When did Reagan the Myth begin?

[salin]

Reagan was not beloved as he left the White House. The Iran Contra dealt a blow. The steepest Market crash since, I belive, 1929 happened during his watch. His annointed successor almost lost - and only served a single term.

On the Hill, even among republicans, there was a sense that he had been losing it more and more and might be beginning to lower our international stature... whole swaths of the city (DC) held its breath to see if he could make it through Reijkivik (sp?) without creating an international incident (story is that he never bothered to read his briefing books prior to negotiations). Point is - there was definte patina (that green that forms on copper) by the time he left office.

Somewhere in time however... there was a strategic effort to revive his former popularity and launch a "myth" of the man. I am guessing it was somewhere during Poppy's administration (until the Gulf war - he was a mediocre and not terribly popular president... the carry over from Iran Contra and BCCI - and the implosions of the S&L crisis)... in an attempt to try to earn a second term by tying Poppy to the Mythic Legacy. Of course Poppy veered to far - and something had to account for his loss... why... it was that he didn't true enough follow the Reagan Mythological Legacy.

So when did this hero/myth emerge - because it wasn't in place when he left office.

Funny, but I think that those who manufactured the myth... will find themselves severely harmed by it. Their "heir apparent" can't match the myth... the myth is portrayed as affable and a glib speaker... junior can barely string five words together before oddly pausing and odds are he botches up one of the five words. The "heir apparent" single handedly (as the myth goes) won the cold war. Junior failed in the first war (where is Osama?) and oversaw the manufacture and lying to go to another (Failed) war. The mental comparisons - if they push the myth and heroization for too long in the media - makes junior look like a clumsy, bratty toddler.

Worse as they push the "legacy" of the polcies... these folks were so aggressive, and righteous in pushing their ideology - that the rust is appearing... more and more it looks like flawed policies coming from craven people... if the neocons keep going as they are... more and more rust will appear on the mythic policies of deregulation at all cost... deficit spending to fund big weapons programs (but not the servicemen/women or veterans).. and to fund concentrating wealth upward. There is the possibility that in trying to tie the manufactured reagan myth to this administration that the myth will again to show the tarnish that Reagan himself showed at the end of his adminsitration. The cowboys in the whitehouse and the bankers and oilmen that fundthem - may just be creating the nails in the coffin on not only their boy in dc, but on their whole craven movement.

[Wapsie B]

1. Great post!

First thing I see on DU as I log on is a voice of sanity in all this Reagan madness. They're making him out to be this cartoon character of sorts, a superman for the upper class.

[agates]

2. I saw the myth gain wings during the Clinton years

The right, unable to deal with Clinton's popularity and success, constantly trotted out their fond memories of Reagan.

[salin]

10. Definitely... and ironically

especially as it was used to almost make Reagan look "clean" in a family values sort of way while Brock (love him now) and the Arkansas Project tried to throw all sorts of manufactured sleeze. Ironic when one considers the number of sleezy cabinet members and high officials (most convictions, ever? I believe?)... when one realizes he got married due to premarital sex *gasp* and divorced a wife due to an affair and basically ignored the existance of the kids from the first marraige for years... Not a mountain of moral virtues... but arrogant and full of gall... they pushed it as a myth - to create the image of a compare and contrast (didn't work to well in 1996, now did it.)

[phantom power]

3. he was being called "great communicator" by his 2nd term

I remember my social studies teacher in high school calling him the Great Communicator, and that would have been during his 2nd term.

[salin]

15. There was most certainly an allure that built after his

surprising landslide... and through the reelection. But even by 1986 there was Reagan fatigue which enabled the democrats to retake over the Senate. That was before the market crash in 1987 and the full hearings on Iran Contra.

The roots of the allure were there ... but faded... the myth building did, though, build off of that initial image.

[theboss]

4. Actually, Reagan was popular when he left office

He had the highest final approval rating of any President since FDR and his Vice President had just one election in a landslide, mostly my promising more of the same except with grandkids this time.

