Apologies for the long post; I didn't have time to write a short one. Apologies too, for weighing in too late to contribute to the conversation.

They say liberal is someone who won't even take his own side in an argument, and so it was with me this President's Day. I received an astonishing document in the mail maybe a month ago, from Brian Lamb of C-Span, asking me to rank every president from one to forty-three on ten "Individual Leadership Characteristics." I remember chuckling at the ILC's fine-grained sensitivity. Maybe there are people who can really responsibly rank John Tyler vis-a-vis Ulysses S. Grant as to their "Administrative Skills," Grover Cleveland versus Calvin Coolidge as to their "Morality Authority"--but I am not that man. I sent apologies to Mr. Lamb; I hadn't, I explained, anything near the erudition to carry out the appointed task.

Then, last Monday, I learned that America's "presidential historians" had, without benefit of my vote, named Ronald Reagan the tenth-best president in United States history.

Read more »

First of all, thanks so much to everyone -- Kyle Longley, Douglas Kmiec, Stephen Knott, and Michael Cohen, so far -- who've posted here and made this what I think was a really interesting debate and discussion of the Reagan myth. My last post is rooted in current events -- and the frustration that many share that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and their minions plotted torture tactics, illegal wiretapping,, political manipulation of the Justice Department and other alledgedly unlawful acts inside the White House, - and seem to have gotten away with it. Are you looking for someone to blame for that? How about Ronald Reagan? Or more accurately, the politicians and members of the media who let Reagan and some key aides - not to mention Reagan's long-term reputation -- largely get away with one of the worst scandals in White House history.

Because make no mistake, there is a straight line from the great political escape of Ronald Reagan - who went from failed president to near Mt. Rushmore status with the help of a well-oiled myth machine and a national case of amnesia - to the wanton and largely unchallenged lawbreaking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue under G.W. Bush. The Iran-Contra experience began to solidify the notion that national unity and presidential strength are more important than making sure that presidents or even their key staffers followed the law, and that serious offenses that don't involve petty matters like sex are merely non-prosecutable "policy differences."

Read more »

Thanks to Michael Cohen for his comments on my remarks.

There was a negative side to Reagan's conservative appeal, although I think in terms of programs like affirmative action you would have to allow that there are principled objections to such policies. Oppostion to affirmative action is not necessarily evidence of closet racism. Nonetheless, I'm no defender of Reagan when it comes to his civil rights record, as my forthcoming book will indicate. Opening his 1980 campaign in Neshoba, MS, was miguided to say the least, as it was for Michael Dukakis to appear there during his 1988 campaign. But keep in mind that Reagan was endorsed in 1980 by Ralph Abernathy, Hosea Williams, and Charles Evers. In the midst of Jimmy Carter's misery index, Reagan's economic message resonated across the usual class boundaries. (Jimmy Carter, by the way, had referred in his 1976 campaign to preserving the "ethnic purity" of neighborhoods, a comment as equally offensive as Reagan's welfare queen rhetoric).

I have to take issue with Michael's comment that Reagan shredded the social safety net. Without question some of Reagan's advisers, and perhaps even Reagan himself, wished to repeal the Great Society, but political reality intervened to make this impossible. Much to the despair of conservatives, Reagan was a cautious and moderate President, who treasured his politcal capital, nurtured it, and used it sparingly. There was no major reform of the welfare system under Reagan, and while AFDC experienced some cuts in the first years of the Reagan presidency, by the time he left office all major welfare programs had survived and had grown by billions of dollars. I just don't think you can make the argument that the Reagan years witnessed a "shredding" of the social safety net.

Stephen Knott argues that Reagan's "massive electoral victories were based on his ability to woo millions of Democrats into his fold, including large numbers of union members. He connected to them in a way that drove his opponents to distraction. He offers a corrective to those in these hyper-partisan times who view their opponents as somehow un-American. Reagan understood that politics was not a blood sport."

Undoubtedly, there is a kernel of truth to this; and it's point I made in my earlier post. But before the mythologizing of Reagan gets out of hand let's take a step back. There was also a dark side to Reagan's conservative appeal - it was rooted in the white backlash that came out of the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Read more »

Now that we come to the end of the discussion of the myth of Reagan which I have found stimulating (and I genuinely thank the TPMCafe and Will for inviting me to participate), particularly the different viewpoints represented, we now might ask for Will to start writing a new book on the mythology of George W. Bush.

