Liberal Tyrants Have it Better

Thinking of the Reagan speech got me to thinking about protests and what/who is acceptable as an icon these days. Now, I voted for Reagan once (I wasn't old enough the first time around) and I won't claim to have loved the guy as much many people do. He's kind of like Elvis in this context: I appreciate him and his accomplishments more now that he's gone.

But what if I were to walk around with a Reagan t-shirt, the image of which was made to look like a Che t-shirt? Or Mao or Stalint? I would get grief from a few people; maybe even a lot of people here in NY. Yet, if I wore Che or Mao or Stalin? Three poster-children of the communism-socialism idea? Not a lick of protest. Not an iota of reproof. Nothing, even though these three so-called icons represent a defunct concept that over the course of 70 years was directly responsible for the death of, hmm, 200 million people, 300 million? I mean, you may as well be wearing a Hitler t-shirt. He actually killed fewer people than Mao, Stalin, and the rest.

But that's just it. Hitler was right wing, a fascist, a Nazi, a horrible man, a mass murder. But he's not marketable like the other mass murderers. Not panda cuddly like mass murding Mao, or Tiger Beat handsome like Che/Castro. Nor is he somehow (incredibly) sympathetic (!!??) like mass murderer Stalin (Dude! he was just a maaan, man! Just a few flaws, a few warts). No, you can't have a righty on a t-shirt! Mao? Sure! Pinochet? No! Che, Castro? Si! Hussein, that poor bastard? Sure! Baby Doc? No! Kadaffi? Yes! Bin Laden? Daniel Ortega? Yes!

And of course, if you put on a shirt any Republican president of the past 30 years? A big fat "No!"
Hmmm...