[bryant69]

9. True

Of course many Liberals weren't fond of Reagan at all; but many still felt a great deal of affection.

Frankly Reagan and his buddies started building his myth on the campaign trail.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[salin]

17. I didn't think that the Bush win was a landslide

Reagan's two wins, most certainly. But bush? He was also running behind Dukakis as late as September.

[theboss]

21. Look at the numbers

1988

Bush 48,886,097 Votes 426 Electoral Votes 53.4% Percent

Versus

Dukakis 41,809,074 Votes 111 Electoral Votes 45.6% Percent

Dukakis won 11 states. He did slightly better than Carter and Reagan, but it was still a trouncing by any measure. Especially considering that until that time, only one sitting VP had ever won an election.

[salin]

24. fair enough

I stand corrected - and have to admit that probably my awareness of elections came with the first two Reagan wins which the second one was... all but DC and Minnesota, if I recall. Not good to let my memories selection shape/recharacterize the election. Thanks.

However, around the Hill and in DC there was a marked change in perception per Reagan from 1984 - to 1988. Still liked by many (but not as blindly and not as many as earlier) and more resoundly criticized by even the middle. It was more, however, a reflection of a rejection of some of the overzealous economic policies (and the Iran/contra debacle) than towards the personality of the man.

[theboss]

5. And how did Bush "almost lose" in '88

It was 53.5 to 45.5, with a spread of 7 Million votes.

[salin]

18. Relative to the electoral mop-ups

of the previous two races...

Granted with todays comparisons (of gore/bush) it does seem resounding.

[theboss]

22. Dukakis won eleven states

Granted, he did 1000 percent better than Mondale, but it was still 4 to 1.

[theboss]

36. It was resounding by any standard

Close elections are 1960, 1968, 1976, and 2000.

The Reagan blowouts of 1980 and 1984 compared to the 1964 election.

1988 is not as big as the Reagan and Johnson wins, but was still huge.

Think of it in terms of Football. Reagan won by scores of 49-6 and 55-3. Bush won 34-10. It's am improvement, but the subs are still playing most of the second half.

[salin]

38. explained above

I stand corrected... was allowing my "memory perception" per the previous two elections to color the overall take - thanks for the correction (but probably don't need three more browbeatings over the same point... ;-) )

[Az]

6. There is a very specific thing he did that enamored him to the neocons

His economic policies may seem to us to have been a failure. Trickle down supply side economics never delivered what it promised. But it delivered something else far more desired by the neocons than even the promised increased tax revenue. The deficits enabled the largest series of cuts in the federal government in decades. This was a holy grail to the right.

They had been at a deadlock with the left for a very long time and were losing ground. Their hatred of welfare programs and anything that seemed to be beneficial to the poor was enfuriating. The massive deficits created by his economic policies made it manditory to cut programs to the bone. It was like a trip to the candy store for the neocons. It was victory for them.

[salin]

19. So could the reemergence of the myth making

not been due (as I assumed) to try to assist bush and thus repub control... but instead as a warning to bush as he moved towards (and then did) raising taxes to counter the growing reagan created deficits?

[agates]

44. Reagan's trickle down economics and personal convictions

Changed the GOP from the party of small government/personal responsibility to the party of "I got mine, fuck you."

All this talk of Reagan restoring pride in America is a joke. What he gave America was not pride, but rather greed, insensitivity, and even hatred of the less fortunate.

[salin]

46. if only we could figure out

how to help people strip off the mask of the myth... you are very correct about what is really behind the curtain... and what it says about us as a people that this is so attractive.

[agates]

48. I don't think it is possible

I can't find a way, even with people that I know well, to help them see the truth about Reagan and the meanspiritedness of the right. The public has fallen victim to the right, those masters of catchphrases, buzzwords, and images--all things that solidify the message in the minds of people who aren't really paying attention. It isn't politics, it is marketing. Reagan is the product of the day.

