In the latest episodes of the popular reality series America’s Next Top Reagan (also known as the 2012 race), we’ve been seeing contestants reaching out to the former president’s legacy more than ever. But do they really know the man they try too hard to emulate? Whether his spirit is being channeled by numerous Republicans, and even the occasional Democrat, a desire to imitate Reagan’s philosophy and appeal is characteristic of the current political climate. Reagan would have been 100 years old this year, and as his legacy reaches that milestone. “What would Reagan have done?” seems to be a core question.
In this climate of Reagan “Resurrectionism”, I noticed a reprint of his memoir, An American Life, being published earlier this year and snapped up the opportunity to let the former president tell his story in his own words, rather than letting others appropriate his legacy as they see fit. My hope was to learn about the 1980s from the world’s most important person at the time, and I’ve been left with a much better understanding of the U.S.-Soviet conflict of that era. Slowly but surely, I finished the 700+ page book, and, reflecting on his message, let us take a look at what Reagan has left behind, with a view to how understanding Reagan might help us better see why the 2012 race is going in the wrong direction, because the man himself is irreplaceable.
Reagan was aggressive on foreign policy, not willing to back down on his Strategic Defense Initiative as a concession for Soviet arms reductions, something that must ring well with today’s Republicans. However, he did sit down four times with America’s number one enemy, Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev. It was these one-on-one conversations in Geneva, Iceland, Moscow and Washington that caused significant developments in the relationship between the two superpowers. Perhaps sitting down with our enemies and finding out how to tackle our differences may not be a bad idea today.
Reagan also believed that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and, in his book, he claims that his policies worked. He was a proponent of a Balanced Budget Amendment, something that Republicans today favor and even Democrats, who recently opposed it, are now beginning to embrace. Another idea he had was a presidential line-item veto, a freedom he enjoyed as the Governor of California. Perhaps having a line-item veto would have given President Obama more control during the recent debt ceiling debate, but, at the same time, it may have given the executive office too much power. Reagan also made a strong argument for smaller, more efficient government, one that today’s politicians may do well to heed.
Interestingly, Reagan saw expanding the president’s power through a line-item veto as a way to improve government. Perhaps he did not see expanding one individual’s power as “growing government” in the same way as higher spending. Within that notion lies another possible answer to why government expands: those who are part of it do not see themselves as part of the “problem” they claim it is. The size of government, perhaps, can be reflected in a multitude of arenas. The Republican science, it seems, is to cut down on quantity and increase individuals’ mandate. The Democratic science works the other way, with more people and money being poured in, but with less power in the hands of specific people. Republicans today have illusions about the power of the presidency, with Michele Bachmann promising to throw out Obamacare, which gives a sense that they, like Reagan, enjoy the idea of individual strength with fewer obstacles to getting things done, or what we could call the “big government bureaucracy”. As such, it is not as much about the size of government as government “getting in the way” – in the way of businesses, but also in the way of conservatives trying to push a specific agenda and not thrilled with the idea of opposition. Maybe Reagan, and today’s GOP, don’t have a problem with the government – they just don’t like the idea of Democrats. In An American Life, Reagan made clear that then-Speaker Tip O’Neill made his job far more difficult. And yet, they got by and their bipartisanship stands out today. Reagan was willing to work with people, even if he would rather have done without their challenges to his agenda. He successfully navigated a big government, and steered clear of personal attacks.
In today’s atmosphere of intolerance, which I wrote about earlier, I think another one of Reagan’s beliefs is important as well: absolute and total freedom of worship and religion (which, naturally, was linked to his wishes to see Christians in and out of government to freely express their beliefs) and a desire to refrain from criticizing others on their character, rather than on their political ideas. In essence, and it seems more like it today, “freedom of worship” seems to be designed to encourage a loosening of church and state in government: who hasn’t heard of America being a “Judeo-Christian nation”? Nevertheless, his views had his merits, and would do well to be heeded today. In the recent GOP debate in Iowa, candidates ignored what has been famed as Reagan’s 11th Commandment: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican,” according to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. It is unfortunate that in trying to summon Reagan’s ideas from beyond, Republicans have foregone this crucial element of this philosophy, one that reinforces the necessary decency of political discourse. Unlike Democrats, Republicans have established themselves as the traditionally moral, religious, family-oriented party, which makes it even more disheartening to see the 2012 contenders attack each other.
President Reagan was a man with many positive ideas, and was passionate about the causes he espoused. From his book, I got the sense that his heart was definitely in the right place. However, that is not to say his book was perfect. Perhaps the single factor inhibiting more Americans from picking up this book is its readability. Reagan quotes large portions of letters written by himself and others, both to reinforce his point and to let the actual words speak for themselves. These detailed excerpts, as well as the rather too regular excerpts from his diary, slow down the reader to a pace where it is very difficult to cut through numerous pages of quoted text. Perhaps a more apt solution would have been summarizing the contents of the letters and his diaries, cutting down the book’s length by a significant number of pages and accelerating its pace. Those interested in reading the diaries themselves can always get a hold of The Reagan Diaries, which was released a few years ago (the memoir was released in 1990).
If the book were easier to tackle, perhaps more would give it a look – it was well-read in 1990, reaching #8 on the New York Times bestseller list – but today more people seem to forget what President Reagan’s message was all about. 2011 is a good time to take another look at Reagan’s story – and his legacy, especially since the GOP has been saying for some time now: “It took a Carter to get us a Reagan. It’ll take an Obama to get us a…” But who will be that Reagan? Or, more reasonably – why does it have to be another Reagan? The GOP will never find a candidate if they keep looking for the one whom, sadly, is gone.
Image credit: Public domain work by the Federal Government, via Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Reagan_walks_along_the_White_House_colonnade_1981.jpg