Some may laugh and find the concept absurd, but I live in one of the true "Red" bastions in all America, the Gilbert/Mesa suburb of Phoenix that often makes the conservatives in Orange County look like bleeding heart liberals. I also was raised in West Texas in the Odessa/Midland area where many family and friends continue to reside (Mr. Bush spoke at my high school commencement in 1982). To them, George W. Bush is a true American hero as witnessed by the massive welcome home party in Midland in November that drew 25,000 people from as far away as Lubbock. In both places, as well as many others, the president has a strong following, and I have heard and read in print the numerous ways that the structuring of his mythology has already begun.

Read more »

I want to again thank Will Bunch for the opportunity to participate in this week's book club. "Tear Down This Myth" is an important, and long overdue, contribution to our understanding of not only Ronald Reagan, but the manner in which modern conservatives have manipulated and, in some measure, tarnished his image.
However, of Will's many myth-puncturing elements, perhaps none is more important to our political discourse than doing away, once and for all, with the fiction of Ronald Reagan's iron-willed resoluteness.

To be sure, it's not that modern Republicans aren't uncompromising and unbending; it's just that this isn't a good thing! Indeed, the constant railing by conservatives against compromise, "flip-flopping" or changing a policy course as near fatal signs of weakness has done much to negatively affect our national politics. It's made politicians less willing to compromise or change positions for fear of the negative campaign ads that will surely come as a result of this pragmatic decision-making.

Read more »

It deserves mention that Ronald Reagan was a creature of Hollywood, and certain elements of Hollywood superficiality infused his presidency. The late Michael Deaver was the guardian and projector of the president's image, which was as calculated as the images that came out of the Kennedy White House. For instance, Lyn Nofziger and William Casey didn't look quite right for certain roles, while James Baker did, and as a consequence Casey and Nofziger were denied more public roles. One could also note other elements of Hollywood superficiality and wackiness weaved into the fabric of the Reagan years, including Nancy Reagan's reliance on astrology and Reagan's friendship with the psychic Jeane Dixon.

Nonetheless, Ronald Reagan was a prince of a man; and like his hero Franklin Roosevelt, he had a first class temperament. He was a man of civility who could reach out to Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill even after O'Neill publicly criticized Reagan's wife. He was generous to his partisan critics, including Edward Kennedy and his family, and he frequently praised and cited John F. Kennedy, and raised money for the JFK Library. His massive electoral victories were based on his ability to woo millions of Democrats into his fold, including large numbers of union members. He connected to them in a way that drove his opponents to distraction. He offers a corrective to those in these hyper-partsian times who view their opponents as somehow un-American. Reagan understood that politics was not a blood sport.

Read more »

Can this Party be Saved?

Michael Cohen is right -- the filter of elections is the ultimate engine of de-mythology. That which is long-lasting and timeless will be remembered and that which is of transient nature will be pragmatically set aside. Will Bunch's effort is aimed at assisting us make this realistic effort at political discernment. It is a valuable contribution, even as I find far more reality to be cherished than that of the author. Reagan would have appreciated the honest assessments given with civility, even as Nancy being the keeper of a love greater than words likely -- well, has all your names.

Noting the current Republican refusal to engage with the Obama administration over addressing the present economic crisis, I recently penned an editorial essay for the Chicago Tribune entitled "the death of the GOP?" In 2009, the GOP has become a political party that has generally ignored the working class, that depends upon deploying an economic, supply-side theory that is ill fitting to the times, that has permitted sound deregulation to be transformed into economic looting by the well-connected, that has neglected the obligation to develop alternative energy resources and thereby jeopardized national security, and now thinks we should admire its leadership for sitting on its hands. The GOP deserves to be on life support if its modus Vivendi is pouting. It was particularly frustrating to read Judge Gregg's explanation for his withdrawal from the Commerce Department; specifically, that he could not see himself working on a team with people of different perspectives than his own.
I doubt very much whether Reagan would recognize his party, or if he did, the resemblance would be closer to the condition of the GOP in 1977 immediately following Jimmy Carter's election. Then, Republicans held only 38 Senate seats, not enough even to sustain a filibuster. In the House, the GOP had dwindled to 143 seats, just one-third of the total.

Read more »

Reflecting on Will Bunch's commentary on how President Reagan's foreign policy perspectives may have influenced the subsequent Bush misadventure in Iraq, I am grateful that Mr. Bunch has very appropriately differentiated what Reagan believed from what subsequent political figures may wrongfully attribute to Reagan. Reagan was greatly admiring of the commitment of men and women in the military, and he had great respect for its role. It is inconceivable to think of Reagan popping into a flight suit to steal the final scene (which of course the tragically inaccurate and premature claim of the end of "major combat operations"/ "mission accomplished" turned out to be for Bush's contrived carrier landing). As Bunch recounts, however, Reagan sought to limit military involvement and especially to safeguard civilian populations.

