|
|
 |
ORDINARY OR EXTRAORDINARY?
A new book examines Ronald Reagan's presidency. December 19, 1997 |
|---|
NewsHour Backgrounders
December 23, 1996
The NewsHour historians look back at presidential second terms.
May 29, 1996
Character Above All:
A Peggy Noonan essay on Ronald Reagan.
October 11, 1995
David Gergen speaks with James Baker about his work for the Reagan administration.
August 23, 1984
Retrospective:
Republican strategist Lee Atwater discusses Reagan's election campaign.
Browse previous Authors' Corner forums and Gergen Dialogues
Outside Links
Reagan Presidential Library
Dinesh D'Souza Web siteAs an actor, Ronald Reagan faced critics with every performance he gave. But when he became President in 1980, the political critics had a heyday. In their reviews, they used described the actor-turned-president as an "amiable dunce" and a "self-assured bumpkin," even going so far as to rate his performance as President as "virtually brain-dead." And there were those long-running jokes saying he napped during important meetings.
But now nine years since Reagan's presidency, Dinesh D'Souza argues that the critics were wrong. In his new book, "Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became and Extraordinary Leader," D'Souza, who served as Senior Policy Analyst in the Reagan White House between 1987 and 1988, argues that Reagan was not as simple as he was labeled but, in fact, was one of the most influential presidents of all time.
D'Souza doesn't deny that Reagan had an unusual approach to his job. But he argues that Reagan's joking approach concealed a wiser, smarter sub text his critics did not catch. D'Souza writes that Reagan's presidency from 1980 to 1988 were defined by three objectives: limiting the size of government, fighting communism and promoting traditional values. What was taken by critics to be an overly simplistic approach to complex issues, was actually a sign of Reagan's deep convictions, strong sense of morals and unfailing optimism. According to D'Souza, Reagan was not simple; he just chose to communicate his vision in simple terms.
The results? According to D'Souza, they are indeed extraordinary. D'Souza argues that despite the critics, Reagan's policies were directly responsible for the fall of communism and the economic prosperity of today. Reagan managed to win the Cold War "without firing a shot." According to the book, it is thanks to Reagan's economic policies and reduced defense expenditures that the U.S. has spent $100 billion less in military expenditures since the fall of the Berlin Wall and that the deficit is now only $23 billion.
The economy has been booming since 1983, with only a slight recession in the early Nineties. Between 1983 and 1989, 20 million new jobs were created with an additional 10 million since then. His presidency has defined the decade and has shaped major conservative movements, both political and cultural, since then. As Reagan himself said, "Not bad for a fellow who couldn't get his facts straight and worked four hours a day."
To D'Souza, even Reagan's most simplistic behavior cannot be underestimated, arguing that when Reagan turned to count jelly beans in meetings, he was signaling that the staffers "were getting overly heated or technical."
"These were not just results Reagan predicted," writes D'Souza. "He intended the outcome. He advocated policies that were aimed at producing it. He was denounced for those policies. Yet in the end, his objective was achieved."
If Reagan was such a fool, what does that make the wise men?"
In this light, Reagan becomes an intriguing figure in American history. Was Ronald Reagan a simple man, supported by a highly skilled staff? Or did he mask a cunning and intelligence behind the facade of an ordinary man? Did he possess a political skill that journalists, academics and his even own staff failed to recognize? Has Reagan's reputation profited from events he did not orchestrate, or is he responsible for much of the political stability and economic prosperity we enjoy today?
Dinesh D'Souza will now answer your questions.
Kirkland Wheeler of Glenside, Pennsylvania asks:
How do you feel Mr. Reagan's Alzheimer's impacted his ability to perform his duty towards the end of his presidency?
Dinesh D'Souza responds:
There is no evidence that Reagan had Alzheimer's Disease during his presidency. When he made his public announcement about the diseases in 1994, many of his critics exchanged meaningful glances, as if to say, "We knew he had it all along." And there are times toward the end of Reagan's presidency when he seemed forgetful. But these were probably due to the natural effects of the aging process. Remember that Reagan was 55 years old when he first ran for political office and 69 when he was elected president in 1980. Moreover, few people have more regular medical examinations than presidents and the various doctors who checked Reagan out thoroughly found no evidence of Alzheimer's Disease during his presidential tenure.
Back to the top....
Joseph A. McDonald of Burlington, VT asks:
An intelligent, capable president will be a failure if those running the different departments of government are not effective. For the most part, Ronald Reagan was smart enough to surrounded himself with good people. Which people in the Reagan Administration do you feel had the most positive impact on the country?
