Monday, December 28, 2009

Tear Down This Myth :How the Reagan Legacy Has Distorted Our Politics and Haunts Our Future

Rating:★★★★
Category:Books
Genre: Biographies & Memoirs
Author:Will Bunch
"That Reagan was a trans-formative figure in American history, but his real revolution was one of public-relations-meets-politics and not one of policy. He combined his small-town heartland upbringing with a skill for story-telling that was honed on the back lots of Hollywood into a personal narrative that resonated with a majority of voters, but only after it tapped into something darker, which was white middle class resentment of 1960s unrest."---From "Tear Down This Myth", Chapter One.


This 2009 book, by Pulitzer Prize Winning journalist Will Bunch, explores the contradictions between Ronald Reagan the President and Reagan the Conservative Myth. It basically cuts "The Gipper" back down to size by examining how he actually governed with a largely Democratic House of Representatives in opposition to his more grandiose Republican agenda. In fact, Reagan's first term was a limited mandate brought on more by fatigue caused by the economics of high inflation, the threats real or imagined coming from revolutionary Iran and the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and the general leadership inertia of Jimmy Carter than any personal longing for a Hard Right revival.


These years are not just history for me, but the stuff of my young adulthood. That Reagan could even be elected President in 1980 took me as a bit of a shock. And after the economy tanked and unemployment went up to ten percent on the West Coast, I thought he just might become the one-term President he seemed to richly deserve. But gas prices came down and the Federal Reserve rung inflation out of the economy with tight fiscal policies and by late 1983 the worst recession since World War II was over and "The Gipper" was smelling like a rose again. His act of draconian attacks on the liberal programs he once defended as a stalwart Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman Democrat made my teethe grind more than once. And his policy of painting the Soviet Union as The Evil Empire did little more than cause the old men in the Kremlin to hunker down more and postpone the appointment of a reformer like Mikhail Gorbachev.

But the actor and sports announcer and corporate pitchman made his pitches good theater. It must have been hard for conservative-leaning voters not to re-elect a man whose folksiness and ability to make you think he cut taxes--even when he actually raised them for ordinary workers who drew their salaries and wages from company payrolls--and embodied some kind of Sky-God persona was too hard to resist.
Reagan's greatest gift was his ability to take complex problems and make them sound simple and solvable to average voters. "Government is the problem, not the solution," he said in his First Inaugural Address and that largely was the formula the Neo-Conservatives have stuck to, long after de-regulation made any sense. But Reagan's--interestingly a Economics-educated man from a small college south of Chicago--never had an economic proposal that made sense. George Orwell was rocking in his grave as "The Gipper" made many people believe that you could somehow balance the Federal Budget, crank up Defense Spending with a blank check for hundreds of billions to The Pentagon and lower taxes for top income earners---all at the same time!

Reagan's principal opponent in the 1980 Republican Primary was George HW Bush, who called these plans--some bastard Kenseyian version of "supply-side formulas"-- little more than "voodoo economics". But Bush himself changed his tune and got the nod to be Vice-President, thus setting forth a chain reaction of electoral events that culminated in twenty years later in his son, George W's, election, or appointment by The Supreme Court, to the Presidency.

The greatest damage to the country came in the last decade from Reagan-ism--as Bush the Younger tried to "out-royal" the King of Conservatism and drive the deficits higher and engage in wars in Iraq and the protracted fight in Afghanistan--- even some conservative pundits doubt Reagan would have pursued, or presided quite as stupidly. (People conveniently forgot that it was Reagan in early 1983 who pulled out of Beirut, Lebanon after a truck bomb killed 241 Marines in their compound.) It is not damning with faint praise to imagine that Reagan, for all his faults, could have seen the push to invade Iraq in 2003 for what it was---a push inspired by armchair warriors like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld to a dubious end. There is evidence cited in Mr. Bunch's book that Reagan resisted the imploring of the Hawks in his administration to invade Nicaragua full on with American troops. But, like Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, somehow logic and common sense came to the First Magistrate, and another Vietnam was avoided.Bad enough that so many died in El Salvador from American supported death squads.

There was, of course, that Grand Opera invasion of the island of Grenada in October, 1983. Bush the Younger --perhaps seeing Iraq as some larger Grenada-type mission, went ahead with his attack on a nation of 30 million that was no Grenada and costs the lives of 4,000 troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis. Reagan would have had to get up rather early to be that dumb.