[Az]

52. Dethroning the myth

You have to understand the nature of the changing society in order to grasp why the myth has such a hold on the people. Progressive ideas are built upon the notion that we do not start from a fixed source for our understanding of right and wrong. We have to examine our society and dismantle those beliefs which propel us in a negative direction. This self examination has dismantled pride and a sense of superiority in our society.

While adhering to a liberal sense of humility may seem to be the proper path no one said it was the easy path. Think of all the reassurance that concepts like moral authority and manifest destiny bring with it. Who wouldn't want to be on the side that GOD sides with. Who wouldn't want to believe that there is an absolute right and wrong and that you just happen to be on the right side. Its a very compelling feeling.

The left offers doubt and uncertainty. In fact sometimes our attempts to right wrongs result in economic discomfort. It is not the easy path. But it is the best path for all.

Unfortunately anothers misery does not always rate highly to those that have little misery of their own. This is particularly true when a belief system suggesting that those who are miserable are that way because of their distance from god. There is an undercurrent within the right that believes that bad things happen to peopel because they deserve it. This can be seen in the attitudes towards abortion. The woman screwed up and got pregnant and now she has to pay the price. Creating a human being is not a punishment. Yet this is how they see it.

Unfortunately what Reagan and the Neocons road to power was the increasing frustration of the radical religious fundimentalist movement. What we now call the Religious Right was not always in line with the economic conservatives. It was the increased pressure of science and society that caused them to distance themself from the progressive arm of society. Their views could not survive the changing nature of social values and the encroachent of science on their beliefs. So they sought to bring down the institutions that supported these structures. They targeted the federal government.

Thus we now have a situation where the Religious Right can no longer tolerate a free and open society that explores and expands its understanding of morality. It requires a society that fixes its moral compass by means of the bible and nothing less will do. They have cast off the adherence to the social contract and are set upon dismantling the advances our society has managed over the years. This is war. Nothing less. An open society and dogmatic authoratative religions are not compatible unless the religion agrees to coexist within the society. That time is over.

Reagan's legacy is complete social upheaval. The dismantling of the Social Contract. A loss of civility and tolerance. He has handed us over to a radical religious element supported by a growing feudal corporate structure. His legacy is an end of progress.

[buddhamama]

7. when the Repubs took control of both Houses

and the economy started to recover under Clinton.

the repubs have tried to claim that it was Reagan's economic policies, market deregulation, etc., that eventually brought about the economic recovery the Nation experienced during Clinton's terms. and by claiming to follow Reagan's lead they (repubs) can also claim the successes as their own too.

[salin]

20. That makes sense

the hated Clinton... needed the myth making to bolster their "rightful place" to claim credit. Seems they still can't get off that particular compulsion (take all credit, and blame even todays' ills on Clinton.)

[buddhamama]

26. claim credit but more importantly use the "myth"

as a means of convincing the public the failed policies actually worked and should be continued. Is it any wonder really that under Clinton The Welfare reform Act was passed.

after the success Reagan vilifying welfare recipients
the repubs were not about to let an opportunity pass.

the same example can be followed throughout Clinton's presidency.

the subtlety in arguments with regards to national health care.

Reagan spent his time in office fighting communism
and now the Clinton administration was trying to introduce
socialist(communist) style health care, etc.,etc.

[salin]

32. Spot on!

For the longest time the whole rushright thing of labeling anything (or anyone) liberal as dericively (in one word) "socialist/communist". Had not heard the use of "communist!" as a derogatory in years... because most folks had a much more sophisticated understanding... but here we are and it happens all the time. I think years of this going on in talk radioland has had an effect. Hadn't put it together with the whole Reagan Legacy til you said it now.

No question about the push on legislative agendas. I believe that Clinton pushed back the welfare reform legislation a couple of times before giving in (and then panderingly taking credit... not one of his highlights, imo.)

[Merlin]

8. It began after GHWB lost, during the incandescence of the neocon putsch

That's when I first remember the talk of Reagan as legend. I guess this also coincided with the Alzheimers announcement, more or less. But I'm sure history will uncover some formative event in the early '90s where the neocon putsch was formed, leading to the "Gingrich revolution" and the rebirth of paleolithic politics.

