The Left Starts to Rethink Reagan
WILL: I was at the Truman library in Independence, Mo., last week, and was looking at a black-and-white photograph of Harry Truman giving a speech in a stadium in Los Angeles during the '48 campaign. Seated next to the lectern, right next to Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart, is a man who had introduced Truman, and it was a 37-year-old Ronald Reagan. That was probably the last time he voted for a Democrat. And so Sean's right, he was the first Reagan Democrat, but what really made Reagan Democrats were Democratic policies. One of the worst things that ever happened to American education but one of the best things that happened to American conservatism was busing of schoolchildren for racial balance. This just crystallized the sense of a lot of working-class Americans [that] policies were imposed on them by people who had no intention of ever being exposed to them themselves. All these people sending their kids to private schools were telling others which public school their kid should go to.
WILENTZ: To add to that, I would say that what made it fiercer and more passionate was the ways in which the liberal Democrats interpreted the resistance to their policies, which was always to blame the people who were resisting for being narrow-minded or racist, not up to their own enlightened idea of the way Americans ought to be. There was a contempt, there was an elitism that was not a part of the Democratic Party of Harry Truman that came into play in the aftermath of the black-power movement and Vietnam. It's not to say there wasn't racism in America or small-minded people. But you don't go about winning people's votes by saying, "You're a small-minded racist."
WILL: I'll just add, there's a wonderful book called "The Liberals' Moment," about [George] McGovern's 1972 campaign and about McGovern, who's become a friend of mine recently. It talks about what Sean was talking about, how '68 was one kind of fracturing of the Democratic Party, but in a way, less important than the fracturing of '72, because that set the precedent for the Obama-Clinton divide between the well-educated and affluent liberals and the others. What happened in '72 was the aggressive, conscious, tough, skillful disenfranchising of organized labor and of the big city machines, by George McGovern. McGovern was thought of as a soft prairie farmer. He was one tough cookie, a man who took a nonexistent Democratic Party in South Dakota and produced a senator—that was himself—not many years later. What happened in '72—that formalized, aggressive takeover of the Democratic Party by one faction at the expense of another—is what we're seeing playing out right now. It is no accident, comrade, that in '76 Reagan makes a strong run and in '80 he makes it into the White House over the remains of the badly divided Democratic Party.
© 2008
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: cornsyrup123 @ 05/15/2008 2:53:34 PM
Comment: To quote bushwacked: "wilentz is wrong, reagan was not a great president"
As a democrat, I always feel awkward supporting Ronald Reagan, but here goes: Keeping in mind that through good governance (hopefully Democratic come November), though not overnight, we have the power to slowly but surely change all of the problems you mentioned about America. The bottom line is if it wasn't for Reagan, one of two worse things would have happened.
1) Worst case scenario: mutually assured destruction, brought on by perpetuated tension with the former Soviet Union. That's an obvious one.
2) More likely: ONGOING tension with the Soviet Union, in ADDITION to all of the domestic problems you mentioned, not to mention the unfortunate battle with Islamic fundamentalism.
So, although he may have initiated some of the most tumultuous problems we as a nation have ever faced, as far as I'm concerned, his successful negotiations with the Soviets overpowered them all in the sense that we might not even be here to SEE those problems were it not for him.
Posted By: Arturo55 @ 05/13/2008 11:21:54 PM
Comment: The fog of memory displayed by Sean Wilentz when he mentions Ronald Regan's "grave errors" is truly myopic. He mentions two, Iran Contra, and S&L while artfully skipping over the true passionate angst of democrats at the time. These stories dominated the news for many months and the hint of skulduggery regarding the timing of the Iranian hostage release with the election of 1980 has yet to be fully explored. Wilentz needs to be reminded that this was the source of the term "October Surprise" An artful example of the modern Republican party's dastardly penchant for stealing elections, neatly surrounded on either side by the cloddish Watergate burglars and the impudence of the Supreme Court in 2000.
Lost in the storm and fury of the time, Reagans disembowlment of his predecessors energy initiatives, is arguably the single most "grave" error, which has reached forward twenty eight years and is just now begining to bear full fruit, poisoned fruit. Carter was far ahead of his time on this issue and had the "smiling" Reagan relished the removal of the solar waterheaters from the White house roof signalling the end of the nacient alternative energy movement, dead practically at birth. Thoughtfullness mocked and jeered by the rigid rightwing. Thousands of small contractors thrown out of work overnight. On recollection a bit reminiscient of "Fulton's Folly". And now of course its all the rage. Even the bumbling dry hole oil boy president, certain to be the laughing stock of the future, provided the tears ever dry, has timidly jumped on board, lets hope that boat is not the Titanic. The real tragedy was the loss of thirty years of research and development backed by the full faith of a formerly forward thinking nation. We likely would have been enjoying sweet fruit of that effort, reaping the boundless quantity of energy that nature provides for free. Therein lies the key to the story. Sold, for Hollywood smiles, greedy bottom lines, and a pack of Limbaugh's lies, our future.
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.