How Republicans Created the Myth of Ronald Reagan

salon.com

The myth of Ronald Reagan was already looming in the spring of 1997 — when a highly popular President Bill Clinton was launching his second-term, pre-Monica Lewinsky, and the Republican brand seemed at low ebb. But what neoconservative activist Grover Norquist and his allies proposed that spring was virtually unheard of — an active, mapped-out, audacious campaign to spread a distorted vision of Reagan's legacy across America.

In a sense, some of the credit for triggering this may belong to those supposedly liberal editors at the New York Times, and their decision at the end of 1996 to publish that Arthur Schlesinger Jr. survey of the presidents. The below-average rating by the historians for Reagan, coming right on the heels of Clintons’ easy reelection victory, was a wake-up call for these people who came to Washington in the 1980s as the shock troops of a revolution and now saw everything slipping away. The first Reagan salvos came from the Heritage Foundation, the same conservative think tank that also had feted the 10th anniversary of the Reagan tax cut in 1991. After its initial article slamming the Times, the foundation’s magazine, Policy Review, came back in July 1997 with a second piece for its 20th anniversary issue: “Reagan Betrayed: Are Conservatives Fumbling His Legacy?”

The coming contours of the Reagan myth were neatly laid out in a series of short essays from the leaders of the conservative movement: that the Gipper deserved all or at least most of the credit for winning the Cold War, that the economic boom that Americans were enjoying in 1997 was the result of the Reagan tax cut (and not the march toward balanced budgets, lower interest rates and targeted investment), and that the biggest problem with the GOP was, as the title suggested, not Reagan’s legacy but a new generation of weak-kneed leaders who were getting it all wrong. The tone was established by none other than Reagan’s own son, Michael, now himself a talk-radio host, who wrote: “Although my father is the one afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, I sometimes think the Republicans are suffering a much greater memory loss. They have forgotten Ronald Reagan's accomplishments — and that is why we have lost so many of them.”

I remember, when I was young, a testimony given by a woman at my church. Testimonies are customarily given when one wants to express gratitude for a blessing or healing that has been experienced or witnessed.

The woman stood up and declared in a loud voice that she was grateful that God had given us Ronald Reagan as our president. There was an uncomfortable rustling in the church. Politics just weren't mentioned in our services as a rule. I was especially uncomfortable, as I thought God had done no such thing. As far as I was concerned the Reagan presidency was an act of man, and not a very good one at that.

Still, all these years later, I frequently encounter Reagan's legacy in the hushed, reverent tones in which some people "remember" the man and his presidency. Even Barack Obama has given him due homage in some of his speeches.

I'm sure that, even after reading about the ways in which the Reagan public image was largely manufactured, there are still many admirers who will not swerve from their devotion.

Hopefully there will be both criticism and praise for this article; I always like to stir up a good debate.






[edit on 23-2-2010 by Sestias]

Originally posted by Sestias

I remember, when I was young, a testimony given by a woman at my church.

You said the above and then you said.....

I was especially uncomfortable, as I thought God had done no such thing. As far as I was concerned the Reagan presidency was an act of man, and not a very good one at that.

So I must ask, what exact age WERE you.

If you were VERY young as you had said then how could the second statement be true let alone having any memory of his policies or presidency beyond knowing who was president.

Thanks,

Dorian Soran

reply to post by Dorian Soran


I am over fifty.

I said young, not VERY young.



[edit on 23-2-2010 by Sestias]

You must have missed this link on the top when you start a thread in this forum labled A Call To Action: Ending The Political Game on ATS

Since you missed it, allow me to present it for you...

This is a call to all who are now or were once concerned with the state of political affairs in the United States. Take a stand with us, here, and now.


We have been beset by packs of provocateurs...

Speculation continues to run extremely high that political operatives from at least one party are directly responsible for the divisive political rhetoric inspired by fact-poor innuendo that has infected ATS and the Internet as a whole. Given what we here know of those involved, we can only assume that provocateurs from all sides of the spectrum are here on our beloved ATS with a plan to disrupt productive discussions.

Written by the one and only Skeptic Overlord. You my friend are a provocateur. There is no conspiracy here, just hated of a political party's idol.

-E-

[edit on 23-2-2010 by MysterE]

reply to post by MysterE


I think the Salon article was well researched and scholarly. As such, it invites both praise and criticism in the spirit of informed debate.

There is a difference between a vigorous intellectual debate and simply polarizing people emotionally.

reply to post by Sestias


Salon=Leftist anti-Republican magazine. I can't take anything seriously they say about President Reagan,Thet're biased against Him anyhow.

reply to post by BigDaveJr


Yes, I think they do show a leftist bias. That doesn't necessarily mean that they can't at least sometimes arrive at a truth. Even Beck, on the right, occasionally hits a home run.

