The Left Starts to Rethink Reagan
Barack Obama's not the only one calling him a 'transformational' leader. So is Sean Wilentz.
The outcome of this November's election may hinge on a single question: which presidential candidate will prevail among the "Reagan Democrats"? Those traditionally Democratic voters made history—and a place in the political lexicon—in 1980 when they bolted their party's disarrayed ranks to swing the polls in Ronald Reagan's favor. Until recently, however, few liberal-leaning historians took a respectful look at the Reagan phenomenon. That's finally changing, with the publication of Sean Wilentz's new "The Age of Reagan," even as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—and John McCain—seek the support of that crucial bloc. NEWSWEEK's Evan Thomas moderated a conversation about the Gipper between Wilentz, a professed liberal, and NEWSWEEK's George F. Will, a longtime Reagan admirer.
THOMAS: Sean, why have you taken a look at Reagan, and have other historians started to take another look at Reagan?
WILENTZ: It's interesting. It's no secret that intellectuals, generally being liberals, didn't think much of Ronald Reagan at the time. Unlike Roosevelt, who got covered right away—as soon as he died there were books out about [him]—it took people a long time to catch up with Ronald Reagan. But I think that now they can no longer ignore him. His impact on the world and country, whether you like it or not, was so important that to ignore him is to ignore an entirety of American politics.
THOMAS: And why did it take so long?
WILENTZ: People had to overcome their own passions, their own dislikes. Some people had to grow up. Some people, it was a matter of all their ideas ripening. Ronald Reagan was difficult to read. His own official biographer couldn't make head or tail out of Ronald Reagan, and he had more access than most. Look, he was a conservative in a conservative age. This is not, normally, what is the stuff of heroic history. It just doesn't fit the mold in the way that Andrew Jackson or Abraham Lincoln does. It's just different.
THOMAS: So, George, why do you think it took Sean so long to figure out Reagan was a great president?
WILENTZ: [Laughs]
WILL: Let me make [a couple of] points about what Sean just said. First, an intellectual is not a synonym for liberal. In fact, one of the differences Ronald Reagan made, and one of the differences that made Ronald Reagan, was there had emerged, particularly in the 1970s, a conservative intellectual movement—the think tanks and journals and all the rest. Secondly, what Sean is doing is what Murray Kempton did for Dwight Eisenhower. It took Murray Kempton to take a step back and say, "Wait a minute, this man, who did after all run the most complicated war alliance in history, who had dealt with de Gaulle, Churchill, Roosevelt and all the rest, was not a child. He was a subtle, devious, guileful man, difficult to read." That's the phrase Sean just used about Ronald Reagan—and Ronald Reagan was difficult to read. He had an actor's sense of the surface and the inner. Ronald Reagan's famous jokes were a way, I believe, to keep people at a distance. It was an armor of affability that he had, and [that] made him difficult to read, and I think he realized that would cost him among the historians for a while. My question is, Sean just said Reagan didn't fit the mold. I want to know what mold, and who made it?
WILENTZ: I think the liberal mold—not [made] by intellectuals, George. You're absolutely right: in the 1970s there was a great efflorescence of conservative intellectual life. I was thinking more of the academy. I think there is a mold which was thought [of] in the 1950s as the all-pervasive, consensus, liberal tradition in the American life. And the mold was a great leader who mobilizes a coalition, which manages to take on the interests, one way or another—whether it's the slave[-owning] power or the malefactors of great wealth. These are the characters we think of and who are usually liberals in one way or another. What Reagan did was something different—it was to lead with the same spirit and optimism and forward-looking hope that liberals had projected, but in the name of policies that were frankly conservative. And he managed to do that in a way that no previous president, and certainly no conservative president, had managed to do before.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: bushwhacked @ 05/13/2008 2:00:07 PM
Comment: wilentz is wrong, reagan was not a great president. the fact is he started us down the road that gw and clinton amplified. when you put regulators in that are basically corporate hacks you get the enormous mess that is america today. here are problems that cannot be solved: our housing crisis, are enormous national debt, our extremely poor educational system, our idiotic health care system, our inability to make anything except weapons systems, the growing prison industrial complex, the disappearance of the middle class, jobs going to foreign countries, and on and on. now we, like others empires before us, are right on the verge of collapsing. rome went all over the ancient world colonizing everyone they could until the financial stress did them in. napoleon and hitler didn't learn from history. neither did britain. it's comical how mcdope thinks he will continue the tin man's empire building . a little clue for you john, russia and china both have about 1/2 trillion in us $ surplus. we have about 900 billion deficit. reagan, bush and mcwar democrats always whine about those tax and spend democrats. their bought and paid for media never mention that the republicans out tax the demos 5-1. they just call it defense and the war on terror. nothing could be farther from the truth, we are much weaker strategically because of our grave economic weakness. the europeans laugh at how stupid our policies are, i mean cmon they work half as hard as we do, have health care for everyone, have 6 weeks vacation a year, free higher deucation up to a phd. teamsters have always been for republicans as long as i can remember. what did it get you- $4 a gallon diesel fuel. so if you once had a30-40 dollar an hour job and now work at wallmart, cheer up, you deserve it. i have made boocoo bucks and am set for life, but if your middle class and voted for reagan, bush or clinton, your class is gonna disappear. be sure and put your dunce cap back on on your way out.
