There is a movement by some conservatives to have at least one thing named for Ronald Reagan in every county of the United States.

And in one of a growing number of recent breaks with the US Navy's long-standing tradition that the living are never honored in this way, there is an aircraft carrier named the USS Ronald Reagan.

There's also a group that wants to replace the image of Alexander Hamilton on the U.S. $10 bill with Reagan's picture.

But leaving aside the immediate political implications, I wonder if the folks who are so insistent on naming and renaming places and things after 'the Gipper' realize how insecure it makes them look. And how afraid they seem to be of the perspective and impartial judgement of history.

If President Reagan's impact on U.S. and world history is as large as they believe, things will be named after him, just as people today still name things after great 19th Century figures like Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.

The Roman Catholic Church, I think, has the right idea. As I understand it, the process of canonization, of naming someone a saint, can't begin until at least 75 years after the person's death. A passage of time intended to ensure that the immediate passions of the day have cooled.