Voice of Reason: Cool eye of history should judge Reagan
In the week since his death, the late Ronald Reagan has been the subject of near non-stop TV coverage, as one would expect with so popular a president. And while such coverage has mentioned his shortcomings, it has by and far been full of praise.
But while we’re busy paying tribute to our fallen leader and using adjectives like “great,” I can’t help but wonder what history will have say about The Great Communicator.
For better or for worse, history’s verdict is often shaped not by the feelings and values of the man and his time, but by the values of the time in which that history is written, noted R.W. Apple, Jr. in Friday’s New York Times.
Without doubt, Reagan left office a popular president, probably the most popular of them all in recent memory, but popularity does not make a president great.
Warren G. Harding, for example, was hailed as one of the best and best-loved presidents when he died in office in 1923. Today, his presidency is regarded as failure. Harry S. Truman, on the other hand, had an approval rating of only 23 percent when he left office in 1953. Historians today, though, regard him as one of the “near great” presidents, ranking just behind such greats as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
Reagan certainly had his triumphs, but those, I think, were more a reflection of his personality than his policies. His greatest asset, without a doubt, was his eternal optimism, which convinced Americans, who for over a decade had endured such events as Vietnam, Watergate, a recession, the energy crisis and the Iranian hostage crisis, that it could and would remain “Morning in America.” He gave the country just what it needed, spirit-wise, when we needed it.
He was also genial and witty, even after being shot, and he had a great ability to identify with the average American and to speak to him on a personal level. He was, in short, a great politician.
Like Kennedy, whose presidency was also, some argue, short on policy and long on charisma, Reagan embodies the best of America, and all we can be. As such, he will be loved and revered by those of his time. But will history be so kind?
Those who study presidential history know that presidents often get the credit and blame for things that happen on their watches. Just as Bill Clinton probably didn’t have that much to do with the economic prosperity of the ’90s, Reagan probably didn’t have much to do with defeating communism
Though he saw the Cold War to its conclusion, his contribution to the fight was minor. Yes, he made defense spending a priority and forced the Soviets to try and keep up, but that was about it. The rest of his contribution was mainly rhetoric (” Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” calling the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire,” etc.).
In truth, communism fell after 45 years of aggressive containment by the West.
(In fact, if we want to credit any one person for winning the Cold War, my vote would go to George Marshall, whose Marshall Plan rebuilt Western Europe in American’s image and thus showed the world the stark differences between our respective forms of government.)
It will be interesting to see how history treats this episode and what exactly historians will remember. What will stick out the most? Will it be Reagan’s eternal optimism or will it be the exploding deficits for which he was responsible? Will it be his government-is-the-enemy mantra or will it be his liberal military spending? Will it be economic recovery or will it be rising poverty during his terms.
To quote Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., we’ll just have to wait for the “cool eye of history” to determine Reagan’s verdict. They jury’s still out.
(Will Stewart is a reporter for the Standard. He can be reached at 473-2191 or by e-mail at education@southernstandard.com.)