him (and even, yes, start planning to add a monument to the National Mall) for the last 10 years.
Luckily, you can’t have a monument on the Mall until you’ve been dead for 25 years.
I think someone needs to be dead for at least fifty years before we even begin to think about putting them on money.
Tell that to the Kennedy half and the Olympic commerative that quite clearly depicted Nolan Ryan.
I think It is entirely appopriate to put Reagan on money. The $10 is fine with me. A new $200 or $500 bill would be fine with me and would seem only appropriate — a $100 isn’t worth what it was when it was made our highest denomination paper currency. I also wouldn’t mind a new $2 or $5 coin.
What I would really love to see is Reagan replace Lincoln on the cent. In 2009, Lincoln will have made it 100 years on that coin. That is far, far too long no matter who we’re talking about. Making this change would hopefully spur the removal of Jefferson, Washington, Roosevelt, and Kennedy after they have been on their coins for 100 years.
Eh. The fifty cent piece isn’t real money.
What exactly is the problem with this stuff? Should conservative Republicans who don’t like FDR’s policies lobby to de-canonize FDR? Do we really want to make any of this about politics?
I’m not going to oppose anything unless it is as insane as adding a fifth President to Mount Rushmore (no matter who it is). I probably won’t support much more than a coinage or currency change, and I’ll support that because I believe we need to change those images far more often than we do now.
If Reagan’s followers have the support in place to get things named after him or get him a memorial, fine by me. If Clinton’s followers have that support in place once it is appropriate to speak of such things, more power to them.
This doesn’t address your point, but I just want to say that I would be fine with Reagan replacing Lincoln soon or with it happening in 2009. I didn’t make that clear in my comment.
You’re right that the fifty (both the bill and the coin) aren’t really in use these days. I think that inflation has taken any transit use away from the half dollar, and I know that ATMs have just about ruined the $50 (and taken a bite out of the $10). In fact, I think we wouldn’t see half dollars minted these days except that Kennedy is on the coin. Why mint something useless just for that reason? The politics behind money is just stupid, and that is why I’d like to see changes…
No, I don’t think we do want to make any of this about politics. The problem with the Reagan stuff is that, in my opinion, it’s all about politics. I think there’s near universal agreement that Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Jefferson, Hamilton, even FDR were great leaders. I don’t think there’s anywhere near that level of agreement about Reagan.
I think you need to take Hamilton off that list. He ran the Treasury Department, wrote some of the Federalist papers (and frankly didn’t do as well at that as Madison did if you ask me), and pissed off Burr enough to get shot.
While we’re at it, US Grant isn’t really deserving. He was a pretty damn poor President, and I think the military consensus is that he did what you’d expect just about any General to do with superior force.
Kennedy also has a pretty weak case. I think we all know about those parameters, though.
If there isn’t enough of a consensus about Reagan, then he won’t get things like a Mall Memorial. Let’s just leave it to the numbers to determine what tributes get made to the man.
You can definitely take Grant off the list. Wasn’t he one of the most corrupt Presidents ever?
As for Hamilton, I don’t know a tremendous amount about him, although I plan to make it through Ron Chernow’s biography at some point this summer. I was under the impression that much of our modern capitalist system is based on a lot of Hamilton’s thinking, as opposed to Jefferson’s more agrarian model. Also, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, it seems somewhat appropriate that Hamilton gets to be on some piece of currency.
I think Grant had one of the most corrupt administrations. From what I recall, he trusted people he brought in from the military too much. They were the corrupt ones.
reluctantly defined 
If you ask me, I’d guess he was satisfied with the airport and the aircraft carrier named after him.
Here we go. The conservative canonization of Reagan is about to kick into overdrive. They’ve already been trying to name half of D.C. after him (and even, yes, start planning to add a monument to the National Mall) for the last 10 years.
Luckily, you can’t have a monument on the Mall until you’ve been dead for 25 years.
I think someone needs to be dead for at least fifty years before we even begin to think about putting them on money.
Tell that to the Kennedy half and the Olympic commerative that quite clearly depicted Nolan Ryan.
I think It is entirely appopriate to put Reagan on money. The $10 is fine with me. A new $200 or $500 bill would be fine with me and would seem only appropriate — a $100 isn’t worth what it was when it was made our highest denomination paper currency. I also wouldn’t mind a new $2 or $5 coin.
What I would really love to see is Reagan replace Lincoln on the cent. In 2009, Lincoln will have made it 100 years on that coin. That is far, far too long no matter who we’re talking about. Making this change would hopefully spur the removal of Jefferson, Washington, Roosevelt, and Kennedy after they have been on their coins for 100 years.
Eh. The fifty cent piece isn’t real money.
What exactly is the problem with this stuff? Should conservative Republicans who don’t like FDR’s policies lobby to de-canonize FDR? Do we really want to make any of this about politics?
I’m not going to oppose anything unless it is as insane as adding a fifth President to Mount Rushmore (no matter who it is). I probably won’t support much more than a coinage or currency change, and I’ll support that because I believe we need to change those images far more often than we do now.
If Reagan’s followers have the support in place to get things named after him or get him a memorial, fine by me. If Clinton’s followers have that support in place once it is appropriate to speak of such things, more power to them.
This doesn’t address your point, but I just want to say that I would be fine with Reagan replacing Lincoln soon or with it happening in 2009. I didn’t make that clear in my comment.
You’re right that the fifty (both the bill and the coin) aren’t really in use these days. I think that inflation has taken any transit use away from the half dollar, and I know that ATMs have just about ruined the $50 (and taken a bite out of the $10). In fact, I think we wouldn’t see half dollars minted these days except that Kennedy is on the coin. Why mint something useless just for that reason? The politics behind money is just stupid, and that is why I’d like to see changes…
No, I don’t think we do want to make any of this about politics. The problem with the Reagan stuff is that, in my opinion, it’s all about politics. I think there’s near universal agreement that Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Jefferson, Hamilton, even FDR were great leaders. I don’t think there’s anywhere near that level of agreement about Reagan.
I think you need to take Hamilton off that list. He ran the Treasury Department, wrote some of the Federalist papers (and frankly didn’t do as well at that as Madison did if you ask me), and pissed off Burr enough to get shot.
While we’re at it, US Grant isn’t really deserving. He was a pretty damn poor President, and I think the military consensus is that he did what you’d expect just about any General to do with superior force.
Kennedy also has a pretty weak case. I think we all know about those parameters, though.
If there isn’t enough of a consensus about Reagan, then he won’t get things like a Mall Memorial. Let’s just leave it to the numbers to determine what tributes get made to the man.
You can definitely take Grant off the list. Wasn’t he one of the most corrupt Presidents ever?
As for Hamilton, I don’t know a tremendous amount about him, although I plan to make it through Ron Chernow’s biography at some point this summer. I was under the impression that much of our modern capitalist system is based on a lot of Hamilton’s thinking, as opposed to Jefferson’s more agrarian model. Also, as the first Secretary of the Treasury, it seems somewhat appropriate that Hamilton gets to be on some piece of currency.
I think Grant had one of the most corrupt administrations. From what I recall, he trusted people he brought in from the military too much. They were the corrupt ones.