|
The Legacy of Ronald Reagan
With Lou Cannon
Journalist and author
Thursday, Dec. 6, 2001; 1 p.m. EST
Ronald Reagan's path to becoming the U.S.'s 40th president followed an extraordinary trajectory, from his boyhood in Dixon, Ill., to Hollywood, to the California governor's mansion and finally the White House. His movie career made him an icon in American popular culture, and his political career took him from Democratic circles to presiding over the waning Cold War as a conservative.
Lou Cannon has known Reagan for more than 35 years and is considered Reagan's definitive biographer, writing four books about the former president. His latest is "Ronald Reagan: The Presidential Portfolio" (Public Affairs, 2001). Cannon was online to talk about the life, politics and legacy of Ronald Reagan on Thursday, Dec. 6.
Cannon was the Washington Post's White House correspondent throughout the Reagan presidency, and covered politics, wrote a syndicated column and served as Los Angeles bureau chief during his 26-year tenure at the newspaper. He is a contributing editor for California Journal.
The transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
washingtonpost.com:
Good afternoon, Lou, and welcome. From your perspective of knowing President Reagan and writing his biographies, what do you think is the biggest misconception about him? What doesn't the public know?
Lou Cannon: I think the biggest misconception of Reagan is that he didn't work hard. It could be said that he kind of helped foster this popular notion with cracks such as, "I know that nobody ever died of hard work, but why take a chance," which he said one year at the Gridiron. In fact, Reagan was a plugger. As a boy, he worked seven days a week, up to 12 hours a day as a lifeguard and running the store at this park in Dixon, Ill., on the Rock River. And he learned lots of different crafts. As an example, as a radio announcer, he didn't know how to read a commercial, and he practiced it by memorizing the first paragraph, after which it all sounded natural. As an movie actor, he didn't at first know the rudiments of the job, but he became quite adept at it. As a politician, he was by his own description a "novice amateur," but became extremely effective. The point is that he worked hard at everything he did, although it looked to the public as if everything came naturally.
Alexandria, Va.:
Did Ronald Reagan leave a legacy in the area of U.S. Middle East policy?
Lou Cannon: I think that Reagan's large legacy in foreign policy in his dealings with the Soviet Union. In the Middle East, he was bedeviled by the problems that have plagued every U.S. president since World War II, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One of the most interesting and tragic episodes in the Reagan presidency was in Lebanon, in October 1983, when 241 U.S. servicemen, mostly Marines, were killed when a suicide bomber drove his truck into a barracks. This can in one sense be seen as the beginning of the present terrorist war. I say that because while there have been acts of terrorism throughout history, this was an episode where the terrorist was willing to give up his own life to kill others, as in the tragedy of Sept. 11 this year.
washingtonpost.com:
The events of Sept. 11 and beyond throw the challenge of dealing with terrorism into specific relief, yet the possible solutions in policy and action are no less murky. How do you think the way the Reagan administration dealt with terrorism in Lebanon affects the way the Bush administration is handling it now?
Lou Cannon: It's interesting to note about Reagan that he discussed terrorism in his radio speeches before he was president, and also referred to it in his Inaugural speech. But I think that except for the attack on the Marine barracks, terrorism was very frustrating for Reagan as for other presidents. If you look at the record, you will see that there were a whole number of incidents besides the Lebanon bombing -- the hijacking of a TWA airliner, the Achille Lauro incident, the killing of off-duty U.S. servicemen in El Salvador and the blowing up of a West Berlin disco -- that caused Reagan and his team a lot of concern.
The problem was that it was very difficult to deal with these incidents without causing a lot of civilian casualties. Reagan always asked if a retaliation could be accomplished without civilian loss of life, and his advisers usually told him no. The only time that Reagan authorized a retaliation that endangered civilians was in Libya in 1986, in response to intelligence information that the Libyan government had been responsible for the West Berlin disco explosion. But this bombing was not particularly successful, although there are some who believe that it may have restrained Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi from committing further acts of terrorism.