But, by 2003, The Reagan Years were the stuff of Legend. And the facts weren't allowed to enter into the argument. He was not a very popular President while in office (his average Gallup Poll favourability was an enemic 52 percent, less on average than Kennedy, Eisenhower or Clinton ) . But thanks to a Hollywood-honed folksiness and a generally improving economy--one that crashed again during the Bush I years after the deregulated Savings-and-Loan industry ran aground--he gained an overinflated reputation this book does a good job refuting.


Again, from the book:


"His story arc did become more optimistic and peaked at just the right moment, when Americans were tired of the "malaise" of the Jimmy Carter years and wanted someone who promised to make the nation feel good about itself again. But his positive legacy as president today hangs on events that most historians say were to some great measure out of his control: An economic recovery that was inevitable, especially when world oil prices returned to normal levels, and an end to the Cold War that was more driven by internal events in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe than Americans want to acknowledge.

"His 1981 tax cut was followed quickly by tax hikes that you rarely hear about, and Reagan's real lasting achievement on that front was slashing marginal rates for the wealthy - even as rising payroll taxes socked the working class. His promise to shrink government was uttered so many time that many acolytes believe it really happened, but in fact Reagan expanded the federal payroll, added a new cabinet post, and created a huge debt that ultimately tripped up his handpicked successor, George H.W. Bush. What he did shrink was government regulation and oversight - linked to a series of unfortunate events from the savings-and-loan crisis of the late 1980s to the sub-prime mortgage crisis of the late 2000s."

And that brings us up to the present and the end of Reagan-ism and faith in big business to look after our jobs and our health and our life savings. A hard lesson learned only when the man who set all this disaster in motion had long since began to lose his memory from the ravages of Alzheimer's and old age. One can't help wondering what Reagan would have made of his own works, and if a word of caution by his lips might have made a difference, however slight.

40 comments:

  1. I'm aware of this book, but thanks to your review, I'm now going to put it on the 'to acquire' list for this winter's reading.

    I knew it would take four or five years after the man's passing to start writing the REAL history of his presidency - and while he made some positive impact on America, the real 'Reagan legacy' will be much as Bunch has written it - one of largesse; deregulation - and setting the stage for (hyper)inflation, the three bubbles of this decade, and near economic collapse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've not read this book, but the best way to get me to not vote for you is to tell me that the candidate is a "Reagan Republican". I lived through the Reagan years, and I'm still trying to figure out why Bush sr. got elected, much less jr. You'd think we'd learn better, but no.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree there... I think enough time has indeed past for journalists like Bunch to look to Reagan and see the facts above and beyond the hype and the negativity of partisan hyperbole. We are living in the post-Reagan Era now, and it will be a mess to overcome.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree there... I think enough time has indeed past for journalists like Bunch to look to Reagan and see the facts above and beyond the hype and the negativity of partisan hyperbole. We are living in the post-Reagan Era now, and it will be a mess to overcome.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree there... I think enough time has indeed past for journalists like Bunch to look to Reagan and see the facts above and beyond the hype and the negativity of partisan hyperbole. We are living in the post-Reagan Era now, and it will be a mess to overcome. Thanks Will.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It works well as shorthand for me Jacquie. One Reagan Era was enough for me---the backdraft of his legacy has been rather toxic on the economy thanks to the main for deregulation and the adventures of Presidents Bush I & 2

    ReplyDelete
  7. It works well as shorthand for me Jacquie. One Reagan Era was enough for me---the backdraft of his legacy has been rather toxic on the economy thanks to the main for deregulation and the adventures of Presidents Bush I & 2

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm still not in favor of deregulation.

    ReplyDelete
  9. So much attributed to an old man with alzheimers and dyed hair. I tend to doubt he was running much in fact. World-wide the IMF and World Bank (conveniently headquartered in the US, funny that) were pushing the economic liberal message which somehow got confused with both left wing (Rogernomics in NZ), and right wing agendas (Thatcherism in the UK). Deregulation touted as freedom turned out only to be freedom for the rich and the poor are still waiting for the trickle-down effect to trickle down.

    I think if that book wound up in my household I'd throw it in the fire along with Roger Douglas's literary efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. LOL. At least this book is critical of Reagan overall---I can't imagine what it would be like to read his parting memoirs. Reagan was a Democrat until he had a brief uptick in his film career and had to start paying some serious taxes. He married a small-time film actress named Nancy Davis (Reagan) who was a total reactionary. The key to Reagan was his personal experiences; he didn't have much of a head for political philosophy---that came in handy when the big money boys in Southern California made him a political candidate. All he had to do was sell himself, and leave the ideas to the staff. It was Madison Avenue run amok.