[salin]

23. Actually, the Gingrich folks (even before he ascended to power)

by 1984 had created a strategy to go after state legislatures for majorities after the 1990 census. I think the effort refered to 1990 in the title. They were moving towards the takeover for a long time... however, coinciding with the Clinton win and his percieved popularity - I could see how that group would coopt and reinvigorate the myth for the push to takeover the house.

[NewJeffCT]

11. I'd guess it started Jan 21, 1989

The day after George HW Bush took office, though it picked up speed as Bush fell in popularity in 1992 and when Clinton ended up winning. Then, the Reich Wing held on to re-shaping history & the myth of Reagan: there has been a systematic effort to re-name every public building possible as the "Ronald Reagan" building.

[salin]

25. and doesn't the irony just crack you up?

lets spend government money naming government buildings on behalf of the man who (out loud but not nec. in reality) eschewed public government spending.

[CWebster]

12. Like the Nazis creating an Aryan mythology

to prop up sagging nationalistic hubris.

[salin]

27. their success:

there is no lack of nationalistic hubris these days...

[madrchsod]

13. 1981

believe me, i knew about the beginning of the myth. i live in his hometown....
actually it started in 1980- he brought the hostages home that started the myth.

[salin]

28. and indeed.. that was a myth

[keithyboy]

14. It began when Clinton won election.

Frankly, after Reagan's last term ended, i could find no one who would actually admit having voted for him, although I know that most of my co-workers were Republicans and conservative. They really hated the man beginning around the first year of his second term. The myth began to take real shape when Clinton beat Bush which to most RW was taken as a defeat of Reaganism. We all know that the USSR was coming apart at its economic seems, and that no matter who had been President during the 80's events would have happened almost the same...maybe even sooner. Reagan was secretly taking a thromping from his own party after the killing of the Marines in Lebanon and he used the invasion of Grenada to pump up a Hollywood image of himself as a tough leader. The intersting thing about Grenada is that the political leader of Grenada had asked the US for economic help two years earlier to build some of their deterioating infrastructure. Reagan said no to the pesky little black country and they then turned for help to Russia via Cuba. The hostage situation involving the students (most of whom say they were in no danger until the US began attacking) gave Ronnie just what he needed. A battle with country that couldn't fight back (seems this is the American way since Viet Nam.) I can't help but believe that Reagan had to live this long in his condition to answer his Karma.

[salin]

29. what was the relative time frame between Lebanon and Grenada

my memory of Grenada is before Lebanon - but I could be wrong. Funny how both efforts have been forgotten. The myth on that part never stuck too long (because it was a blatantly silly thing - and even when folks try... the overtly foolish attempts at heroism rarely last in the psyche... same with the whole Manuel Noriega thing).

[theboss]

16. It began in earnest in 1984

1984 was a turning point year in American history. For the first two years of his presidency, Reagan was quite unpopular. We suffered through a horrible recession, the Soviets were still in Afghanistan, the Cold War was still in full swing, and the country still seemed largely adrift.

But by '84, things had started to change. The economy was doing better, patriotism was in vogue (see the 1984 Summer Olympics for an example), and Reagan decided to preach it with his "Morning in America" campaign.

It was one of the more remarkable political campaigns ever. You had Mondale who promised to do real things to combat real problems (he even promised to raise taxes in the most foolish use of campaign honesty in history). Meanwhile, Reagan said, everything is great, things are getting better, and I have pretty commercials to prove it. And Reagan beat Mondale like Phil Leotardo beat Bennie on "The Sopranos" last night.

[salin]

30. Was just talking about a particular campaign spot (Ailes produced, I

think). It was a long one (10 minutes maybe longer?) All sorts of images of Reagan going to celebrate DDAY in france... images tying him to the veterans of WWII and their glory (my WWI vet, father found the whole thing laughable in content). It was a mastery in positive imagery and effective... while not really saying a gosh darn thing. I do think that this was a turning point. I also think it enabled a bit of revivalism to bring back and strengthen the Myth many years later.

