The Reagan Centennial
The New York Times reminds us that Ronald Reagan would be celebrating his 100th birthday this year, and that the occasion promises to be celebrated lavishly. It is for things like this that I'm delighted I don't own a TV set. I think being forced to watch Fox News during a Reagan love fest would about as much fun as taking Xanax and watching a Lawrence Welk marathon.
So what is it about Reagan, after all, that gets the Right into such a tizzy? The mere mention of his name sends conservatives into spasms of joy. Even Jesus wouldn't have a chance against Reagan in a fantasy Republican primary, and in real primaries, Republicans fall over themselves trying to claim Reagan's legacy. I recall some years ago some wanted to replace Franklin Roosevelt's image on the dime with that of Reagan, a movement that only lost momentum when Reagan's widow Nancy inconveniently stated that he admired FDR and wouldn't have wanted to replace him.
To me there are three main reasons why Reagan is so revered by the Right:
1. The Cold War. It is an article of faith among Republicans that Reagan is responsible for winning the Cold War. This is typically never challenged, and whenever some nebbish academic points out the Soviet Union's floundering economy and the reforms of Gorbachev likely had more to do with the fall of the USSR than anything else, he is quickly rebuked. For many conservatives believe that Reagan won the Cold War because he told Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. This is akin to thinking that your computer started working only after you yelled at it.
Anyway, here in America we tend to give ourselves principal agency in every event that happens around the world. That the Soviet Union collapsed is largely due to factors related to the Soviet Union, but since Reagan happened to be the US president when the Evil Empire began its descent into the ash heap of history, he gets the credit.
2. The demographic shift. Reagan took office when the vast bulk of Baby Boomers were moving into their thirties and beginning to acquire the trappings of responsibility: a marriage, a mortgage, kids, and careers. Many of the same hippies and dropouts and radicals Reagan railed against as governor of California* in the late 1960s grew up, moved to the suburbs, and began voting Republican. Reagan's comment that 'you've seen one tree, you've seen them all' resonated with a group of people who suddenly found the concept of conservation a dreary vestige of the '70s. Really, who gives a shit about trees when you can have four fax machines in your office and one in your DeLorean?
3. Who else do they have? Reagan also benefits from the decidedly lackluster set of Republican presidents that preceded and succeeded him. Let's consider the following group: Dwight Eisenhower would be a liberal by today's standards. Richard Nixon was a crook, Gerald Ford was in office for about five minutes, George Bush the elder had the charisma of a starfish, and his boy came very close to ruining the world. Not exactly a deep bench. Go back earlier, and you have Hoover (the whole Great Depression thing) and then Calvin Coolidge, of whom Reagan reportedly kept a bust in the Oval Office. Alas, the only people alive who are old enough to remember Coolidge were too young to care about politics then, anyway. By contrast, the Democratic roster of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, Carter, Clinton comes across like a political murderer's row.
Reagan was no doubt a skilled politician. He had the looks, the charisma, and the manner for the job- as befitted a former actor. He had the good fortune to come into office when the prime American adversary was enduring fatal internal convulsions. He also took advantage of a demographic situation in which the largest sector of the population was beginning to settle down, leading to increasing voter conservatism.In addition, Reagan also was able to follow Jimmy Carter, a president whose tenure was marked by a sluggish economy, foreign policy crises, and intra-party strife. He took office in an era when many Americans simply wanted their president to succeed- the national mood was exhausted by the failures, scandals, wars, and assassinations that marked the previous few presidential administrations.
So inevitably, the less savory aspects of Reagan's presidency seem to have been tidily swept under the rug. The suddenly stagnant middle-class real income growth. The soaring deficits. The abhorrent, disgusting policy in Latin America, culminating with the blatantly criminal Iran Contra scandal. The recriminalization of pot. And more.
But none of this matters, because Ronald Reagan's role in the Republican narrative is far too critical for an objective analysis to intrude. I just hope that when his 150th birthday rolls around, historians will have revised his legacy downward where it belongs.
* My uncle once told me anstory about Reagan. In the '60s, my uncle was participating in a political rally at Sproul Plaza at UC Berkeley on a day in which Reagan- in his capacity as Governor of California- was convening a meeting of the UC Board of Regents in a nearby building. When the assembled students gathered word of Reagan's proximity, they began chanting "Fuck Reagan!" in unison. To their surprise, Reagan himself leaned out of the building and flipped all of the students off.
I do think this story humanizes him much more than any other anecdote I ever heard.
February 4th, 2011 - 12:36
Matt, let’s not also forget that Reagan actually RAISED taxes on multiple occasions, amounting to what was the largest tax increase ever during peacetime (see: http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/economy/reagan_years_taxes/index.htm). =)
February 5th, 2011 - 21:26
I have always detested Reagan, when he was governor and when he was president. Just the thought of his legacy being “celebrated lavishly” this year makes me cringe.
February 8th, 2011 - 12:02
As an evil Republican I rather liked Reagan. He was excellent with speechcraft, both in terms of delivery and his ability to think of the fly, which is why Clinton was always compared to Reagan, and he had a solid intellectual foundation during his political career, which is something most modern American politicians lack. At the same time, Republicans treating him as a saint (secular or otherwise) is ridiculous, but humans, as political animals, all do this. The GOP is playing catch-up to Democrat Kennedy worship, and it’s just as nauseating.
The irony to this whole Reagan centennial love fest is that Reagan’s loudest self-professed admirers, Beck and Palin, are exceedingly un-Reaganesque in their philosophical and intellectual makeup. Beck is a shallow deceitful clown and Palin is Beck in a skirt. But I digress …
Finally, you forget that the favorite Republican president of both George W. Bush and McCain was Teddy Roosevelt, based in no small part on Edmund Morris’ biographies of the man. Like Democrats invoking Thomas Jefferson or Woodrow Wilson to support whatever they believe in, Republicans in the ‘oughts did the same with Roosevelt. That says a lot about the relative inertness of the 20th century’s Republican presidents.
February 9th, 2011 - 10:00
Matthew,
Thanks for your comment. And you’re not an evil Republican, you’re from a thoughtful, intelligent wing of the party that’s decidedly too small these days (in my opinion).
As far as the merits of Reagan’s presidency goes, I think history will judge him to be about average. He certainly looked much better after 8 years of Bush, I’ll say that much.