Paperback cover of Reagan: The Life, by H.W. Brands, 2015. |
Historian and author H.W. Brands. |
Deified by conservatives and demonized by liberals, Ronald
Reagan was one of the most significant presidents of the 20th
century. H.W. Brands’ 2015 biography Reagan:
The Life is a cradle to grave examination of Ronald Reagan’s extraordinary
life.
Most of Brands’ book focuses on Reagan’s eight years in the
White House, but he does a good job of outlining Reagan’s unlikely path to the
presidency. Reagan started out as a radio announcer, and then became a film
actor. In 1953, as Reagan’s career in the movies was tapering off, he accepted
a job on television as the host of General
Electric Theater. Reagan also became a spokesman for GE, and at the end of nine
years, he estimated that he had toured 135 GE plants and spoken in front of
250,000 people. Reagan’s time at GE proved to be the perfect training ground
for his next career move.
Originally a New Deal Democrat, Reagan had gradually moved
to the right politically during the 1950’s and early 60’s. In 1964, Reagan gave
a televised, 30-minute speech in support of conservative Republican
presidential nominee Barry Goldwater. Titled “A Time for Choosing,” the speech
did little to aid Goldwater’s hopeless campaign, but it boosted Reagan’s
standing considerably. For the first time, people began to talk about the
53-year-old Ronald Reagan as a possible political candidate. Reagan was elected
Governor of California in 1966, and re-elected in 1970. Ten years later, he won
the presidency.
Reagan was “an intuitive student of history and politics
rather than an analytical one.” (p.424) Long policy discussions were not
Reagan’s forte. Reagan dealt in the factual rather than the theoretical. Brands
compares Reagan to FDR, and makes the point that they were not strict
ideologues. They both had strong ideological beliefs, but both men were willing
to be pragmatic and compromise when they had to. Reagan wasn’t quiet about his
admiration for FDR, saying in 1989, “Franklin Roosevelt was the first president
I ever voted for, the first to serve in my lifetime that I regarded as a hero.”
(p.706)
Reagan’s leadership style was laid-back in the extreme.
Since he was a big-picture visionary and not a detail person, he was more than
happy to cede the management of those details to his staff. While that can work
fine if you’re delegating tasks to, say, Secretary of State George Shultz, trouble
might ensue if you’re delegating things to people like National Security
Advisors Bud McFarlane and John Poindexter, two of the major figures in the
Iran-contra scandal.
Reagan had a fascinating personality for someone who became
President. Non-confrontational in the extreme, Reagan was carried through life
to a large degree by his considerable charm and charisma. Brands explained some
of Reagan’s appeal, writing: “People could disagree with Reagan, but rarely did
they find him disagreeable.” (p.209) I think people are sometimes tempted to
read more into Reagan’s personality than was really there. You might think
there must have been some hidden depths to this man who seemed so nice and
positive and so untroubled by life. But I’m not sure there were any turbulent
waters in the psyche of Ronald Reagan. Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury
and later Chief of Staff for Reagan, wrote of his boss: “Never—absolutely
never in my experience—did President Reagan really lose his temper or utter a
rude or unkind word. Never did he issue a direct order, although I, at least,
sometimes devoutly wished that he would.” (p.487) Unlike politicians who
constantly curse, in the diary that Reagan kept during his Presidency, he wrote
dashes in swear words, so hell and damn become “h—l” and “d—n.” (p.564) I can’t
imagine Richard Nixon doing that.
A key to Reagan’s appeal was his relentless optimism. As
Brands writes: “Reagan focused on the positive parts of any experience,
convinced they held the key to its meaning. This habit constituted one of his
great personal strengths, making him almost unsinkable emotionally. It was also
central to his political success. Pessimism pervades the thinking of
conservatives, who tend to believe the world is going to hell in a handbasket.
They might be right, but they aren’t fun to be around.” (p.630)
For me, one of the highlights of the book was Brands’
recounting of the October 1986 Reykjavik Summit, where Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev
almost agreed to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. The two leaders came
heartbreakingly close to an agreement, but Reagan’s refusal to agree to any
limitations on the Strategic Defense Initiative, commonly known in the media as
“Star Wars,” scotched the deal. However, the talks at Reykjavik led to the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, one of the highlights of Reagan’s
foreign policy.
Brands is a sympathetic biographer of Reagan, and there are
times when he gives Reagan perhaps more of the benefit of the doubt than he
deserves. Brands doesn’t dwell on the parts of Iran-contra that Reagan didn’t
play a part in—like Oliver North shredding documents. And Brands isn’t
critical of Reagan’s light schedule as president, never mentioning that Reagan
spent 345 days of his presidency at his California ranch, Rancho del Cielo. (President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, by
Lou Cannon, p.465)
Unless you’re a detailed student of history, most presidents
are reduced in the collective memory to a few sound bites. John F. Kennedy and
Ronald Reagan have a few more sound bites in the collective memory than most
other presidents. Kennedy and Reagan don’t have the longest list of legislative
accomplishments from their terms in office. However, both these men have
inspired countless people, in large part because they were such excellent
public speakers. As Brands writes, “Reagan communicated effectively not least
because he gave essentially the same speech again and again. The particulars
and the anecdotes varied, but the message never did.” (p.734) That might be
Ronald Reagan’s ultimate gift: that he made people feel good about America
again.
I think you're selling Reagan short a little bit. Of all the Presidents in my lifetime he made the biggest difference. Had Carter or Mondale (1984) been elected you would have had significant changes in Domestic and Foreign policy - for good or for ill. Reagan, IOW, was a game-changer.
ReplyDeleteBy comparison I don't think Ford wouldn't have been significantly different than Carter, and the same is true of Clinton and Bush-I. Perhaps if Gore had been elected in 2000, we would have been spared the Iraq War, but I'm not even sure of that, since Gore voted for the War Resolution. And Kerry vs. Bush-II?
And yes, Reagan was a little too hands off, particularly during the second term. However, micro-managers usually exhaust themselves and/or make things worse. Carter and Nixon spent a lot of time on the details with mixed results - Nixon's "hands-on" approach gave us Watergate. And LBJ was involved in every aspect of the Vietnam War.
Someone like Eisenhower struck the right balance, no doubt due to his being Chief of Staff and head of ETO. And Obama and Clinton seem to have done well in managing the Executive Branch, although their youth might have given them the energy to micro-manage AND keep some perspective.
I might well be selling Reagan a little short. You're right, the choices in the 1980 and 1984 elections were very different, and Reagan definitely had a large impact on America and the Presidency.
ReplyDeleteI agree, micro-management is not necessarily a good thing in a President. Carter was a super micro-manager-to the point where he actually took charge of scheduling the times for the White House tennis courts! The political scientist James David Barber has an interesting book "The Presidential Character" where he analyzed 20th century presidents and grouped them into categories based on how they viewed the world. Do you have a positive or negative view of the world? Do you see your role in the world as being active or passive? Barber identified Wilson, Hoover, and LBJ as being "active/negative," and describes how their personality led to some of their problems. Those 3 definitely fall into the micro-manager category. I haven't read the whole book, but it's an interesting idea.
Eisenhower had a pretty darn successful presidency. A few years ago I read the book "Ike's Bluff" by Evan Thomas, which focuses on his foreign policy. Really interesting. On my long list of books to read is Jean Edward Smith's bio of Eisenhower.
Obama seems to have struck a really good balance of being a super smart guy, but not a micro-manager, and he also seems to have the Reagan-esque trait of not letting anything bother him.