[theboss]

37. You also have to realize that Reagan did nothing in his second term

The only thing significant on the domestic front was the 1986 Changes to the Tax Code (which was more the work of Republicans in the House) and the long dance with Gorbachev was the only real action in foreign policy (aside from bombing Lybia).

So the 1984 campaign was pretty much it for Reagan. It was a celebration of whatever he thought his accomplishments were and a cementing of his image. The fact that his image survived Iran-Contra relatively unscathed is testament to the brilliance of his '84 campaign (on a purely polictical level).

This was also the era when Peggy Noonan was at her peak. This means if you hate her writing (which I do), she was giving her most nauseatingly nostalgic, rarified, fictionalized version of the American "spirit." And Reagan thrived with that kind of material.

[salin]

40. Could be suffering "inside the beltway" vision

(not there now, but was there then)... but Reagan wasn't unscathed by Iran Contra. Took a dip. Wasn't tarnished to an extreme point... but didn't leave with the same blind allegiance from all the masses. It seemed more like he was... easily rehabilitated in memory and the myth easily revised and expanded.

[theboss]

45. Inside the Beltway, he was hurt

But Iran-Contra was always a scandal more for wonks than anyone else. It hurt Reagan's popularity, but it never came close to crippling him the way Watergate did Nixon.

It's kind of sad considering it was much worse than Watergate in terms of the laws broken and lies told.

But to this day I doubt a majority of Americans even what the scandal was or who the Contras were.

[salin]

47. Good characterization

and yes - it was so much more serious. From little (still big): North giving classified information and technology to folks who were outside of the government... to big: the whole operation was outside of the laws passed by Congress (forbiding any kind of $ or military aid to the contras).. and on and on and on.

You are probably, sadly correct. The decision by the committees to pull back and not go the nine-yards allowed the whole thing to never fully penetrate the psyche... and enable the same players to emerge again a mere 12 years later... with a vengence.

Of all of the current bush critique books out there, I find the John Dean book the most compelling. Clear arguments, well documented, framed to grab a gasp and an "I see". Certainly there has got to be such a book - clear, cogent, well detailed, with simple but complex issues raised about the Reagan years. Any suggestions?

[theboss]

49. I'm sure there are many "what happened" books about the Reagan years

I've never really read any since I am generally not as interested in recent history as I am past history.

The best book on the impact of his Economic Policies is "America: What Went Wrong." I read it years ago.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0836270010/qid=1086627630/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-0042280-8455962?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

Like I said in another thread, The Teddy White book on 1980 is good to find out how the Reagan Revolution was able to take hold in the first place.

[salin]

51. Thanks for the recommendations

[Snellius]

31. Semi-officially with the Reagan Legacy Project

Another of Grover Norquist's clever little ideological turds. Here's some stinky stuff:

The Reagan Legacy Project was formed in 1997 as a project of Americans for Tax Reform, a national taxpayer advocacy organization, itself started in 1986 to promote President Reagan's historic Tax Reform Act of that year.

The mission of the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project is to honor the legacy of our 40th president, Ronald Reagan. The Reagan Legacy Project aims to fulfill its mission by naming significant public landmarks after President Reagan in the 50 states and over 3,000 counties of the United States, as well as in formerly communist countries across the world.

On February 6, 1998, the Reagan Legacy Project succeeded in its first mission: to rename Washington’s National Airport to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This event was particularly significant as it occurred on Ronald Reagan’s 87th birthday.

Several months later, the Reagan Legacy Project was instrumental in enacting legislation in Florida to rename the state’s turnpike to the Ronald Reagan Turnpike.

Since those early successes, the Ronald Reagan Legacy Project has been involved in a number of naming projects across the country and overseas.

