Msgr. Albacete on Reagan, America, and Politics

TEMPI Column Lorenzo Albacete June 7, 2004

The media's reaction to the death of President Ronald Reagan has been extraordinary. Combined with the celebration of the 60th. Anniversary of the Allied invasion of Europe during World War II, it has been three days of patriotism reminiscent of the reaction to September 11, 2001 and the early days of the Iraq War. The military has enjoyed a welcome rest from the embarrassment following the recent revelation of the abuse of prisoners in Iraq. This patriotic revival will no doubt continue throughout next week with the extensive coverage to be given to Reagan's state funeral.
Those not old enough to remember will find it difficult to imagine how negative the media's treatment of Reagan's presidency could be during his eight years in office. Reagan's presidency marked the beginning of the political expression of the "culture war" in the United States, as the Republican and Democratic Parties became respectively identified with the "conservative" and "liberal" sides. Since then, the Republican side has certainly defined politics in this country, and the Democrats have been on the defensive since then. The eight-year regime of President Clinton did not succeed in re-establishment of a Democratic political hegemony, since Clinton very much stole most of his innovative ideas from Republican thinkers, as President Bush II (to the dismay of traditional Republicans) is seeking to do during his Administration.

But it is not simply a matter of ideas. The key to a successful political movement in the country lies in the President's ability to "connect" with the majority of the American people. It is a matter of style, and politicians that have it are the most successful. In the "modern" (TV-dominated) period, Presidents Kennedy, Clinton, and Reagan have been the masters of this style. Notice how Clinton was able to win another term in office even after the Republican Party succeeded in taking control of Congress. After the sexual scandals, President Clinton's popularity was in danger precisely because they threatened his ability to project his winning style. In any case, he did manage to survive impeachment, whereas Nixon, for example, whose leadership style was so unsuccessful, did not. Clinton's would-be successor, Vice-President Gore, simply did not have the winning style. (This is presently the biggest problem confronting Senator John Kerry, who has yet to show that he can master the method as President Bush, following Reagan's lead (and most certainly not his father's) is trying to do.)

But is there any substance behind the images of the Presidents who have this winning, TV-friendly style? It is difficult to know. That is why they are so good at it. It seems, however, that if there is any one of them for whom the winning style did not compromise substance, it was indeed Ronald Reagan. Somehow the country understands this. The graceful way he lived his decline into the darkness of Alzheimer's disease confirmed it for many, and convinced many doubters. His style may have been enhanced by his acting talent, but it was rooted in the substance of a man with a simple, contagious, typically American faith, animating a hope that was much stronger than the cynical utopianism of the Communist ideology that, he always knew, could not stand up to it.

Comments

[Cosmo Dank]

When you say "Clinton survived impeachment...Nixon did not" you of course mean that Nixon would likely have been impeached had he not resigned in shame.

It is ironic that Reagan (with the help of the new "Moral Majority") was able to gain the moral high ground for a party whose most highly placed members had been implicated in multiple felonies. Brilliant, really.

Unfortunately, Reagan introduced every-man-for-himself economics, relieving us of the need to care for our brother. Witness the rise of homelessness that started in the mid eighties on Reagan's watch. Despite his many achievments, I have always felt Reagan was alarmingly detached from economic reality and its impact on the poor.

[Nathan]

I was too young to know much about President Reagan, other than the fact that my mother and grandmother didn't think very much of him. But in the past few days, the press has been revealing a man who isn't the horrible guy I've heard so much about. Shocking, really.