#48, June 11th, 2004

Ronald Reagan – the Movie

It is always astonishing, however frequently it happens, to see the rewriting of history that occurs in the aftermath of the death of a prominent politician. We saw it with President Richard M. Nixon, who in the eulogizing surrounding his death was remembered simply as the man who reopened the door to China, while Christmas bombings and office break-ins slipped into the recesses of the American consciousness.

Now we see something similar with President Ronald Reagan. In one respect, politically speaking, there has been a pleasing occurrence. Normally one might expect the patriotic fervor that accompanies the death of a former president to redound to the credit of a current president, especially in time of war. But it hasn’t worked out that way. If George W. Bush hoped that he might benefit from this patriotic impulse, he was sorely mistaken. Not only was his G-8 meeting pushed off the front-pages (though along with them revelations about torture in Iraq), but the way Reagan has been portrayed can only be seen in stark contrast to Bush's image in the minds of many Americans. As such, there almost always seems to be an implied criticism of the current administration in the praise of Reagan’s deeds.

Two examples will suffice: In today’s New York Times, John Patrick Diggins has an op-ed piece (“How Ronald Reagan Beat the Neo-Cons”) in which he contrasts Reagan and Bush, very much to the advantage of the former. Reagan, he tells us, was constantly having to keep at bay the very same people who are now directing American foreign policy – Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Richard Pipes, Richard Perle, and Paul Wolfowitz; moreover, he forged his policy of engagement with the Soviet Union and made himself into the architect of the new global order in spite of the contributions of these advisors. While he was trying to reassure Gorbachev and promote reform in the USSR and the Eastern bloc, Diggins argues, his advisors and other neo-con intellectuals were advocating a policy of supremacy and confrontation, asserting that the Soviet Union would never change and that it could only be defeated militarily. These people are now wholeheartedly embraced by George W. to the detriment of American international relations and resulting in the current missteps in Iraq. Diggins finishes with some stirring words, which represent an old conservative’s assault on the now vulnerable neo-cons:

“Mr. Reagan gave us an enlightened foreign policy that achieved most of its diplomatic objectives peacefully and succeeded in firmly uniting our allies. Today those who claim to be Mr. Reagan's heirs give us ‘shock and awe’ and a ‘muscular’ foreign policy that has lost its way and undermined valued friendships throughout the world.”

You don't have to buy the first part of this to see that the second part does W considerable harm politically.

The second example was heard over NPR news, also today. Thabo Mbeki, the South African President, had his own generous words to say about Ronald Reagan. Clearly, no-one wants to speak ill of the dead, so this perhaps motivated Mbeki; and the desire to firm up American support for South Africa must also be taken into consideration when interpreting what the President said. However, it was remarkable nonetheless. Mbeki claimed that the ANC had a soft spot for Reagan because he was the first American president to effectively recognize the ANC and not treat it as simply a terrorist organization. Since one of the major indictments against Reagan was that he helped sustain the Apartheid regime, these are significant claims. Again, the intended contrast might be with George Bush, who would not have hesitated to go along with the Nationalists in labeling the ANC a terrorist organization – with the result of an unending struggle.

In both instances, the claims on Reagan’s behalf really don’t match the facts. In history, context is, well not everything, but very important. Diggins’ analysis needs to be placed in context, and then the isolated interventions he describes Reagan making in particular situations (which may indeed have restrained the hawks in his administration) begin to seem less momentous than the overall direction of the policies of his administration – which were indeed very hawkish. This context was the aftermath of Watergate, Vietnam, Jimmy Carter’s problems in Iran, and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan’s resort to a military build up in the United States, and his intensified support for the Anti-Sandinistas and military regimes in Central America, his invasion of Grenada, his support for the Star Wars defense system, his promotion of the arms-for-hostage deal in the Iran-Contra scandal, as well as his funding for the Mujahideen (and beginning connections with the Bin Ladens of the world), made the world a very much more dangerous place. It may perhaps have contributed to the bringing of the Soviet Union to its knees, but it is an open question whether the way that the Soviet Union crumbled has contributed to global peace and security (purchase nuclear weapons, anyone?). Certainly, the part that Afghanistan played in this process, along with the support given to the regime in Iraq in its war against Iran and its conflict with the Kurds, suggests that Reagan’s legacy was not an entirely salutary one. The added illusion that it was through might that all good things were achieved, gave the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld their license to act with such impunity so that it is questionable whether a peaceful situation can ever now be achieved. Indeed, the very prominence that these same hawks have in the current administration is directly linked to the fact that they were given such latitude in the Reagan administration. If Reagan really had objected to anything that they did, he could have removed them; better still, he might have avoided appointing them in the first place.

As for Mbeki’s comment, it is altogether too ironic that Reagan, who along with Margaret Thatcher really did endeavor to make the Southern Africa safe for Apartheid and white supremacy, should get any credit for the change that occurred as a result of things he tried to undermine – the isolation of the apartheid regime through embargoes and boycotts, and the war against the South African sponsored regime in Angola. If Reagan and Thatcher had been successful in their efforts to open up constructive engagement with South Africa (a policy that they denounced with regard to the Soviet Union), it is unlikely that the Nationalists would have been removed from power and that Mandela would have been released from Robben Island, let alone become President of the country.

But, that said, it is at least politically pleasing that the politics of Ronald Reagan have not been used successfully to bolster this current regime. Instead, the division between old and new conservatives has been made all too evident once again, even if the former have fabricated a make-believe, movie-character President to help argue their case!

© Rob Gregg, 2004