Dinesh D'Souza responds:
Reagan did have a leader's capacity to attract capable people and to motivate them to produce impressive results. In foreign affairs George Shultz was very capable and so was Caspar Weinberger, even though the two men clashed frequently. Chief of staff James Baker served Reagan very well during the first term. Don Regan was an outstanding Treasury Secretary although less effective as chief of staff where his authoritarian style alienated many people in the administration and on the hill. All this being said, it is a mistake to attribute much of Reagan's success to his aides. Remember that as president Reagan went through several chiefs of staff, numerous national security advisers, and there was constant turnover in the cabinet. Aides came and went, but Reagan kept a consistent course. Speechwriters came and went, but Reagan's message continued to bear his unmistakable imprint. Also his aides were perennially fighting with each other. David Stockman wanted to cut defense spending to balance the budget, Weinberger was opposed. Shultz wanted a negotiated settlement between the contras and the Sandinistas, Jeane Kirkpatrick was opposed. In every case it was Reagan who made the final decision. Indeed Max Kampelman, a top U.S. arms control negotiator, said that on Reagan's program for eliminating nuclear weapons altogether not one of his advisers in the U.S. government agreed with him.
Back to the top....
Dr. Richard T. Demers of Simi Valley, CA asks:
In "Lincoln at Gettysburg" Garry Wills argues that Lincoln was highly sophisticated and provides persuasive evidence by analyzing Lincoln's writings such as the Gettysburg Address. Are there any personal writings of Reagan which are revealing of his intellect?
Dinesh D'Souza responds:
Reagan's sparkling intellect is most evident in his spontaneous humor. Example: when Reagan was governor of California, antiwar activists surrounded his limousine and held up signs saying "We are the future." Reagan took one look, then scribbled his response on a piece of paper and held it up to the car window. It said, "I'll sell my bonds." I give many examples of such unscripted wit in my book. Collectively, they illustrate that Reagan was no dummy. But he wasn't a self-conscious intellectual. Peggy Noonan, his star speechwriter, who loves Reagan, once said that he is proof that "the unexamined life is worth living." His two autobiographies tell you little about the man. The latter, called "An American Life," reads like a book report on the Reagan presidency written by a ghostwriter (which it was). Reagan presidential diaries are similarly disappointing. A typical entry reads something like this, "Meeting Gorbachev at 4 pm tomorrow. Can't give away the store on SDI." And that 's it! None of the introspection that historians want to see. So if you want to discover Reagan's public mind, read his famous speeches: the Goldwater speech of 1964, the "evil empire" speech, etc. If you want to learn about the private Reagan, you get some fascinating glimpses in his former secretary Helene Von Damm's book "Sincerely, Ronald Reagan." That book is a collection of private letters that Reagan wrote over the years.
Back to the top....
Ed Gray of Grand Prairie, TX asks:
How did Reagan contribute to racial reconciliation in the U.S.A.?
Dinesh D'Souza responds:
He didn't. By necessity Reagan had to focus on the two greatest challenges facing the country: the Soviet threat and the economic crisis. In these two areas he left a permanent impact. But public policy languished on issues like affirmative action. Attorney General Ed Meese wanted a color-blind public policy, Labor Secretary Brock wanted to preserve preferential policies. Reagan refused to take sides, and the result was a continuation of the status quo. But Reagan did change the face of the judiciary that has, in the 1990s, restricted the scope of affirmative action. This, in my view, has angered many blacks in the short term but in the long term it will contribute to racial reconciliation, because the only basis for a multiracial society to endure is for citizens to be treated equally under the law. We simply cannot have a long-term policy based upon a calculation of whose ancestors did what to whom.
Back to the top....
Liping Du of Denver, CO asks:
Absurdity of the "Reagan-defeated-Communism" myth aside, how would you explain away billions upon billions of dollars of debt accumulated during his administration? Worse still, what about the huge stockpile of nuclear and conventional weapons?
Dinesh D'Souza responds:
Reagan borrowed $1.5 trillion during the 1980s, tripling the national debt. The reason for this debt is that Reagan cut taxes steeply and hiked defense spending substantially without making proportionately large reductions in domestic spending. Part of the reason for Reagan's failure to cut domestic spending was that a Democratically controlled House of Representatives, led by Speaker Tip O'Neill, would never agree to cut food stamps and Medicare and use the money to build MX missiles.
The Reagan tax cuts were critical in producing an economic turnaround after the double-digit inflation and economic stagnation of the Carter era. The economy turned around in 1983 and hasn't really looked back. Indeed we have witnessed a l5-year Reagan boom interrupted only by the mild Bush recession of 1991. During the 1980s the pundits predicted that the deficit would reignite inflation, drive up interest rates and wreck the economy. None of this happened. And the continuing boom has proved to be a bonanza for the treasury in the 1990s, so that the deficit now is around $20 billion, and we'll probably have a balanced budget next year.
