With comic-book simplicity, the media give Reagan credit he doesn't merit
Text 
By RICK JONES
Guest commentary
Clearly, it's politically correct to revere Reagan. The Utah Legislature recently designated Feb. 6 as Ronald Reagan Day.
Very few realize that this lofty view of Reagan was created, often fraudulently, by the media. The media treated him almost reverentially by filtering out serious criticism of him. Even David Gergen, Reagan's White House director of communications, acknowledged, "I think a lot of the Teflon came because the press was holding back, ... I don't think they wanted to go after him that toughly."
The media helped elect Reagan. He was endorsed by 77 percent of the daily newspapers in 1980, and 86 percent in 1984. When Reagan was first elected with 50.7 percent, the media proclaimed a "landslide" and a "revolution." This presaged future coverage where weakness was airbrushed out of his story to create a mythic character who was reminiscent of a melodrama hero. A self-perpetuating reluctance to criticize Reagan emerged as the media became a powerful echo-chamber praising him. The Reagan legacy includes huge deficits, a bellicose foreign policy that ignored moral and legal restraints, wars and an ever-narrowing individualism and selfishness in a culture of heightened greed. Reagan's solutions have become our problems.
The Legislature hails Reagan for stimulating economic growth. But, the centerpiece of his economic policy was deficit spending. Thus, many eminent economists view Reagan as the biggest Keynesian (read: deficit spender) in history. And, in spite of all the deficit medicine he gave the economy, the results were not impressive: The 1980s had weaker economic growth than the 1960s, '70s or '90s.
Moreover, many attribute the savings and loan crisis, which the General Accounting Office estimates cost taxpayers over $124 billion, to Reagan's deregulation.
This current administration uses Reaganism as a license for profligacy and reckless spending. In fact, Cheney has said, "Reagan proved that budget deficits don't matter."
His policies fostered an atmosphere of "every man for himself." Thus, those at the apex of the economic pyramid did extremely well at the expense of many on the bottom. Today we pay dearly for his disastrous foreign policy:
* Reagan was Saddam's biggest accomplice, giving him billions of dollars and sharing intelligence to help him fulfill aggressive and murderous designs.
* Reagan was also an enormous enabler and financial backer of the terrorists and Islamofacists in Afghanistan whose successors we fight today.
* Bin laden explicitly said that 9/11 was payback for the devastation Reagan and the U.S. Sixth Fleet wrought on Lebanon.
* Reagan disregarded the World Court's order to stop terrorizing Nicaragua, causing Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) to say that he "lowers the United States to the level of international scofflaw."
* The media largely credit him with defeating the leftist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan and the Nicaraguan Sandinistas. But they were not defeated by our military: They were defeated by terrorism.
With comic book simplicity, the media have erroneously credited Reagan with defeating the Soviet Union. It's claimed Reagan's arms buildup enhanced our margin of superiority and forced the Soviets to effectively surrender. The proponents of this theory have never explained how Cuba and North Korea could avoid surrender when they completely lacked any nuclear capability, or why the Soviet Union did not have to surrender in the 1950s or 1960s when our margin of superiority was much greater.
Reagan's undeserved reputation for honesty and strong leadership was left intact by the media even after the enormous Iran-Contra scandal broke. The scandal showed he had outsourced his thinking so much that Bruce Babbit remarked he escaped impeachment because "Congress could not discover a link between Reagan and the presidency."
The fact that the media preserve an idealized conservative narrative so favorable to Reagan, when it is utterly inconsistent with the facts, strongly suggests that we do not have a liberal media. I believe the Ronald Reagan Day is the unfortunate result of conservative domination of the media.
Jones lives in West Haven.
Reader Comments
"Just because the guest columnist is histrionic and prone to exaggeration doesn't make him wrong."
No, Mr. Blue, it doesn't automatically mean that he is wrong, but it should make us question his assertions. If you bothered to read my comments, I criticize Reagan for a number of things, so your assertion that I will light incense to Reagan is just as ludicrous as the original author. I don't care whether you are on the right or left. I, myself, am neither, but both the original author and you seem as equally willing to dismiss what Reagan did as his devotees are willing to ignore his shortcomings. You are no more superior than those you criticize, so climb down off the high horse and stop lambasting others for a "holier than thou" attitude. Physician, heal thyself.
Reagan had shortcomings, but it is disingenuous to not give the man at least some credit for the fall of the Soviet Union and the resurgence of the economy during the 1980's. Yes, presidents get far too much credit and blame for things they don't control. That includes Bill Clinton getting so much credit for the economy of the 1990's. Both Reagan and Clinton had an impact on the economy, but they were not the main driving force. Reagan, at the very least, reinstilled confidence in everyday Americans, and was a major force behind cutting taxes, which did spur growth in the 1980's. Clinton wasn't a big tax-cutter, but he agreed to a number of reforms, proposed by Congress, that spurred growth, as well.
