The Tech - Online EditionMIT's oldest and largest
newspaper & the first
newspaper published
on the web
Boston Weather: 40.0°F | Light Rain Fog/Mist

Columnist confused Reaganism with American dream

This letter is in response to Manavendra K. Thakur's column "Film shares the fantasy view of world that Reagan sold to America" [June 5]. I am not going to dispute Thakur's opinion of film Field of Dreams, which is his own and is certainly valid. However, if Thakur had paid closer attention to the film (I say this because of factual errors in the film synopsis), and had not seen it through the filter of a pre-formed political agenda, the conclusions about the film may have been different.

Thakur missed the point in connecting the Reagan years to the Rockwell type of America -- the "American dream." Reagan offered this dream to America, and an overwhelming majority of people responded, for the simple reason that they found this dream attractive. But Reagan seemed to have no intention of actually providing the dream to anyone. Rather, he used the promise of the dream to lure Americans into voting for him so that he could use his policies to line the pockets of his military-industrial cronies. This is where the deception took place -- the end effect of the Reagan years was in fact to put the American dream out of the reach of most Americans.

There is nothing wrong or deceptive about the American dream itself. Furthermore, a film that favorably portrays this type of life is not "peddling" anything any more than a film which favorably portrays a different type of life is "peddling" anything.

Personally, I hope to have a house in the suburbs, with a picket fence, 1.8 children, etc., and there is absolutely nothing simplistic about it. Indeed, in these days -- and because of the Reagan years -- the tranquility of a stable family life is more unattainable than ever.

Andrew Lumsdaine G->