Bowie, Md.:
Re: 1983 "Terrorist" attack
I know it was widely described this way at the time, but the bomber killed soldiers in a combat zone.
In our current environment in which we need to come up with a non-relativist definition of terrorism, isn't this incident just the sort we need to admit is NOT terrorism, less the definition become "A Middle Easterner who kills while people."
Lou Cannon: I don't buy that. The Marines were protecting security at the Beirut airport, and were not in any way attacking Lebanese or other people from the region. This was an abject act of terrorism, and one that caused President Reagan great distress. He later said of it, this was "the saddest day of my presidency, the saddest day of my life."
Washington, D.C.:
Here's a paradox about Reagan that I have never understood (or, rather -- I have never understood why it is not brought up more often):
Reagan is always credited for his supposed loyalty to fellow members of the GOP, i.e., "Reagan's 11th Commandment -- speak ill of no other Republican."
Yet, didn't his 1976 nomination fight versus President Ford (which elevated Reagan to frontrunner status in '80) contribute significantly to Ford's defeat that fall?
If Reagan had not won in 1980, would people today look back at Reagan as a rather opportunistic, self-serving politician who hurt his party? And, even though he won in 1980, shouldn't that be at least part of his legacy today? In other words, why don't people view Reagan as a "politician"?
Lou Cannon: If I was looking at Reagan's entire history in politics, and it's a long history, the 1976 campaign is the only time where Reagan went after another Republican during a primary. I think in some respects he can be faulted for that. On the other hand, I don't see how it was possible for Reagan to seek the presidency that year without criticizing the incumbent, and he drew distinctions between himself and Ford on issues rather than engage in personal attacks.
As for the rest of the question, it's simply not clear that Ford would have won the presidency had Reagan not challenged him. On the one hand it diverted Ford. But on the other, it made him a better candidate in the process. Remember that Gerald Ford, a president whom I think will be well thought of in history, had never campaigned for national office before the Reagan challenge. On balance, I think it helped Ford at least as much as it hurt him.
Washington, D.C.:
Don't lie, Cannon. Nancy was running the country from 1985 on.
Lou Cannon: The questioner has come up with an exclusive report that will remain forever exclusive, because it's not true.
Arlington, Va.:
Edmund Morris, in "Dutch," speaks highly of you and your work. Do you feel the same way about Morris' biography of Reagan?
For the record: I thought it was marvelous, and I'm a big Reagan admirer. I feel bad that the book was shunned by so many. It's beautifully written and informative.
Which of your books on Reagan would be the best complement to someone who's read only "Dutch"?
Lou Cannon: I have critical and complicated views of "Dutch," although I am an admirer of Mr. Morris's two biographies of Theodore Roosevelt. I expressed my feelings in a very long, perhaps overly long, review of "Dutch" in the Los Angeles Times, and don't want to reprise it here.
I think that the best book on Reagan is "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime," especially the version that was updated in 2000 and is now available in paperback.
Alexandria, Va.:
Was Iran-Contra ultimately irrelevant to Ronald Reagan's legacy?
The only importance that I attach to it is that the affair made it appear that Ronald Reagan was slowing down mentally, which unfortunately may have been the case.
Lou Cannon: Not quite irrelevant, but less important than it seemed to many of us, including me, at the time. One needs to divide the "Iran" and the "Contra." The independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, concluded after an investigation that lasted into the Clinton years, that there was no credible evidence that President Reagan knew of the diversion of funds from the Iran arms sales to the Nicaraguan rebels known as the Contras. But there's no question that Reagan himself authorized the arms sales, and did so against the recommendations of his secretaries of state and defense. It was a mistake, as he acknowledged in a speech to the American people. I think if he had not acknowledged the mistake, the Iran arms deal could have sunk his presidency. But as it turned out, Americans forgave him, because his motive was to use the arms deliveries as a method of securing the release of Americans held hostage in Lebanon.