    A lot of economic power does seem to run itself, which is probably why most modern Presidents go in for foreign policy stuff, Iri Ani.

    Trickle-down is indeed laughable. There was longer economic growth in the USA when Clinton was President and taxes went up for the rich. The funny part is under Reagan in the 1980's the taxes for employees who had withholding taxes on their pay went up!

    Even Reagan's first Budget Director, David Stockman, admitted that trickle-down wasn't going to work and it was basically a scam to control and halt the growth of domestic programs for the middle and working class. But Reagan was so like-able--there's no other word for it--that many people who didn't accept his views on abortion or cutting aid to the poor voted for him anyway! More women voted for Reagan in 1984 even though a woman was on the Democratic ticket for Vice President. Arrrrgh!

    How do you defeat a guy like that? Very frustrating.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Seems like a good book Doug, I am really not up on all the politics of the era or Regan but at the same time it was an era in time where he and Margret Thatcher seemed to be in concert with what they were doing withing the world. Ironically Reagan won the election due to the negotiations of the Americans that Carter had done. He came into office really based on Carters ratings going down as everyone thought that he had failed in the release of the American hostages out of Iran. Within history it shows that Canada in alliance with Carter Administration all hostages were freed right after Reagan had won the election and Carter had lost.
    That I am sure you would never find within the book ie: Canada's Role.

    Yet Regan did leave a very strong legacy as far as all that he did at that time in deregulation I am unsure of but it's so interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  12. appears to be a good book..I'm just not much of a Reagan fan

    ReplyDelete
  13. If I read the critique right, either is the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I seem to remember someone tried to shoot him once lol

    ReplyDelete
  15. I remember during his term in office wondering how the American people could possibly elect a third rate actor to the most powerful office on the planet?

    Then I remembered, we elected Thatcher!

    The whole period of the 80's was an unmitigated disaster for working people the world over, power and money was concentrated in the hands of the rich and all in the name of freedom. There were some notable effects I'd not want to rescind, for instance the power of the unions being restored to the levels pre Thatcher. But on the whole the social fabric of the UK has been destroyed and replaced with something pretty awful. We have yet to figure out what our society is now save to say that it is any thing but.

    Republicanism your side of the pond and conservatism on this are not now, have never been and never will be the friend of the working person. No matter how they spin their message, they exist to support the status quo and perpetuate big business. Clearly, if Obama's luck does not hold, there will ba a right wing backlash in three years time (which would be a disaster) and we are heading for a similar fate in a few months time when Brown (who, apart from him of course, ever thought he's make a good leader?) loses the up coming general election. I am pessimistic that we will ever break out of this 'ya boo' political knock about and get down to some serious debate on the issues and actually address the real problems we have today. None of our candidates have as yet and I doubt they will. Indeed, for the first time I'm considering not voting......

    ReplyDelete
  16. I absolutly hate this person can't evn type his name-

    ReplyDelete
  17. The shooting made my photographer cousin famous, he took the pictures of the happening.. When asked why he kept taking pictures,he answered," I thought the shots were firecrackers."

    ReplyDelete
  18. The Reagan Years. Just a big long photoop.

    No substance. Tricke Down Crap.

    ReplyDelete
  19. John Hinckley jr was the man who shot at Ronald Reagan. I remember because, and don't laugh, Greatest American Hero was a favorite show if mine. The lead character's name was changed from Hinckley to Handley because of this.
    If I remember rightly, James Brady caught the bullet meant for Reagan and so now we have the Brady Act.

    ReplyDelete
  20. If I understand the Brady Act, it's a cooling off period, I think 3 days, from when you purchase a handgun until you can pick it up. It gives dealers time to do a background check too, to see if you have any violent crimes that used a gun. If you do, they can't sell you the gun.
    It's SUPPOSED to keep people from shooting others in a fit of pique,and give you time to cool off from a temper fit. At least, that's how it reads to me.;

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh ok. I live in New Zealand so I never heard of it before. Thanks for explaining.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sure,I just hope I got it right. It's not a bad idea, really, but more shootings that have taken place in the last few years, that make the news, have been legal guns belonging to adults that have passed background checks. The guns have been stolen and used.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks for reviewing this book that unravels the myths that surround the Reagan years Doug. It would probably be more accurate to call the 1980s the Milton Friedman years having worked his 'monetarist magic' in Pinochet's Chile, he went on to rule both the US and the UK via a 'cracked actor' and a Victorian governess who both unfairly in my view, get the 'credit' for causing the economic and social chaos out of which the Anglo-American empire emerged as the precursor to the 'globalisation' we have today. Personally I see a lot of parallels between Reagan and Obama, both of whom were/are to some extent 'outsiders' to the established mafia figures like the Bush dynasty and both were 'constructed' by the media/advertising industry to appeal to the simple minded electorate as icons of Americana. Bush may have been a disaster but its hard to name a modern US president who wasn't (or isn't) I think. The same could be said of the British premiers over the same period. The Reagan/Thatcher years represent end of politics across the Anglosphere replaced by the ideology and spin of the proto-fascist military-industrial PR industry without any substance of their own. Reagan was the first fully fledged 'puppet' president without any pretensions of credibility in his own right, a buffoon of the first order like all of his successors have been.

    You make the point that Reagan was never particularly popular, but he didn't really have to be because what he stood for was generally popular, neo-imperialism has no need of democracy, any more than a debt driven economy has any need of wealth. The entire Anglo-American project was then and still is built on illusion. Reagan's only real claim to fame was that he was the first entirely 'virtual' president and nothing has changed so far as I can see.

    Thanks for bringing this book to our attention Doug, myth debunking is a long overdue activity in my opinion in America, the UK and all around the world, I'm glad the process is gaining impetus in the US, but until it gets completely up-to-date the show will go on to the very end of all civilisation.

    Here's a bit of a clip from the 1980s UK satire Spitting Image, the use of puppetry is highly instructive I think.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Interesting blog, Doug. From this side of the pond, we remember him as a good friend to the UK who supported us during the Falklands War. He and Maggie Thatcher were full of mutual admiration apparently.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You won't be surprised I suspect to hear that I was no fan of either.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I remember, Jack, how several American embassy officials who had escaped to the Canadian Embassy after the November, 1979, takeover by militants were ferried out of Iran by the ruse of giving them Canadian diplomatic passports. One more reason to like your country :-)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Understandable. I don't think you need tax your patience Mike, but there are a lot of interesting policy decisions that bleed into the Bush Years.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Exactly Jacquie. I hope no one reading this review think this is an apology for the Reagan Years.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You got that right Jim. It practically took an economic meltdown to get a pro-business Democrat like Obama elected. I'm very wary of a backlash.

    The 80's were a disaster. And, as I wrote earlier, much of what people remember about Reagan by his fan-base is misleading. I'm sure there are people who think Thatcher was some kind of fine leader, but the real negative effect these leaders had was in moving the electoral goalposts further against the working class and the REAL middle class in our countries.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I know the feeling Heidi. Believe me.

    ReplyDelete
  31. An excellent little haiku of the whole era Frank. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thanks for the background there Jacquie. Of course, the NRA fought it tooth and nail, but as far as I know its still the law. Interesting that some people have to literally be put at death's door before they see the need for gun control.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You make a good point there, AA. The thing about the "Spliting Image" clip is that Reagan did have that kind of "what the hell is that?" sort of attitude toward new facts. He read very little about Russia until Gorbechev became premier and he had to bow to diplomatic pressures to actually deal with arms control issues.


    I pretty much see Reagan's "illusionary presidency" as a dead-on take. So much of what went on in the name of pro-business regulation lifting was little more than given a glance by "The Gipper". The man would sign just about anything that deregulated an industry from financial or safety conditions. How a former FDR Democrat undid the government's role in the economy will only seem more detrimental as years go by.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I know a couple of Reagan advisors, UN Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatick and his first Secretary of State Alexander Haig, seemed to have an undue fondness for right-wing juntas like Argentina's in South America and Pinochet's Chile. I think American public opinion had a lot to do with the shift to support Great Britain. At first, the White House was rather too lukewarm for British support in my recollection.

    Yes, Jeff, Reagan and Thatcher were very close. It's hard to imagine one without the other.

    ReplyDelete
  35. LOL at image of Nancy Reagan as a Victorian governess, AA. She would have in her prime made a terrific harsh school mistress fromn "Jane Eyre" although I think playing Czarina in "Nicholas and Alexandra" would have been an equally plum role for Nancy. Very little acting would have been needed for Our Former First Lady in the latter role--but perhaps the accent was beyond her.

    Yes, Uncle Milton cast a broad shadow did he not? One more reason not to think much of the mob that gives out the Nobel Prizes.

    Hopefully, Obama's policies will at least mitigate the economic diaster that has been leveled on average Americans. Beyond that, I don't see very much so far to get excited about.

    ReplyDelete