Well, the Reagan myth is largely the same as the myth of "trickle down economics" and we have realized that along with the outsourcing our jobs to near slave labor in developing countries is what truly destroyed the working class in the USA, IMO. We were a country that manufactured and innovated before this economic system, now we are a country which is maintained by sleight of hand, borrowing, corporate socialism, market manipulation and credit scams.

'Let the free market prevail' has no morality nor care for the suffering it inflicts on large swathes of the population. Reagan is the hero of parasitic mega corporations, not a hero of ordinary people...but I guess his lucky stars and astrology must have blessed him with that "teflon coating" which persists to this day.

[edit on 23-2-2010 by ChrisCrikey]

reply to post by Sestias


Ahhhh - there you are - I read young and wrote VERY young. I apologize for that.

See what happens when I read what I want to see

D0rian S0ran

reply to post by ChrisCrikey



Sorry,but I'd much rather have a laisses fair economy than a socialist one!

reply to post by Sestias


You know I wrote once a while back an article on Ronald Reagan the president actor that her best performance war that of acting as a president, beside that he was actually one of the most inept presidents we ever had.



How can we forget Regannomics, we have been hunted by the trickle down economics since then.

rob the tax payer so the rich can keep their wealth

reply to post by marg6043


The USA was quite prosperous from 1984-1989. Reaganomics were a good thing compared to what the economy was like from 1978-1983.

Reagan had his good points and bad points. Regan and Obama are the best two Presidents at giving speeches I've heard in my lifetime. Before all the "Regan-myth" started he was called the "great communicator" for a reason.

In the end, he did some good things good things and some not-so good things.

Regarding the "Regan-myth" I think the republicans are making a mistake keeping it going. It creates something that no candidate can live up to. Also, to borrow a line from U2 - "you glorify the past when the future dries up".

Heck - I was one of the ones that liked Regan. But now when I hear Republicans talk about him I'm like, "Ok - Regan was good, but what have you got today? You going to put Regan's ghost on the ticket?"

When Reagan was President we had the highest home interest rates I have ever seen. (over 18% in some cases). He took a vegetable away from school lunches claiming ketchup was a vegetable. I don't really recall anything that set him above the norm at all. I just think that after Richard Nixon and his horrid presidency that the Republicans had nothing to fall back on so they created King Ronald. I wasn't impressed.

Oh btw the remarks of "They are leftist, They hate Bush, etc." That doesn't mean they aren't telling the truth. That is the primary difference I see between pundits on the right/left.

reply to post by BigDaveJr


I lived through Reganomics as a young wife raising a family and children while my husband served in the Military, yes I remember first hand what he did to the school system, more power to corporate take over and cemented what is now known as trickle down economic.

Feed the rich at the expenses of tax payer so they can give back, but the problem is they never did because their bonuses and expenses were too big to have anything left to give.

When it came to the military he kept the military well but that is as far has his legacy went.

He was an actor that the only role he ever did that was worth an Oscar was that of been president, but president material he was not.

reply to post by Sestias

I have no starry eyed memories of reagan.

He was fine if you were rich and white and male or wanted to be.

For the rest of us...women...the poor...AIDS sufferers...the environment...minority's... workers of every stripe...

he sucked.

Oh yes and he was going to balance the budget and left us with a 2 trillion dollar deficit that took a Democrat to clean up before junior came in and made an even bigger one...

And the GOP has the gonads to criticize Obama.

reply to post by BigDaveJr

I agree. The late 70's to early 80's experienced stagflation and high unemployment; it was not a good period economically. But I think the beginning recovery in the mid to late 80's was only partially due to the Reagan tax cuts. And the economy actually didn't rebound entirely until the Clinton administration.


[edit on 23-2-2010 by Sestias]

The national debt tripled under Reagan. It will probably triple again under Obama.

The size of government under Reagan expanded sixty-some odd percent. It will probably do the same with Obama.

Reagan raised payroll taxes and instituted a $100 billion tax increase with the help of the Congress. Obama will undoubtedly do something similar if he plans to make good on his promise to half the budget deficit.

The first amnesty of illegal immigrants occured under Reagan. Obama is pushing for another.

How are these two any different?

Give me a Calvin Coolidge, or even a Dwight Eisenhower over these two any day.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


A president like Warren Harding or Silent Cal would be a huge improvement over Obama. Hell,I'd take Richard Nixon or Gerald Ford over Obama!

reply to post by BigDaveJr


Never thought I'd say it but I couldn't agree more. A big picture of Tricky Dick with the words "Miss Me Yet".