I think Americans will generally forgive their president, as they did John F. Kennedy after the Cuban invasion, if the president comes clean and is well motivated. In this sense, Iran-Contra was the opposite of Watergate.
Somerville, N.J.:
I always thought that part of being a great president is being in the right place at the right time, and the other part is recognizing you are in the right place at the right time. Did Reagan have that sense, when he took office in 1981, that the USSR and Communism was on its last legs and that the best opportunity to defeat Russia in the cold war was now and if he didn't pursue it, the U.S. might not get a better chance?
Lou Cannon: Presidential candidate Reagan came to The Washington Post in June 1980 to be interviewed by editors and reporters. During the course of the interview, he was asked if his proposals for vastly enlarging the defense budget would not intensify the arms race. To the surprise of some of those there, Reagan agreed that the defense buildup would intensify the arms race, but said the Soviet Union would not be able to compete because it was an economic basket case, and would come to the bargaining table and negotiate arms reductions. This proved to be the case. At the time, Reagan was far ahead of the conventional wisdom of either liberals or conservatives about conditions in the Soviet Union. Having said that, however, I don't think that Reagan would have been able to carry out his objective had Mikhail Gorbachev not come along when he did.
Condoleeza Rice once said that liberals don't give Reagan enough credit, and conservatives don't give Gorbachev enough credit. I agree with that.
Hartford, Conn.:
During the brutal recession of the early 80's, how close did Reagan come to not running for re-election?
Lou Cannon: Very close, in my view. I made the mistake in my second book, called "Reagan" and published in 1981, of saying that I didn't think he would run again, because I knew that at the time Nancy Reagan and others close to the president were worried that he would be defeated. What I learned from that episode was never to make predictions in a book.
Salisbury, Md.:
How in touch with his Irish roots was Ronald Reagan? He often played them up for show or political gain, but he always seemed to me to be, at heart, another WASP transplant from the Midwest to Southern California.
Lou Cannon: His father was Irish, and his mother wasn't. It's certainly true that he took after his mother more than he did his dad, but I always thought that Reagan had a certain Irish charm. Another who thought so was a great Irish-American, Tip O'Neill, whose ethnic credentials were never in doubt.
Washington, DC:
Did Reagan and George H.W. Bush have any kind of history working with each other prior to 1980? When Bush was head of the RNC, for instance?
If so, were they adversaries or allies? Clearly, Bush did not belong to the conservative wing of the GOP at that time.
In that vein, did Bush push for any moderation of Reagan's views when he accepted the position as running mate in summer of 1980? Or, did Bush simply change his own views (re: "voodoo economics," abortion)?
Lou Cannon: I give long accounts of how Bush came to be chosen in my various books. Let me just say here that Ronald Reagan was a committed politician, which meant, among other things, that he wanted to win. It was the considered opinion of his best political advisers that Bush brought more to the ticket than anyone else. And remember too that there were a whole bunch of candidates who sought the GOP nominations in 1980, and that Bush was the only one who battled Reagan nearly to the end. I think that Bush, his crack about "voodoo economics" aside, was really quite conservative, and that he fit very well with the Reagan approach.
Washington, D.C.:
Many of our presidents have had a scheming, Machiavellian side: FDR, JFK, LBJ, Nixon. Reagan didn't seem to be like this; he seemed to be pretty open about what he wanted and didn't seem to be out to destroy anyone. Is this true? Or am I just being naive?
Lou Cannon: All politicians, Reagan included, have their Machiavellian moments. But I don't think you're being naive. Ronald Reagan's great asset was that he was above board in the way he dealt with people he knew and the country at large. I think, to paraphrase something that Reagan once said, that Americans liked him because he liked them.
Disembodied:
Lou,
I haven't had the opportunity to read your latest book, so I do not know if my question is addressed there. Nevertheless....
Have you noticed with the passage of time an enlarging gap between the Reagan Mythology and Reagan History? It seems to me that those who haved "canonized" Reagan ascribe to his approach of selectively remembering facts so as not to interfere with the big picture.