For this reason, Reagan did resist extending Geneva protections to terrorists or unlawful combatants. Reagan drew this distinction from his WWII understanding of warfare. Unlawful combatants do not fight in uniform. They are not subject to a centralized command and control. Unlawful combatants hide weapons, and, notoriously, do not observe--as we know from 9/11--any semblance of the laws of war. They not only endanger civilians by hiding among them, they target civilian populations. Indeed, as the World Islamic Front Declaration of War illustrates for al Qaeda, that is its central purpose. These individuals have never been immune from prosecution for war crimes under any convention. They can be captured, and interrogated. There is even common law authority to summarily execute them in the field.

Read more »

Thanks to the folks at TPM for asking me participate this week in the TPM Book Club - and above all, thanks to Will Bunch for engaging in the long overdue process of unpacking the myth of Ronald Reagan.

One of the most surprising things about researching my book, Live from the Campaign Trail, is that I came away with a far greater appreciation for Reagan's basic political appeal. As Douglas Kmiec suggests, his 1980 campaign theme of "family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom" spoke to the values of millions of Americans who had grown wary of New Deal-style liberalism. But Reagan's appeal ran deeper - at the time when the country was mired in turmoil and "malaise" he articulated the basic desire of many Americans to feel pride in their country once again. (It was this element of Reagan's appeal that I think many liberals never truly understood; President Obama being a notable exception).

Read more »

Understanding Ronald Reagan's presidential record is important -- but what's critical in 2009 is undoing the mythology that caused America to pursue even worse policies and justify them in the name of the Gipper. In the early 2000s, then-President George W. Bush and his aides often invoked the 40th president in pushing for an invasion of Iraq - something that no one who has studied Reagan closely believes he would have seriously considered.

In my new book "Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future," and in my initial post here at TPMCafe Book Club, there's little doubt that Ronald Reagan embarked on policies that were a disaster in key areas like the economy - accelerating an era of greedy deregulation and converting America from a creditor to a debtor nation - and energy, where he crushed hopes that the U.S. would be a leader in areas like solar and wind power. You'll likely read here about other ways in which the Reagan legacy has been dangerously distorted - "Nixonland" author Rick Perlstein, who should be writing here later this week, has noted that the "sunny optimist" rose up in the 1960s by tapping white middle class anger and resentment.

Read more »

A number of the people in this discussion have commented on the importance of the disconnect between the rhetoric of freedom as promoted by Reagan in relation to the Soviet Union and other Communist nations and that of the application to other areas of the world. As someone with a keen research interest in Latin America (my second edition of my book, In the Eagle's Shadow: The United States and Latin America will appear in April) dating back to my political maturation as a college student in the 1980s, I think that commentators have correctly raised the issue as there are many in the conservative movement who look at the victory over the Soviet Union as grounded in Reagan's words and deeds and do not see the balance of the debate regarding the concept of "freedom" as raised by Mr. Kmiec.

Read more »

Thanks again Will for having an open mind and reaching out to those who may disagree with you. The country has enough dittoheads on the right and the left who are averse to a civil exchange of ideas. It is always tempting to assume the worst in others, which is the last refuge of those afraid to engage in open debate. One might even call it a form of authoritarianism...

Will, your points are all well taken, and I accept your criticism of Reagan's fiscal and energy policies. In my work on Reagan I've repeatedly criticised him for his failed domestic policies, especially regarding civil rights. But he deserves praise for defying his advisors both in and out of government who told him not to trust Gorbachev, and who were appalled at his attitude regarding nuclear weapons and the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. He found the latter to be immoral, and searched for a way out of it. He rejected the counsel of Caspar Weinberger, Richard Perle, Richard Nixon, and a host of Republican foreign policy "experts" who urged him to spurn Gorbachev's advances. In that sense he was out in front on one of the most pressing issues of our time and his. At the Reykjavik Summit he came remarkably close to moving the two superpowers toward abolishing their nuclear stockpiles. This, to me, seems worthy of praise.

Read more »

First off thanks to Will Bunch for inviting me to participate in this interesting exchange.

