June 07, 2004
The Reagan Legacies
I am clearly, fundamentally and unabashedly a liberal Democrat, strange for one raised in a strong Republican family. At the very moment I was allowed to choose my own personal party affiliation I had no question, no doubt which party my ideals most closely paralleled. For nearly twenty-five years I’ve held that the liberal positions are the most compassionate and the most focused on the well-being of the individual. I’ve voted accordingly. Admittedly, the vote has often been against the Republican candidate rather than for the Democrat. I can accept that compromise on general principle alone.
The election of 1980 was the first in which I was eligible to vote. As a US Navy journalist aboard the USS Forrestal, I spent my summers in the Mediterranean, the home seas of the US Sixth Fleet. I put the proper navy spin on the hostage-taking in Iran. I watched as Soviet trawlers shadowed our every move, the final defiant acts of a dying regime. The Mediterranean in the early 1980s was a dangerous place; the Cold War, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, and Israeli raids on nuclear facilities. Even to my strongly Democratic values, Jimmy Carter was quickly losing control of both our status in the world and our world-influencing economy. In my first opportunity to cast a presidential ballot, I found myself in a military hotbed of Reagan support, carrying strong doubts about the Democratic incumbent.
I didn't vote for Ronald Reagan that year, or in 1984. As a serviceman and later a blue-collar civilian, I found his rhetoric dangerously strong. I was of the opinion that public statements decrying the "evil empire" only placed our military and our country in greater danger. While clearly surrounded by capable diplomats and staff, Reagan conveyed a naievete in world affairs that often bordered on jingoism. His conservative values seemed too classically focused on advancing the good of the whole by making better the lives of the few - the "trickle down" theory.
But, for all the perceived flaws, Ronald Reagan was possessed of a charisma, a simple charm that spoke directly, even optimistically, to all in America, from the wealthiest to the most downtrodden. Over the eight years of his Presidency, Reagan effortlessly assumed the role of a strict yet down to earth grandfather to the country and the world. By the end of his second term in 1988, I had to admit to a grudging admiration of his ability to rally the country with a homespun tale or analogy. That his successor was the very definition of bland Washington beaurocrat only made the feeling stronger. Reagan had the orator's gift of communication, effortlessly weaving the hopes and values of all into a message that clearly, almost transparently supported his own beliefs. We've seen that ability in subsequent presidents, but never in circumstances in which they were so sorely needed.
Time, as time will, has more sharply defined the Reagan legacies. Just as Richard Nixon received some resuscitation by the passage of time, so has Ronald Reagan. To my mind, the Reagan legacies are important to the United States. Unfortunately, critical elements have clearly been forgotten by the Republican administration in power. And like the great legacies of the great presidents, the Reagan legacies, in hindsight, reach beyond the partisan rancor of the times.
The case can be made that Ronald Reagan was the first president to truly understand the power of the Federal Reserve. Reagan inherited Paul Volker as the Fed chair from the Carter administration, and chose to stay with him through 1987. Volker was often perceived as headstrong, resolute in twin beliefs that were not necessarily popular at the time: that interest rates controlled inflation and that deficits must actually advance the economy. Neither higher interest rates nor higher deficits were, by themselves, bad policy. But they simply had to be weighed against their collective impact on the economy.
Despite Reagan's natural Republican abhorrence of both high interest rates and high deficits, he stayed with Paul Volker and his theories through the bulk of his presidency. That ability to view the results of a policy rather than to judge it on purely philosophical merits resulted in the economic recovery of the eighties from the inflation and high unemployment rates of the late seventies. While the subsequent Bush administration squandered that growth in significant ways, Volker's tenure and Reagan's grudging, often passive support of his policies laid the groundwork for their further refinement in the person of Alan Greenspan and the administration of Bill Clinton. The resulting economic growth was unprecedented in American history. Despite a fundamental disagreement over the roles of interest rates and deficits, Ronald Reagan tacitly ceded more economic power to the Federal Reserve that any other president in history. That, though indirect, is the first of the Reagan legacies.
Ronald Reagan was idolized by hawks the world over for his tough public stance on communism. In the early years of his presidency, Reagan was relentless in his criticism of both the ideololgy and practices of the modern communist state. In speech after speech, Reagan pounded home his personal belief that communism was, by its very nature, immoral. He broached no apology for his beliefs and made them clear at every opportunity. Importantly, while his public rhetoric was often over the top, he worked hard to support and justify those beliefs to the American people. Whether or not we agreed with the substance, the moral, economic and political flaws in communism were fundamental and somthing on which we could all agree.