I do not see history through rose colored glasses, thank you very much, but I am willing to give credit where credit is due. You give Reagan credit only for being a nice guy and having good intentions. That makes the presidency sound like an awfully hollow shell - do you believe that about the Presidency in general, or just about Reagan? If the latter, then you are no better than the original author, blinded by your view of the man, and certainly no "holier" than anyone who happens to respect Reagan.
It's kinda fun to see the Left wing, wing nuts come back out of hiding. Rick is the local version of this mindset that will not give any credit to anybody that has an (R) after their name. The only folks with guts, and foresight are the ones that have a BIG (D) after their name. But they also have a convieniant lapse of memory when their (D) friends really mess things up!
Mr. Kidd is right when he says that the spending is controled by Congress, not the Pres.
Welcome back from the woodwork Rick Jones, ya do make me smile when I read your drival!!!
I'm old enough to remember the Carter Years and I was on a Nuclear Submarine actually keeping tabs on the Russian Navy during the Reagan years. Reagan's legacy is overblown. He happened to be President when the Soviet Government finally crumbled. It would have happened no matter who was President.
Reaganomics didn't work and laid the ground work for NAFTA and the out sourcing of jobs.
I'm not on the left, so my contempt for Reagan must be hard for you two to comprehend. He is an example of how badly people can fall for Form over Substance if the packaging is appealing. Reagan was a nice man in person and he exuded that niceness when he spoke as Governor of California, President of the U.S., and host of Death Valley Days. He was like the characther 'Chance' in the movie 'Being There'. People projected on him the image that they wanted. He benefited mightily from that. I don't begrudge him his drive and desire to be President. I simply believe he gets WAY too much credit for things he had no control over, and not enough blame for some of the mistakes he made.
You two go ahead and light you incense at the Reagan alters you have in your houses. But spare me the holier-than-thou attitudes because I don't look at history with rose colored glasses.
Just because the guest columnist is histrionic and prone to exaggeration doesn't make him wrong. The core of what he's saying is spot on.
Who is RICK JONES that he merits 12 column inches in the Standard as if he were some historical expert? Sounds like Barber-Shop talk to me. Fact remains, those of us old enough to remember the DISMAL CARTER YEARS also remember the ray of sunshine that the REAGAN YEARS brought, both economically, and as a nation. Those weren't "accidents." It was true, principled leadership on Reagan's part. He wasn't perfect -- no man is. But he had it mostly right. He was a great President.
The author counters what he believes is bias on one side with outlandish bias on the other side. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, and if nothing else, I thank the author for showing us the silliness that counterbalances the silliness of ignoring Reagan's faults.
Beyond the chuckling at the authors obvious bias, and resulting inability to see straight where Reagan is concerned, a few corrections are probably in order. The first is that no president determines spending levels, so the notion of Reagan being fully responsible for deficit spending is laughable; the Constitution clearly gives Congress the power of the purse, and the Congress (largely Democrat-controlled) agreed to large tax cuts and then refused Reagan's request for corresponding budget cuts. Reagan went along with them, so he bears some responsibility, but Congress bears a hefty share of that responsibility.
Much of Reagan's foreign policy deserves criticism, especially his willingness to bolster ruthless dictators like Sadaam Hussein simple because he thought we could control them. However, he was largely responsible for the decline of the Soviet Union. Clearly one man cannot take all the credit, and clearly the Soviet way of life was destined to eventual failure (because communism simply doesn't work), but Reagan's forceful opposition revealed the weaknesses in the Soviet facade, and the inability to maintain the facade hastened the demise of one of the most oppressive regimes known to human history.
I am aware that Reagan will always be vilified by those on the left (like the author) who cried the day the communist government of Nicaragua was overthrown and democracy established. They are the same who cheered the day Ortega returned to power, and I know they are secretly hoping that he will usher back in communism. Our involvement in that fight was illegal, and Reagan is justly castigated for violating the law in aiding the rebels. The outcome of that struggle, though, was democracy and freedom for an entire country, so I think Reagan should at least get some credit for that.
I have now idea if you'll see this since it's a week later, Kidd. I hope you do.
It wasn't my intent to be 'holier than thou' in what I said. The tone of my response may have been due, in part, to the wave of Reaganism that has seeped into this election. When the Republican candidates 'debated' at the Reagan library, it seemed as though they were tripping all over themselves trying to invoke the spirit of R. Reagan more than their opponants. When Republicans speak about what's been lost in the party they whistfully make reference to Reagan. It annoys me. But that IS just my opinion.
No, I don't see the Presidency as a 'hollow shell'. There have been good Presidents, mediocre Presidents, and out-right bad Presidents in our history. Yes, I agree that how much credit a President is alloted for the good things that happen during his administration is hard to determine. There are good things that happened during the Reagan years. However, to hail Reagan as one of our best Presidents, to me, seems about the same as hailing him as one of our best actors. He made some good films, but who can say whether he benefited from the talent around him or the film was better for having him in it? Same with his Presidency.
Your analysis is quite well thought through. I still disagree with some of what you said, and find a couple of your original comments to be as provocative as mine ("They are the same who cheered the day Ortega returned to power, and I know they are secretly hoping that he will usher back in communism.") but I appreciate your willingness to talk rather than rant.