DASNET

For years, a small group of dedicated individuals has been toiling ceaslessly to rename anything and everything in their path after our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. Occasionally, rumblings would be heard about honoring Reagan on a coin. Those rumblings never got very loud, however, because we have never put a living person on a circulating coin.

Of course, on June 5, 2004, that ceased to be a problem. Since then, bills have been introduced in both houses of Congress regarding putting Reagan on the dime, the dollar coin, and even the 10 dollar bill. Thankfully, none of these bills have gone very far.

My opinion, and I believe that national polls have shown the majority of Americans to share my views, is that Ronald Reagan shouldn't be put on any coins or currency at this time. Personally, I believe that it's too soon, that his legacy hasn't yet been firmly established in the proper context of history, and that, honestly, it wouldn't be fair to remove anyone from our existing money to make room for Ronnie's smiling face.

The practice of displaying actual people on coins is relatively recent. Only in 1909, when we honored the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth, did a former president appear on a coin. Prior to that, all coins had borne only allegorical or generalized images, such as "liberty" or an American Indian. Since Honest Abe set the stage, we've come to have an actual American displayed on all our coins:

• Abraham Lincoln - 1909 - 100th anniversary of birth
• George Washington - 1932 - 200th anniversary of birth
• Thomas Jefferson - 1938 - 195 years after birth
• Franklin D. Roosevelt - 1946 - After death in office
• Benjamin Franklin - 1948 - 158 years after death
• John F. Kennedy - 1964 - After death in office
• Dwight D. Eisenhower - 1971 - 2 years after death
• Susan B. Anthony - 1979 - 73 years after death
• Sacagawea - 2000 - Nearly 200 years after Lewis & Clark Expidition

Note that in almost all cases, a person's image didn't appear on a coin until decades (or more than a century) after their death. The only exceptions to this were two hugely popular presidents who died suddenly while in office, and Eisenhower (a moderately popular president and accomplished 5-star General).

"Well, Reagan was hugely popular, why shouldn't he be honored like Eisenhower was?" Maybe he should be. I'm not saying "never," just "not yet." Simply because we made a mistake (in my opinion) in putting Eisenhower on a coin 2 years after his death is no reason to make the same mistake now. So why should we wait?

Kennedy and FDR were both generally admired even by their detractors, and both died suddenly while in office. Reagan, too, was hugely popular, and no matter what people thought of his politics, he was well admired as a leader, with a great ability to communicate and, especially, to persuade. But he did not die in office -- rather, Reagan enjoyed a quiet retirement, though one marred by an extensive battle with Alzheimer's. I really don't think that people should be honored on a coin simply because of their popularity.

Reagan's full impact remains to be seen. While often credited with "beating communisim," only future historians will be able to fully understand the myriad factors that ultimately led to the Soviet Union's demise (five years after he'd left office, in fact). His economic policies may have been responsible for the deep recession in the late 80's, or perhaps not. Star Wars might have been an idea ahead of its time, or it might have been a misguided and phenomenally expensive boondoggle. His full involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal has not yet come fully to light (especially since George W. Bush has refused the release of files from that era). I would suggest that these, and many other questions surrounding Reagan's legacy, should be fully understood in light of decades of reflection, prior to Reagan being placed on a coin.

"Okay, if not a coin, why not the 10 dollar bill?" Coins are extremely durable, they circulate for decades. It's not uncommon to find coins from 30 or even 40 years ago in change on a weekly basis. So coins continue to honor their subjects for years. Paper money, on the other hand, only lasts a few years (or shorter). It's incredibly rare to find a 40-year-old bill in circulation (and when a co-worker received one recently, nobody would accept it because they thought it was fake). So anyone shown on a bill must remain on that bill, year in and year out, to continue to receive the honor of being on the currency.

Put another way: We could change coins frequently, honoring many different people, but we really can't change bills, and so should only display those worthy of the highest honor on our currency.

Currently, our paper money honors Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant, and Franklin. All Founding Fathers or pivotal Civil War figures. Should any presidents after Grant appear on currency? Many would probably argue that none before FDR should. And perhaps Kennedy, as well. But it's most definitely too soon to include Ronald Reagan in this club.

So, to sum up:

• All current coins show people decades after their death
• Reagan's legacy is not yet fully understood
• Portraits on currency should be reserved for the highest honors of all, and it's far too soon to afford that honor to Reagan

It's simply too soon to place Ronald Reagain on a circulating coin.

But all this is not to say that coinage redesign is a Bad Thing. In fact, the popularity of the State Quarters program shows that Americans are eager to find something interesting in their change purses. There's even a separate bill in Congress to honor all past presidents on the dollar coin.

Not unsurprisingly, I have some thoughts of my own on coin redesign, and will be posting some of those in the near future.