So, was the second legacy of the Reagan years, as many neocons would argue, the fall of communism? Not really. As Americans, we believed for decades that the communist system simply could not last. To give Reagan exclusive credit for its fall is to give the rainmaker credit for the rain. The legacy lies not in the result but in the understanding and implmentation of a worldwide political strategy. Despite the tough talk, Reagan understood two fundamental facts: that communism would eventually collapse under its own weight, and that the use of military force to change the Soviet regime would do nothing to create a more world-friendly post-Soviet state. While Reagan greatly increased funding for the US military, the effect was more to enhance enlistment and increase morale than to crush the evil communists. Higher pay, larger numbers and advanced weapons research served more to paint the public face as one of strength and resolve. I don't believe it was ever intended to take on the Soviets head-to-head.
The second legacy of the Reagan years was, instead, the effort to put power, both political and philosophical, in the hands of the oppressed communist block citizenry. Reagan understood that while the threat of force must appear to be real, the only true victory over communism was the one that started from within. As outlined in this outstanding article from The Washington Monthly by General Wesley Clark, the fall of communism was the result of decades of persuasion throughout the communist world. Communism fell not from the top, but from the bottom, a crumbling that can be directly attributed to economic and political containment rather than military might. The behind-the-scenes political, economic and propaganda efforts of the Reagan administration helped push the citizenry of these countries to take action at great personal risk. It provided the momentum to finally collapse what was already a falling house of cards. Rather than bringing the strong rhetoric to life, Reagan quietly and persistently invited them into the capitalist world by showing these citizens its inherent strengths. And, even for a brief period, we emerged from the cold war as true heroes of freedom. Reagan's legacy regarding the fall of communism is a true understanding of the real power of the US. He understood the power of our economy. He believed fully that, given the proper economic and political tools, the communist system would fall from within. Despite his great distaste for the communist system, he stayed the only course that would result in the true liberation of the communist block.
As defined by WordNet, charisma is "a personal attractiveness that enables you to influence others." That, perhaps, was the most practical of the Reagan legacies. Ronald Reagan was capable, almost by sheer force of personality, to win over his opponents. We can't forget that the Reagan administration lived in a Washington environment controlled by a Democratic House. There was plenty of public rancor with heels dug in to protect the basic political tenets of the players. Reagan's legacy of policy victory is not that he was able to win, but rather how he was able to win. He worked behind the scenes at winning over his opponents by force of discussion and personality. He was capable of convincing his political foes to support his policies through conviction and persuasion. Like it or not, democracy is a child of the Enlightenment. The single brick upon which democracy is built is the ability to persuade through rational discourse, to state your beliefs clearly and win over your opponents by logic rather than force. The subsequent Bushes have shown no understanding of either the subtleties or importance of persuasion. Bill Clinton certainly had the charisma, but was saddled with other issues that left the door open for his political opponents. In many ways, it's taken the passage of years and presidents to fully appreciate the force of the Reagan charisma. Time has, indeed, shown that charisma and his ability to leverage it within the confines of the American system, to be the strongest of his political legacies.
I didn't vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980 or in 1984. Given the chance, I think it unlikely that I'd vote for him even today. While his personality was, in the end, endearing, his political beliefs fell far too strongly at the opposite end of the spectrum from my own, both then and now. But to disagree with his politics is not to dismiss his political legacies as the 40th President of the United States. With his passing this weekend, we can reflect on his strengths as our leader for one small slice of our history. The inherent ability to see a course of action, to stay a successful course despite personal disagreement, and to exercise the invaluable power of diplomatic persuasion are legacies we should never forget.
Posted by Tony Steidler-Dennison at June 7, 2004 02:20 PMExcellent, level-headed analysis. But you are wrong to imagine that Reagan did not intend his military to fight the Soviets directly. I think he believed—as neo-cons do today—that there is such a thing as a winnable nuclear war and built the military to fight it. But Reagan, unlike Bush 2, recognized that the price of war can be too high even if you win it.
Posted by: Derek at June 7, 2004 03:14 PMI think you’re right, Derek, in stating that Reagan and his administration believed in the viability of tactical nuclear war. In fact, if I remember correctly, it was in the Reagan administration that the phrase “tactical nuclear war” came into consciousness. The point, really, is that he didn’t just give up on the behind-the-scenes persuasion aimed directly at the citizens of communist countries. In other words, he allowed a policy for which he really didn’t have much taste to run its successful course. While I have many, many criticisms of the Reagan years, this approach to bringing down the falling communist state is not one of them.
Thanks for the comments.
Posted by: Tony Steidler-Dennison at June 7, 2004 03:26 PMTony:
Very well put—an excellent job.
I especially liked your assessment of not giving Reagan all the credit for the Soviet collapse—you said to do so would be like crediting the rainmaker for the rain.
Too many people today see things in a cause/effect manner. For instance, Bush wins the presidency, the economy falters….ergo, Bush caused the economy to falter. Never mind that it was already faltering by the time he was elected—-that fact escapes many. 9-11 happened on his watch, therefore he must be responsible for it.
So too with Clinton. People gave him too much credit for the good economy (partial credit was certainly deserved) and too much blame for other things.
I liked how you portrayed Reagan as the beneficiary of time and policies, even while giving him credit for continuing or furthering those policies.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 7, 2004 05:08 PMReagan’s contribution to bringing down the Soviets doesn’t seem comparable at all, Joe, to the tendency to blame or credit administrations for the domestic economic picture—which really is mostly outside the direct control of the president.
Some want to say that Reagan just outspent the Soviets in the arms race or merely “engaged” Gorbachev (like Nixon engaged China) in diplomatic niceties. Both are partially true, but Reagan’s firmness—even his belligerence—was hugely despiriting to the Communists, who realized that unlike the situation that prevailed under Carter and Ford, America wasn’t going to give an inch to Communist encroachment in South America, Afghanistan or Asia.
As long at they could belive in the weakness of American morale and the west in general, the “Vietnam syndrome” (which almost totally debilitated Carter), they were able to keep up their fantasy of eventual world-domination. Reagan, in person and deed, shattered that illusion. Margaret Thatcher, as the visible and staunchly anti-Communist representative of the only non-hopelessly weak and flaccid European state, had a great deal to do with this as well.
Unlike the view of Chirac that “History doesn’t repeat itself,” it currently is repeating itself in our battle against Islamic terrorism. I wonder if Chirac would be able to say “History doesn’t repeat itself” in German?
Posted by: Martin at June 8, 2004 01:13 AMMartin:
My point was simply to identify the characteristic of cause and effect thinking, not to compare Reagan’s contributions to other presidents contributions.
Its rather intellectually lazy, but also very prevalent. I agree that Reagan’s stance had a lot to do with it, since he was less likely to back down from his stated position than others might have been.
I learned early from my brother how a stalwart position could affect a mindset. We played pranks on each other, and my brother could NEVER ever let me have the last laugh. Didnt matter if he got me first and I responded—-he would then feel it was his turn to respond. So….the lesson I learned was that there was a defined outcome regardless of the circumstances.
Russia used this same mindset in their negotiations with terrorists back in the 60’s and 70’s. The negotiation tactic was this: You have taken our citizens, and we will now imprison or kill you. It might cost us some lives but we will get you. The assured outcome of this prevented criminals from wanting to take on the Soviets.
Reagan showed that the US had a backbone too. He was proud of America, and proud of what we stand for. May he rest in peace.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 8, 2004 01:40 AMMartin, I agree with what you are espousing about Reagan having and generating the high morale and conviction that saw us through to overcoming the Soviets. This is what Kennedy also meant when he said “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.” that in itself were words of resolve declaring our determination and forth rightness in our Cold War efforts.
Reagan’s morale was a boon to our fight against communism which could have kept going had A; there not been a good op fighting against and taking apart the soviets here and abroad. And B; a damn lucky turn of events in leadership. Who knows how long Soviet communism would have gone on in Russia.
It was a great many factors certainly and the defence spending no matter how the left decried it, was a needed bargaining chip that garnered compliance by the Soviet Politbureau under a new leader. The whitehouse did an effective job in brokering the arms reduction but it strangely wasn’t a move of weakness at all to us. It was a move of weakness to them to have to ask for it, it was almost comparable to saying “uncle” in a wrestling match. We had the upper hand during those years in the 80’s.
