Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
The Great Communicator
While perusing Scalfin's excellent How did you choose your favoured candidate thread, several mentions of Ronald Reagan got me wondering.
I don't think anyone can deny that Reagan was an influential figure in
modern American history. I only have a vague recollection of him - I
wasn't even in high school when The Gipper finished his second term.
What I do know is this: Reagan is almost universally revered by right
wingers and credited with almost mystical powers (beginning with single-handedly bringing down the USSR), while being almost universally reviled by the progressives and
lefties. By all accounts, he was a very charismatic politician with a
gift to connect with (or bamboozle?) ordinary Americans.
For the "old timers", here's a question: Is Obama similar to Reagan in the way he can draw and work crowds? In the way he can be a very effective and skillful communicator? The way he can bring people round to his way of thinking? Or are the two in fact totally different, just as their politics are?
Note that this is purely a question about style, not substance.
Comments (6)
I believe Reagan had a great PR man in Michael Deaver, and I credit him for creating much of the "magic." Because for those of us who lived through that era, the signs of Alzheimer's were there pretty early on. And his age was an issue, but one the campaign team managed to overcome.
Remember, this man was an actor. Creating illusion was his business, and Deaver's was to make it work in the political arena. For those who read the policy platform, we knew trouble was brewing.
Obama, on the other hand, has a better public service background. Not to mention, he is a policy wonk. So I think they are two different animals.
But so far, I'd give them both credit for great PR teams.
May 12, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point about the background in acting vs. law/public service. Though to be honest, at the time Reagan ran for president, he had two terms as the governor of California under his belt.
Can you please expand a bit on how the onset of Alzheimer's manifested itself? As I sort of alluded to, at the time Reagan was in office, I could neither speak English nor was I interested in US politics, so I'm just curious.
May 12, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
He was forgetful about enough stuff, that SNL (back when they were funny) regularly poked fun at him about it. I think at least a couple of those making fun of him about his memory said they later felt at least a little bad when they found out he had Alzheimer's. (This was not known during his presidency.)
May 12, 2008 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although my favorite skit from that era turned that on its head. It was during Iran/Contra, and it shifted from a press conference, in which Reagan (played by Phil Hartman) was his vague, bumbling self, to a behind-closed doors session about aiding the contras in which Reagan/Hartman took charge and gave very clear, pointed, detailed instructions.
I suppose the humor really derived from how unbelievable that part of the skit was...
May 12, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan (ptui!) was not only a mediocre actor, his last acting jobs (other than holding elected office) were as an advertising spokesman, and what his job was during his failure of a presidency was selling disastrous policies with a "benevolent" smile on his face.
He made many not-very-well-educated Americans feel better about themselves, to our country's detriment.
Obama is far more charismatic, and there is substance behind him. He will help create a set of circumstances whereby Americans will feel better about doing things to make our country a better society.
Fundamental differences, if you ask me.
May 12, 2008 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huge differences. Obama's great strength is his ability to inspire in speeches. His great weakness is his intellect and academic background which predispose him to want to give long-winded, nuanced responses and a so far seemingly almost total inability to sum up a situation in a pithy, witty response that kills an argument stone dead. If he only had more of that, he'd be totally phenomenal.
He actually can do it. Remember his wonderful response in the debate where Clinton and Edwards were crapping on about their `weaknesses` (getting angry about inequality etc) and he responded along the lines of if only he'd known this was the game he'd have said his weakness was helping old ladies across the street?
That was bloody wonderful. If only he did more of it. It's something his advisers should work on with him.
May 12, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment