Lot’s of new developments on the Reagan front. Seems that Krugman doesn’t like Obama’s implied praise for Reagan either, for a reason similar to that offered by other commentators: that it reinforces a right wing narrative that we should be attacking.
Meanwhile, despite Tim Russert’s spin, Hillary Clinton does not follow Obama down that path, though she does say that she admires Reagan’s communications skills.
I have never quite understood Reagan’s moniker as the “Great Communicator”. I was there during that time period, and my recollection is that he successfully reinforced the beliefs of the believers, repelled his opponents, enchanted the media (suckers even then), and swayed the undecided in pretty much the same way presidents before him were able to do. No one ever called Nixon the Great Communicator, but he was able to rally people behind his war just as effectively as Reagan was able to rally them behind his voodoo economics. And remember, it’s never very hard to talk people into thinking that tax cuts are a good idea. Here’s Lou Cannon, the Reagan expert, on why Reagan was the great communicator:
Reagan became the great communicator because he stood for something. In 1980, when Reagan ran for president, he talked more about issues than any presidential candidate had in years. He talked about building up the defense budget, cutting taxes and balancing the budget. Former House member John Anderson (an independent presidential candidate that year) said the only way you can do the three of them was with mirrors. But Reagan did two of the three. So he talked about substance. But he kept his message basic and simple and on mainstream American concerns.
The first sentence is meaningless. The second sentence is a blatant lie. The rest could apply to any lying Republican politician. (I like the part of achieving two of his three goals. Obviously Anderson was right. Reagan began our descent into national bankruptcy. It’s not like baseball: two out of three equals failure.) What politician does not keep his or her message basic and simple and on mainstream American concerns?
Reagan was an actor, and could lie and mislead with conviction. He was singularly inept at press conferences, since he rarely knew what he was talking about. During his debates with Mondale he showed signs of the senility that became full blown only in the latter years of his presidency. His myth is strong in Washington circles and among the clueless Republican faithful. Had he really connected he would be more widely revered, but despite their claims to that effect, he is not. His myth is perpetuated because he’s the only Republican president since Eisenhower that didn’t leave office an object of derision, or universally loathed, or both.
One Comment