There's no question that part of the reason Reagan is revered in Republican circles is that Grover Norquist and others were anxious to find an icon who could be elevated into the American Pantheon. The Democratic Party had FDR and JFK, while the GOP's celebration of Lincoln and TR had a certain musty, ancient quality to it. But I would argue that Reagan deserves some of the accolades he has received, in part because he restored America's confidence in itself in the the wake of Vietnam, Watergate, and a failed Carter presidency (While President Obama faces a greater challenge, let's not forget the economic situation Reagan inherited, with skyhigh inflation, unemployment, and interest rates). Reagan also inherited a badly weakened presidency; with his five immediate predecessors leaving office under duress. In fact, it was so bad that some observers,including Lloyd Cutler, Douglas Dillon, and James MacGregor Burns, were arguing for a shift toward a parliamentary system. Within two years of Reagan's assumption of the presidency that talked had disappeared. This is perhaps Reagan's greatest accomplishment: restoring the confidence of the American public, including, ironically, their confidence in the same federal government that Reagan viewed as part of what ailed America.

Read more »

I appreciate this opportunity to comment upon Will Bunch's "Tear Down This Myth" dealing with the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Mr. Bunch's commitment to honest historical appraisal is something I share, so it is good of him to let a Reagan witness give his account.

While my most recent incursion into national politics puts me strongly behind President Obama, I was drawn to work for the Ronald Reagan as his legal counsel because of five words he articulated in 1980: "family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom."

Read more »

Will Bunch poses an important question on how we get back to "the reality based Reagan." I would argue that the country has started the process over the past four years with the sound rejection of the Republican orthodoxy as represented by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Grover Norquist. Some in the Republican Party, particularly among the conservative wing, will continue to promote their version of Reagan that fits their ideology. This will have success in some areas such as Arizona where the populace is more conservative and inoculated fully with the mythology through organizations such as the Goldwater Institute (the South is also a prime target as well as pockets such as Orange County). Yet, on the national scale, it appears that the ideology has been largely rejected on many levels as evidenced by the congressional changes in 2006 and 2008 and the presidential election of 2008. Also, look, how successful have the Reagan supporters been at pushing their agenda over the past four years regarding the change in the dime, putting a Reagan memorial on the National Mall, and other efforts outside of the small pockets of conservative orthodoxy.

Read more »

Seriously, you didn't think the myth of Ronald Reagan would be wiped away in one election cycle, did you? Over the last decade and especially in last few years, we've the living proof that the distorted legacy of the 40th president - which has morphed with the help of right-wing activists like Grover Norquist into a dangerous philosophy that I call Reaganism - is hurting America on every front. We've seen a government that Reagan called "the problem" fail to protect its citizens from the floods of Hurricane Katrina, from a bridge collapse in Minneapolis or from the scams of Bernie Madoff or the Wall Street greed that crashed a global economy. We've also misinterpreted the Gipper's foreign policy - using a phony "Evil empire" bravado to justify badly conceived policies in the Middle East - and still believe in the magic of his "voodoo economics" that turned America into the world's' greatest debtor.

In fact, there were moments when I was working on my new book - "Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future," published this month by Simon & Schuster's Free Press - when I wondered whether a Barack Obama victory and a Democratic Congress would mean a sea change in our politics that would slay the dominance of Reaganism forever. I didn't need to worry about that. An obstructionist-minded GOP minority with a lingering ability to block or influence legislation in the Senate and a Beltway Gang of 500 that thinks that "Glory Days" and 1980s means more than just a Springsteen song are keeping the flame of the Reagan myth alive. And that may well threaten the very measures - a massive government role in job creation, a possible temporary nationalization of insolvent money-center banks - that are needed to keep America and the world out of Great Depression II.

Read more »

This week, we've got Will Bunch with us to blog American myth making vis-a-vis Reagan in our latest book club discussion. Bunch's new book Tear Down This Myth: How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future examines the yarns that have been spun about President Reagan, the actual strengths based in truth, and the continuing shadow which President Reagan and his mythical specter casts over our nation. Or, as Will puts it in his opening post, up shortly, "Seriously, you didn't think the myth of Ronald Reagan would be wiped away in one election cycle, did you?"

Bunch is a Senior Writer for the Philadelphia Daily News. He shared a Pulitzer Prize in 1992 with the New York Newsday staff. He is also the author of Jukebox America. You can read his blog Attytood at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/.

Joining the conversation are Rick Perlstein, author of Nixonland; Kyle Longley, professor of history at Arizona State University; Stephen Knott, professor of political science at U.S. Naval War College; Douglas Kmiec, professor at Pepperdine University School of Law; and Michael A. Cohen, senior research fellow at the New America Foundation. As always, join us!