I admire all the efforts that brought down the Soviet Empire and freed those countries from communist dictatorship. The biggest genocide in world history was in the Ukraine under Stalin and we brought down the whole lot. That’s a real achievement. And one that the history books ignore to some degree as if it couldn’t keep going on it’s own, we knocked it down after decades of fighting against it.
CNN has it that it was the negotiations between Gorbachev and Reagan, but it was a fight that spanned decades. It’s also said too that Reagan being percieved as an actor and of no merit made it all the more humilliating for the Russians to have to negotiate with the US for an arms reduction, we may have torn down their moral too.
Many factors indeed.
Posted by: skunkbud at June 8, 2004 06:47 AMGreat article, Tony. And that’s a great article by Clark, too. Unlike the Bush & the boys, I think Kerry and Clark really understand what caused the fall of the “Evil Empire”. It wasn’t the public posturing and the military build up. And Reagan certainly never attacked the USSR to impose democracy on its people.
The fall came about through decades of international human rights accords, the training of human rights workers in the USSR, exchange student programs, support for unions, the Catholic Church, and most importantly, making sure the citizens of the USSR knew there was a better alternative. When the bad policies of the Soviet government reached a tipping point among its citizens, they rose up and demanded democracy.
It’s amazing to me how the bunch that run our country - who can’t all be total morons - are saying they’re using Reagan’s USSR strategy to bring democracy to the Middle East. They are doing no such thing. The people of the USSR knew about democracy and capitalism, and wanted all the things a consumer culture could provide. The Soviet government’s response to Reagan’s policies brought its citizens to the tipping point.
Ours is not a culture that is currently appealing to most Muslims. What’s missing in Bush’s Middle East plan is the decades of background work to create an attractive alternative for the citizens of Islamic nations. Instead, Bush’s policy of coercing them - using military force and attempts to impose outside reforms - into accepting democracy has resulted in a stronger embracing of anti-Western Islamic fundamentalism, which is seen as a more spiritual and cleaner alternative to Western materialism.
Ask yourself why, after decades of brutal rule by Saddam, didn’t the people of Iraq rise up to overthrow him? You could argue that he brutally suppressed dissent, but you could make the same argument about the Soviet Union. Iraqis didn’t rise up because of a combination of nationalistic pride - they saw themselves as working together to fight off a foreign threat, and the lack of an attractive alternative. Any replacement for Saddam would have been another Saddam-like strong man. In fact, polls of Iraqi citizens still show that they believe only another strong man can hold the country together now. They want liberty, but they’re not sure democracy will provide it for them.
Reagan had ideals, but he wasn’t an ideologue. While he was ranting about the USSR, he was engaged in negotiations with them. Reagan didn’t subscribe to silly moral certitudes, like Bush’s refusal to negotiate directly with North Korea. Bush may call it moral clarity, Reagan would have called it stupid.
For instance, Bush wins the presidency, the economy falters….ergo, Bush caused the economy to falter. Never mind that it was already faltering by the time he was elected—-that fact escapes many.
joe, we know the economy was dipping. We’re just ticked off that Bush rammed through a huge, mistargeted tax cut that deepened and extended the recession and squandered the surplus so that we’re still unable to properly fund homeland security measures. And Bush’s legacy of a ten trillion dollar deficit is going to hurt us terribly in the future.
Then, a year later, against his own better judgment - “Stick to principles!” - and in the face of hard evidence that it wouldn’t help the economy, Bush stuck it to us again.
9-11 happened on his watch, therefore he must be responsible for it.
Bush himself says counterterrorism wasn’t a high priority for him before 9/11. The outgoing Clinton administration warned him that terrorism was the biggest threat to the United States, and the Bush administration laughed it off. It’s possible, though unlikely, the attack could have been stopped, but Bush would have emerged looking a lot better if he had done something, anything to try to prevent terrorist attacks in general.
Even a retaliation for the USS Cole bombing - linked to al Qaeda only after Clinton left office - would have been a mitigating factor. You can bet that Gore would have at least lobbed a missile at something. Bush did nothing.
What a difference the passage of a few years makes! I’m sorry but I remember a man who wasn’t an astute politician, he wasn’t even a good actor. He certainly didn’t “win” the Cold War; if it had been left to him the war would have gone on for another hundred years.
He claimed the cloak of Christian morality but happily of broke his own Country’s laws; to fund his illegal wars he sold arms to enemies that held American citizens hostage. His administration was prepared to connive with drug dealers and withhold information from the DEA.