Lou Cannon: We all have short memories. The anti-Reagan crowd wants to blame Reagan for everything bad that happened on his watch, and give him no credit at all for his dealings with the Soviet Union and the INF treaty. The Reagan cheerleaders sometimes forget the deficit.
Laurel, Md.:
As a longtime Reagan admirer, I am curious as to what Ronald Reagan himself believes is his legacy. What are some of the things he is most proud of and hopes he will be remembered for?
Washington, D.C.: What do you believe will be the most lasting legacy of the Reagan presidency? Also, how do you think Reagan will compare to other late 20th century presidents by future historians?
Lou Cannon: Ronald Reagan often said that his greatest achievement was getting Americans to believe in themselves and their country again. He has a point. If you look at the levels of public confidence, as measured by all sorts of polls, and the high interest rates and inflation when he took office, it's clear that restoration of confidence was a necessary goal, and one that Reagan would help largely accomplish.
But I think that he will be most remembered for his success with Gorbachev in midwifing the end of the Cold War. It's easy to say, as some do, that this was inevitable, given the economic conditions in the Soviet Union. What was not inevitable, however, was that the Cold War would end peaceably. There were several occasions during the Cold War years where a nuclear exchange was almost started by miscalculation, and both Reagan and Gorbachev believed that such an event had a high probability of occurring. So the fact that Reagan and Gorbachev embarked us on the path of where we are today, talking about cutting the nuclear arsenals of Russia and the United States, is a huge achievement.
On the question of where Reagan will rank, it's important to note that he has already improved notably in the rankings of academic historians, who generally had a low opinion of him when he left office. We've gone through that process with many other presidents, including Truman and Eisenhower. As for me, I think I'd take my stand with James MacGregor Burns, who said that Reagan will probably be remembered as a great or near-great president.
New York, N.Y.:
It surprises me that a lot of people dismiss Reagan as an old dim-witted actor, not all that bright, who was led around by his Cabinet. Yet, to me, Reagan demonstrated having very strong ideology, with a firm purpose and he knew why he wanted to be president -- something I hadn't really seen in any presidential candidate since, from either party (pre-Sept. 11 of course). Do you see too many trashing Reagan in the ideological arena while giving too much credit to candidates who don't deserve it?
Lou Cannon: I wish I could say that the most important element of this new book of mine is the biographical essay I've written on Reagan. In fact, I think what's most revealing are the copies we've reproduced of Reagan's speeches, showing his hand-written edits. These edits completely explode the myth of Reagan as amiable dunce -- or for that matter, any kind of dunce.
Washington, D.C.:
So what would Reagan think of the controversy surrounding National Airport (congress forcing local jurisdictions to put his name on all subway signs)?
Lou Cannon: I think Reagan would be appalled by the efforts of those who call themselves conservatives to require the government to spend millions of dollars to honor him. Reagan's place in history is secure enough. He needs to be protected from his friends.
Bethesda, Md.:
In your research, when did Reagan first begin to show Alzhemers? Some revisionist historians have made the statement that it was way after his term was over. However I can remember and watching footage that seem to suggest that the effects were starting to take place during his second term.
Lou Cannon: A lot of my answers to these various questions are matters of opinion. But I know for a fact that Ronald Reagan still had his wits about him well after he left the White House, because I interviewed him during this period for my book, "President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime." I think the problem arises from those who equate any slowing down with Alzheimer's Disease. Reagan was nearly 78 years old when he left office, and he wasn't, of course, as swift as he was when he was 38. None of us are. But I think it does a real disservice, not only to the Reagan presidency but to the understanding of this terrible mind-destroying disease, to depict him as having Alzheimer's when he was in the White House. I think the evidence is solidly against that.
washingtonpost.com:
That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
Stay tuned to Live Online:
Live Online Special Coverage: America
At War
Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at
the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and
forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live
Online transcripts.
Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with
washingtonpost.com
e-mail newsletters.
NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com.
Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