The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project works with elected officials, including members of Congress, governors, mayors, state legislators and city council members, as well as the general public, in an effort to identify and further the naming of more landmarks in honor of President Reagan.

Ronald Reagan's role in winning the Cold War against the Soviet Union and communism earns him a place in the pantheon of great leaders of the 20th century. He is particularly revered in countries which threw off the shackles of communism because of his resolute stance against Soviet expansion. The Ronald Reagan Legacy Project is working with those countries, particularly those eastern Europe, to establish highly-visible tributes to President Reagan.

http://www.reaganlegacy.org/about/index.htm

[salin]

34. heroic my behind...

was on the hill while that was being debated in the senate committee... the room was filled (with lobbyists) and the hearing was being piped into a large auditorium (filled with lobbyists). Had never seen so much action... these dudes on their phones... chasing down senators and their aides... cornering them... getting their special loophole added... porkiest porkfest ever. For the Norquist folks to claim this as a hallmark legacy, demonstrates how full of bullshit they are and NOT committed to their stated purpose of less govt spending.

[3rdParty]

33. It really took off when the Berlin Wall came down.

[salin]

35. Wonder how Poppy feels about that

and of all the credit going to Reagan for the USSR... and for his son being coached to do all things to look like Reagan (and avoid the mistakes of his father)... and for his son to NOT turn to him but to former reagan neocons for advice... And now he is reduced to criticizing critics and looking like a poor sport father. pathetic legacy. Must, at times, burn his butt.

[Snellius]

42. I know. The "Reagan ended the Cold War" myth is truly stinky.

One almost gets the picture of Ronnie and Gorby duking it out mano e mano. Or at least, fought an actual war. Other than that great expeditionary force sent to Grenada. In fact, they were really on pretty friendly terms. Reagan talked tough but wielded a little stick. And the rational that increased military spending led to bankrupting the Soviet economy led to bread lines led to revolution is one of the most farfetched, Rube Goldberg historical explanations since America went to war in Iraq to set the Iraqis free.

[indigobusiness]

39. When Reagan the Lie was turned inside out.

VICE PRES CHENEY WORKS ON HIS SMILE

==========

http://sludgereport.blogspot.com/

[Armstead]

41. While he was in office

He ran on the Reagan Myth.

I think most presidencies get drained by the end of their terms, and the public wants a change for the sake of change. So Reagan's decline in popularity at the end was normal.

Clinton will probably go through a similar process, because he was a similar larger-than-life president. His presidency was more complicated because of the whole Monica thing. But as more time elapses, his image will mellow and he'll look better. And the Democratic Party will make him an icon.

I'm hoping the comparisons with Reagan will make GW Bush seem smaller and pettier. Bush is like a bad third sequal to a popular movie.

[tjwash]

43. Reagan was a fraud...

...wrapped in a nightly sound-bite. Absolutely nothing came out of his mouth that was not a rehearsed lie, disingenuous political claptrap or blather. The guy signed 7 tax increases, killed thousands of peasants in Central America, inserted and coddled various dictators, traded with terrorists, and presided over the most corrupt presidential administration in history.

He was also a divorced alcoholic, who was accused of rape, and estranged from at least one of his children. The guy could not make a decision without direction from his wife, chief of staff, or ultra-con ideologue pals regarding every aspect of his presidency. Oh, he also joked about about starting a nuclear war on the radio, forgot the names of his cabinet members and:



Mourned dead SS Stormtroopers as 'victims'.


The guy is the reason I am a card carrying liberal-democrat to this day.I spent 8 years watching Reagan's insane lies and deranged, senile babbling on the news each night, developed a lifelong antipathy to the twisted Newspeak of the Republican Party.

THAT's Reagans legacy to me.

[seabeyond]

50. to take clinton down, gingrich

limbaughs............right talk radio. falwell robertson, the pnac

[Southsideirish]

53. I think it was all the joking around during the operation after the

shooting. He became larger than life - an old coot with plenty of moxie mocking the Grim Reaper as he did "stand up" comedy with his dr.'s.