The Reagan debt of the 1980s roughly represents the amount that he invested in the Cold War. I am not going to make the case here that his defense buildup was critical to reversing the successful Soviet strategy of compensating for domestic weakness through military and political gains abroad. Suffice to say that Reagan repeatedly predicted the collapse of Soviet communism, he implemented policies aimed at bringing it about, and then it happened. So what's it worth to win a cold war. Yes, our children and grandchildren inherit the debt, which will have to be paid back, but they also inherit a world in which the threat of nuclear weapons is much reduced. Moreover, we are now spending $100 billion less in real terms on defense than we did before the Berlin Wall fell. These defense savings are likely to continue indefinitely into the future. So defense savings, combined with economic growth, are responsible for virtually eliminating the deficit. And ironically the man who was blamed for the big deficits of the 1980s is primarily responsible for the balanced budget of today.
Back to the top....
Additional Comments
Sophie Britten of Three Rivers, CA writes:
You have hit the nail on the head! That is exactly how President Reagan obtained his goals. He had a way of appearing to be less of a person that he was. I'm so glad that finally someone has the courage to tell it like it was! Good luck and I can't wait to read your book.
Michael A. Davis, LCDR, MSC, USN of San Diego, CA writes:
President Reagan remains the only President I have admired in my lifetime. My only disappointment is his not choosing to take his fight on "which branch of government controls foreign policy" to the Supreme Court. Why did he not back Ollie North? Why did he not say, "Foreign Policy is the job of the Executive Branch and when the legislative branch attempts to construct road blocks I am forced to circumvent those roadblocks to execute and effective foreign policy."
Other than this one glaring exception I believe he ran a nearly perfect presidency.
Thank you for bringing President Reagan's legacy back to life. I hope we have someone in the party with the skills necessary to reinspire this nation again. Perhaps Steve Forbes will be that man... especially since Jack Kemp failed so miserably to promote the Republican agenda in the last presidential campaign.
Ted Kretschmer writes:
I believe Reagan was an opportunist. First he was active in Hollywood labor movements, then, when it was politically expedient he fired the air traffic controllers. What does that say about his commitment to his original cause of labor rights? What a turncoat....what a weathercock.
He somehow got the message that the mood of the country was turning right. He took on the "role" then of spearheading this already moving movement. Anyone at that point could have articulated the position of the Right. The only thing he added was his own optimism and confidence; which wasn't hard to generate, based on the political climate.
The Berlin wall was going to fall anyway. There was (is) a spiritual/moral shift occurring in the world and it was destined to come down. Reagan benefited from this world event....he did not cause it.
In both instances, he benefited from what was already in play in the world, what was already brewing. He was in the right place at the right time...
Timothy O'Hara of Hammonton, NJ writes:
Dinesh D'Souza probably has Reagan right (pun intended).
Reagan did a couple of things really well: 1. He inspired confidence in America and Americans. 2. He took a simple agenda and pounded away at it. 3. He did not get bogged down in taking a popular position on every issue and thereby appearing without a center. 4. He infuriated his critics. That was good since they said he would nuke the U.S.S.R. and didn't, etc. 5. He slept through meetings! That's good! They are the most unproductive part of anyone's day! He has defined the agenda long past his presidency's end. Look at the current administration. They're still bashing him out of one side of their mouth, but, they are also spewing his agenda (i.e., small government, tax cuts, a stable business climate and so on) with a lot less credibility out of the other.
Burt Levine of Los Angeles, CA writes:
I believe that Mr. Reagan was senile while in office and his administration was aimed at creating wealth for a select few at the expense of the rest of the nation. Communism collapsed under its own weight right under the nose of Reagan, Bush, and the CIA, without any of them noticing the event until it was over. The mentally ill were sent into the streets, education went down the drain, the inner cities boiled, and still the fools wanted Reagan for a third term. How can anyone justify the mess this man and his henchmen created? It wasn't that hard to see what was going on, especially if you looked right at it.
Max Gordon of Overland Park, Kansas writes:
You have got to be kidding! How could any thinking person actually believe that Ronald Reagan was highly intelligent. While it may be true that he was an influential figure of our recent time, that does not negate the obvious fact that he wad indeed truly simple. Don't bore Ronnie with details. Thus, you suggest he was "sending a message" by counting his jelly beans, that the staff members were being overly "technical". Doesn't the President of the U.S. consider technical and complex issues with members of his staff?
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