Posted By: The_epoch_point @ 05/12/2008 11:18:56 PM
Comment: It's about time the left takes another look at Ronald Reagan and all the other strident anti-communists of the 20th century like Barry Goldwater and Joseph R. McCarthy. After all it was a Marxist Lee Harvey Oswald and a communist Sirhan Sirhan who knocked off the Kennedy Brothers. Now check out my book at Amazon.com
The Epoch Point by Spencer Zimmerman is a religious historical conspiracy thriller that follows evil throughout the existence of mankind, revealing the constant conflict between God and the devil, good and evil. Robert Davis is a young Airman fresh out of Air Force basic training who, after being held captive in China, suddenly finds himself unraveling the most immense conspiracy in history. On duty during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he soon uncovers hidden facts suggesting Russian and Iraqi involvement. While exploring abandoned military barracks at Kessler AFB in Mississippi, Davis and his friends discover the diary of Lee Harvey Oswald. Suddenly the Airmen find themselves the target of mysterious agents. As the clues surface, an evil emerges powerful enough to rewrite the entire history of humanity, not to mention kill two of his good friends. Before long the conspiracy takes on a supernatural form, marked by lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes, and volcanoes, the wrath of God. Davis finds himself torn by the unbelievable realization that God has a message for him. Nothing could prepare him for the final suspenseful twist the story takes, a Da Vinci style revelation that reaffirms his belief in Christ.
Posted By: Nins @ 05/12/2008 11:06:25 PM
Comment:
Today's headline: "McCain Acknowledges Global Warming and Urges Nuclear Power to Combat it."
I am SO GLAD that John McCain has acknowledged the reality of global warming. However, his supposition that nuclear power is "clean energy" is absurd.
Clean energy doesn't leave behind deadly radioactive rods to be disposed of. Clean energy isn't subject to nuclear fallout, meltdowns and explosions. Clean energy doesn't cause birth defects and cancer. Clean energy can't be subverted into nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
Effective clean energy technologies created to date are solar, wind, hydroelectric and hydrogen fuel cells. Ethanol is not clean energy, as it takes immense amounts of energy to create fuel this way, and the big corporate farmers pollute with excessive chemical fertilizers and pesticides. However, it can help us transition our economy away from oil dependency and as such it is an excellent stop gap, especially if we use cellulose ethanol rather than corn based ethanol.
McCain is woefully uninformed about the realities of our energy problems and their potential solutions. McCain is woefully uninformed about the economy, and still hasn't come up with any plans for combatting the recession, paying down the national debt, and restoring lost jobs. McCain is woefully misguided about the war, and wants to pursue a hawkish military policy even though the vast majority of Americans are against this.
I respect McCain and the sacrifices he has made for our country. But right now, we need someone ready to roll up their sleeves and work on our current problems. Someone who can make America stronger before we go down the tubes with our oil dependency, our failure to recognize the shifting global economy, and our blatantly wrong-headed foreign policy. McCain is not that man. I'm a Republican and I'm voting for Obama.