I met Ronald Reagan once, during his "wilderness years" between the California governorship and the presidency. As part of some high school speech contest or another, he spoke at a luncheon. He had his trademarked 3x5 cards, and it was, it seemed, yet another political, simplistic, sound-bite sort of speech. I was more impressed by George Takei (who was involved in LA politics at the time) also being there.

Reagan spoke at my college while I was attending there. That was while he was president. His speech was more polished, but no more content-full. I was more impressed by John Anderson coming to visit.

And now he's gone.

I don't know what to make of Reagan, to be honest. He's lionized by the conservative set, and though under his watch the Cold War was finally won, and the GOP finally got the idea of tax cuts as major government policy across, it also marked the end of the Republican Party as a relatively moderate and collegial force, more interested in, yes, defense and finance matters than in decreeing who got to sleep with whom, or why "creation science" ought to be given equal time. As such, I can hardly join in the huzzahs.

Still, he was president. Honor the office, if not the man. I don't see Reagan as the "5th face on Rushmore" sort of colossus that some paint him. Nor was he Satan incarnate. He was, in some ways, George Dubya Bush, only with a lot more charisma. And, whether you think of him as a great man, or a simpleton, whether you shared his beliefs or not, he always came across as truly sincere and positive about them, as someone who really was interested in helping others, and the country.

And maybe that's not a bad epitaph for anyone. Let alone a president.

Filed under :: Politics & Law
Link · Print · Edit · TR/G

I think Reagan was the same sort of president as Bush in the following respect: neither one is or was a policy wonk like Al Gore is reputed to be. Both try/tried to govern on the 'visionary who delegates' model rather than the 'intellectual who is really knowledgable' model. However, I would not say that Reagan was just Bush but with charisma. Bush may have charisma for all I know (a quality I think one can only detect in person), but he's a terrible public speaker. Reagan reportedly had great personal charisma, and he could speak coherently without all the mistakes for which Bush is infamous. The ability to speak well in public is what I think separates Bush from most former presidents and from most other politicians.

In my personal opinion, since the president of the USA is a statesman and a politician, the ability to speak well is a primary job requirement. It really annoys me that Bush got as far as he did in Politics, not primarily because I disagree with him (though I do, on many things), but primarily because I don't think he passes one of the most basic requirements of being a good representative of the people. Reagan, on the other hand, passed that requirement quite handily.

Bush may have charisma for all I know (a quality I think one can only detect in person), but he’s a terrible public speaker.

Good point. And I have heard that Bush is much more charming and coherent in person, or in small, private groups. Which may be enough for the statesman gig, I suppose, but which doesn't do much for the way most people actually encounter him.

Reagan spoke convincingly in public. But any time he left his script he tended to come up with crap that wasn't true, about welfare queens or whatever came into his head. Crap he clearly believed. His handlers went to great lengths to prevent any opportunities for unscripted wandering. He was also literally incapable of believing facts that contradicted what he wanted to believe, like power plant pollutants from the US causing acid rain in Canada.

Very much like GWB telling the world that the "America I know" didn't go around violating the Geneva convention and so on, despite the way his own policies have contributed heavily towards that actuality.

Neither was or is a detail man, but the devil is in the details.