Attack of the Cohen

Richard Cohen starts out his latest column like this:

I have a friend who is always alert to the expropriation of the dead for selfish reasons. Specifically, she has special scorn for people who excuse themselves from attending a funeral by saying that the deceased would have understood.

He then goes on to bash Ron Reagan Not-Jnr. for agreeing to speak at the Democratic convention, and calls Ron a "grave robber."

The column doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but you probably guessed that from the byline.

As far as I can tell, Cohen thinks Ron Not-Jnr. is a selfish grave robber because he is a nobody, and he's just appearing at the convention to bash Bush. Selfish? Does Ron own lots of biotech stocks? Will stem-cell research reanimate Ronnie? The actual facts that (1) Ron's not going to bash Bush in his speech and (2) he will be promoting an idea that will benefit others (and most likely not himself personally) seem not to have registered with Cohen.

Cohen charges Ron with "expropriat[ing] his father's fame and stature for his own purposes," which, Cohen believes, is particularly inappropriate since the Gipper's views on stem-cell research are not known. But Ron is not purporting to speak for his father. He's speaking as someone who saw what a disease did to his father. Would Cohen give his blessing only to advocacy by victims of disease who are already famous, or by already-famous family members of victims? The suffering riff-raff need not apply.

Would Ron Reagan be speaking in Boston if his father wasn't a former President? Most likely not. But so what? In 1992, Elizabeth Glaser was the unknown wife of a formerly famous television actor when she spoke to the Democratic Convention about AIDS. She too could be accused of expropriating her husband's fame and stature, and deemed unqualified to speak on an issue of national importance. In the case of Alzheimer's, it's not possible to have a victim of the disease speak on her or his own behalf. Would Cohen have the Democrats ignore the issue altogether rather than present a speech from an intelligent and articulate advocate, simply because his father, St. Ronnie, was Republican?

Cohen also believes that "a person with Alzheimer's may not be aware of his condition," and thus wonders if Alzheimer's victims actually "suffer." Which illustrates why Cohen should not be allowed to criticize anyone else, ever, on his or her lack of knowledge or expertise.

I'm also not sure Cohen understands what expropriation means.

(Thanks to jdancingkid for the link.)