[nickpp]

How qualified was Reagan to give marriage advice? How many marriages did he have? Was he a marriage counsellor? Did he study marriages? Statistics on couple behaviors?

Or is this like listening to the Kardashian's opinion on... child rearing or something?

[csel]

How many marriages did he have? 2. First one 8 years and the last one was with Nancy for more than 40 years. But who are we to cast stones at him especially when he is advising his son privately. I mean, it's not like he is trying to advise the whole nation on marriage.

Here is something I pulled out of Wikipedia regarding his relationship with Nancy Reagan. Might give some perspective on his letter to his son.

"During his presidency they were reported to frequently display their affection for one another; one press secretary said, "They never took each other for granted. They never stopped courting." He often called her "Mommy" she called him "Ronnie". He once wrote to her, "Whatever I treasure and enjoy ... all would be without meaning if I didn't have you." When he was in the hospital in 1981, she slept with one of his shirts to be comforted by his scent. In a letter to U.S. citizens written in 1994, Reagan wrote "I have recently been told that I am one of the millions of Americans who will be afflicted with Alzheimer's disease.... I only wish there was some way I could spare Nancy from this painful experience," and in 1998, while Reagan was stricken by Alzheimer's, Nancy told Vanity Fair, "Our relationship is very special. We were very much in love and still are. When I say my life began with Ronnie, well, it's true. It did. I can't imagine life without him."

[tjic]

Read the letter, specifically this bit:

Mike, you know better than many what an unhappy home is and what it can do to others.

Seems to me he's saying "I've made mistakes and learned from them".

[brucejaywallace]

That's what I got from it. It takes a sense of humility and ownership to admit those mistakes and be able to reflect on that and produce very useful advice to his son about it.

[GuiA]

Reagan was married to Jane Wyman (1940–1949) and to Nancy Davis (1952–2004).

That letter was sent in 1971, well into his marriage with Nancy Davis, which would last for another 33 years, until his death.

Interpret this however you want :)

[efa]

Wow, a father writes a private letter to his son advising him to cherish his wife and don't cheat on her. Not sure how anyone can find fault in that - but there you have it.

[swdunlop]

Welcome to the internet generation, where we can look into someone's private conversation and comment "citation needed."

[bstewartnyc]

Ronald Reagan was a wise man and great president.

[justsee]

I don't think political trolling is needed on HN.

There are plenty of other places on the internet to make controversial personality politics statements.

[davidw]

Which is why articles like this have no place here. It's simply not relevant to Hacker News unless you want to play the "7 degrees of Hacker News" game.

[mkramlich]

whether I agree with you or not, please, let's not bring politics to HN.

[jason_slack]

One of my favorite sayings is "Trust, but verify"

I use this a lot in my daily happenings.

[ktizo]

I'm more on Spitting Image - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3u3PwCZfM4 - and George Carlin's - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hm7D2Ms_zc - side with this one.

[mb_72]

I think it's ok to take ideas and information as being somewhat independent from their creators. Bad people can produce good ideas, just as good people can produce bad ideas. I might feel very uncomfortable with Shockley's views on genetics and reproduction, but I'm happy he co-invented the transistor. Similarly, I can read Reagan's letter and get something out of it without needing to consider his acting or political career.

[pohl]

That Carlin clip is great. Hard to believe it's all still about business-crime and the uterus.

[myko]

Great by whose measure? As far as I'm concerned he is an embarrassment (as a President).

I do think these letters are of historical interest though, glad to see them available.

[ambertch]

You cannot level such a stark criticism against a man who dared to be great - when you do so you embarrass only yourself.

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

[myko]

Talk highly of him all you want, his rhetoric has hurt the US far more than it has helped. Between his voodoo economics and ignoring of the AIDs crisis, Iran Contra, the 'Moral Majority', I think you are embarrassing yourself here, not me. He is the epitome of style over substance.

[kprobst]

You can say the same about just any other politician. They all made (and make) mistakes and stumble. The key is how history judges them. In the case of Reagan I think history is pretty clear about what he accomplished and what he didn't. Notice I said "I think" because that's just my opinion; everyone is entitled to one. Informed opinions are not embarrassing. Waving your arms and pushing your own absolutes on other people however can be quite so.

[myko]

I think you just nicely reiterated my response to the OP, thanks.

[gadders]

I'd say winning the Cold War was a pretty significant triumph for the man.

[ktizo]

The US didn't win the cold war, the USSR stopped playing due to an insolvency of mostly their own creation. And the same could happen to the US if it is not extremely careful over the next decade or so.

[planetguy]

Much as I hate to stray this far from the topic at hand, AIDS turned out to be a much, much smaller deal than the alarmists of the 1980s would have had you believe. Not that it wasn't worth being concerned about, researching, and educating people about, but y'know what the death toll from AIDS is in the United States nowadays? Forty per million per year.

While that's still an order of magnitude above "lightning strike" it's below, say, Hepatitis C or many hundreds of other diseases that get less press.

[wpietri]

You don't think its current status has something to do with all the energy put into it early on?

Also, I think you're a little breezy about the threat AIDS poses. It's still killing 2m people a year, down from 3m at its peak.

[gruseom]

Talk about hindsight fallacy. "Nowadays" is hardly the point; at the time, depending on what circles you moved in (or perhaps one should say, which classes of human beings you cared about), AIDS was devastating.

The cultural losses were especially incalculable. So many artists at the height of their powers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hGpjsgquqw

[flyinRyan]

This is exactly why this political stuff needs to stay off HN. By your apparent definition no one could level start criticism against Hitler (hopefully that kills the thread).

[toadi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law --> this should end it ;)