He ignored the ruling of the International Court of Justice and was quite happy to wield the American veto at the UN without any concern for the consequences. In a vote of the General Assembly of the UN only Israel and El Salvador were prepared to support the US.
His presidency was marked by a spiralling budgetary deficit at home and an increasing isolation abroad. The Republicans still haven’t learned that there is more to National Security than a huge defense budget.
I think it’s time to move on and to bury Reagan’s reputation with him.
Posted by: Allan at June 9, 2004 12:58 AMWell, Allan, instead of disputing your post point by point, let me just say that when Carter and Clinton pass beyond this veil of tears, they’ll be similarly lauded.
I know that Democrats may be feeling a little left out of the Reagan memorializing going on right now, but it’s a passing phase—believe me, the media is swallowing hard at being forced to say nice things about a leader the public loves and they hate. I have no doubt that this frustration will be taken out on Bush in very short order.
Clinton in particular seems miffed at not being invited to eulagize Reagan, a man he spent his whole political career attacking (it would be like Jefferson Davis eulogizing Lincoln). I guess Clinton just misses the good old days when he could meaningfully bite his lower lip and “feel our pain” for the cameras, but hey, he’ll get his chance when Carter kicks off. Sorry, Willie, Nancy isn’t going to let you turn her husband’s funeral into an ad for your new book.
The left just needs to hold tight for a week or two, let the dust settle, and then they can get back to explaining why the liberation of Iraq and the million jobs created in the last ninety days are such heart-breaking tragedies. I’m polishing my violin in eager anticipation.
Posted by: Martin at June 9, 2004 01:25 AMI am a liberal - period. I consider myself an Independent voter. Ronald Regan was the only Republican President I have liked in my voting life which began in 1967 when I turned 18. Even though I did not agree with all his views, I liked him better than the alternatives available at the time, and voted for him both times he ran, believing he was the best choice for the United States.
His economic policies proved once and for all that ‘Trickle Down Economics’ does not trickle down. I fear we have yet to learn that lesson …
Posted by: Ernest N. Wilcox Jr. at June 9, 2004 03:37 AMPlease, and I ask this respectfully, do not include all of us in the “public loves him” pot. I for one never did find Ronald Reagan engaging OR astute and I am most definitely a part of the American public. Even at a young age, I found Reagan’s manner to be condescending and patronizing, and always felt as if he were figuratively patting the American public on the head and telling us not to worry our sweet little heads over anything. Meanwhile, in the smokey backrooms….
Reagan’s so-called charm was great for hosting folks at the ranch, but in public life it amounted to another acting part. Great Communicator? He was great at delivering a well-written line. (Remember Peggy Noonan?) I have to concur with the others here who recognize the damage the Reagan years inflicted and have the facts straight.
Carter will be eulogized as the humanitarian that he is, and Clinton will draw the gleeful attention of the right-wing who won’t be able to hold back.
As for Mr Bush - Martin, my love, where to begin, and why wait ????! While Reagan merely embarrassed me, Bush shames me.
Martin, you don’t seem to want to talk about Reagan at all. Fine by me. If I’m still around when Clinton snuffs it I’ll be more than happy to help you bang a few nails into his coffin too.
One thing I can’t let go though is the use of the word “liberation” in the context of Iraq, the war was a punishment beating. It was Bush’s way of saying “mess with us and this is what you’ll get - whether it was anything to do with you or not.” You and Dubya may think that this behaviour makes the world a safer place. I have to disagree.
Posted by: Allan at June 9, 2004 12:46 PMSusanna, quite right. Martin has a tendency as do many liberals to lump the entire opposition or the national populace into one homogeneous group with universal pronouns.
That said, the polls do indicate that the majority of the population does regard Reagan as a good president. That is what time and generational distance does to memory since upon leaving office his approval rating was only 52-53%. The reality was that only about half the population regarded him as a good president when he was president.
Posted by: David R. Remer at June 10, 2004 07:55 PMIt’s the selective memory on the part of Republicans that amuses me. They laud Reagan for cutting taxes, but it slips their mind that by the end of his last term he had rolled back (and then some) all the tax cuts for the middle class to keep the economy from tanking further.
Posted by: American Pundit at June 11, 2004 02:50 AMCan you picture Jimmie Cartah or Billy C. saying “…tear down that wall!”?
Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at August 28, 2004 11:19 PM
