Stories in His Own Hand: The Everyday Wisdom of Ronald Reagan

Stories in His Own Hand: The Everyday Wisdom of Ronald Reagan
Edited by Kiron K. Skinner, Annelise Anderson and Martin Anderson
Copyright 2001

This book is a compilation of Ronald Reagan’s writing between 1976 and 1979 with a few letters from his presidential years. Reagan told stories and provided short commentary on radio in the late 1970s between presidential campaigns. He wrote and edited these scripts long handed on legal pads. Skinner culled what he deemed to be the best of more than 650 stories Reagan authored.

Included in the book are reproductions of Reagan’s hand written scripts including his edits. This provides us with a glimpse into the style and process of communication by one of the great communicators in history.

Foreword by George P. Schultz
Shultz served Ronald Reagan as his Secretary of State. Reagan’s White House has been characterized by his detractors as a collection of “yes men.” Schultz was no yes man. He was one of Reagan’s advisors unafraid to tell the boss bad news, to tell him he was wrong, and to tell him he was being ill-served by others. Of all of the men involved in the Iran-Contra mess, only George Schultz has emerged in history as a hero.

Schultz recalls his boss fondly and recalls the tales with which Ronald Reagan regaled his cabinet and advisors. He notes that Reagan’s speeches usually included anecdotes and stories to drive home the point he was trying to make. Reagan was a plain spoken man which is what made him the Great Communicator he was. He understood better than anyone that the best way to reach the American people was not through political sermons or cold political analysis. You reach people by grasping and tugging at their emotions. Reagan’s stories did that.

Introduction
Skinner notes that when these manuscripts were uncovered in the Reagan Library, they were often accompanied by notes that verified the veracity of the stories Reagan presented as factual. Other stories, Skinner notes, were based on folklore even though Reagan told them as if they were true. Reagan sometimes confused anecdote with fact.

That sometimes Reagan mixed fantasy with reality is well known and well documented. That’s not the point, Skinner tells us. Reagan the man was and remains an enigma because he revealed so little of his genuine feelings. The window into the mind of Ronald Reagan, Skinner says, is in his stories. Whenever Reagan said, “That reminds me of. . .“ and launched into an anecdote or story, you knew he was revealing his true feelings on the matter at hand.

Life and Death
Reagan tells two stories dealing with death and how it affects us. One is inspirational and the other is poignantly tragic.

The first is about a seven year old boy dying of leukemia. The boy is suffering and wants to die. He tells the doctors to disconnect the equipment that is keeping him alive and even plans his own funeral. Before dying, he tells his family that he wants to die because he does not want to suffer anymore. He wants to go to heaven where he will be disconnected from his earthly body which is broken, but will live on with his spirit which is not. He is confident he will be able to see the lives of his loved ones unfold from heaven. Reagan’s account is documented with a news clip attached to the manuscript. He tell us that sorrow is our own for what we have lost. The dead have no sorrow for they have gone to a better place.

The second tale tells of a father writing to his son who is away at war. In a poem, the father expresses his regret that his distorted conception of manhood and masculinity never allowed him to hug his son or express love and affection. His love for his son comes through as he tells his son if he were here with him, he’d hug him and tell him how much he loved him and expresses regret for his cold and taciturn nature. The story concludes with Reagan telling us that the day the letter containing the poem was mailed, the man received a War Department telegram telling him his son had died.

I’m no psychologist, but I’ve read enough psychoanalysis of Ronald Reagan to wonder if he was not reaching out to his own children through this story. Reagan was emotionally detached from his children. He was not cold, but he was not close to them and he remained as much an enigma to them as to history.

Love and Compassion
Reagan tells two tales that deal with overcoming the odds against disease and injury rather than stories of love and compassion.

In the first tale, he recounts how Alexis de Toqueville observed that Americans look to themselves and their fellow Americans to help solve their problems rather than asking for the government. He then tells the tale of a young girl with leukemia who needed a bone marrow transplant, which was an experimental procedure at that time. The girl was from California, but the surgery was to be performed at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. People in Minnesota and California joined forces to raise more than $10,000 for the girl to have her surgery. The government did not help and did not need to.

The second tale is of a young man injured in a car accident. Doctors gave him no hope of recovery and he lay in a coma for almost a year. During that time, his fiancé refused to give up hope and visited him daily. As it turned out, he did recover and the couple married.

Faith and Religion
This chapter includes three essays on Christian faith and a letter to a nun Reagan wrote while serving as president.

In the first, he discusses his love of all things Christmas. He says, some complain of the crass commercialization of the holiday replacing its spirit. For Reagan, the decorations and displays warmed his heart and were part of the Christmas. He defines the root of his faith. Were there no such things as miracles, how, he asks, could a homeless carpenter wander the countryside for three years, preaching his faith and proclaim himself the son of God and start a whole new religion that has endured for 2,000 years? A superb question to put to atheists. . .

In his second essay, he critiques the claims of a scientist who claims that the some of the miracles found in the Bible can be explained away by mirages. This scientist stated that Moses parting the Red Sea was but the reflection of heat off of the desert – not real water. The same phenomena can explain the “illusion” of Christ walking on water. Reagan then goes on to quote the scripture in easily understood terms. The mirage did not sweep away Pharaoh’s men as they pursued the Hebrews. Christ walked upon the water to a boat tossed on heavy seas. Mirages do not toss boats. It will take more than a mirage to sweep away the claims of the best selling book of all time, claims Reagan.

In his third essay, Reagan talks about a group of Christian athletes who travel the country, playing college and pro basketball teams. They get paid little, but must spend halftime professing their faith to the crowd. Many of these young men gave up scholarships and lucrative pro money in the name of their faith.

The letter is written to a nun who had obviously written to congratulate Reagan on his re-election in 1984. In it, Reagan expresses his strong belief in intercessory prayer. Reagan says that he prays on behalf of others so much that he believes God says to himself, “Here he comes again!” He concludes by quoting Abraham Lincoln’s belief that no man can stand as president without the help of God.

Reagan’s strong statements of faith are probably genuine. Reagan was wont to profess faith while president. Yet, he was not a regular church goer as president, nor was he in civilian life. Contrary to popular belief, Reagan never introduced legislation or justified policy employing theology.

Women
In two essays on the subject of women, Reagan discusses how women are, by nature, peacemakers. Despite being regarded as the weaker sex, Reagan says it is the courage that comes naturally to women that make them peacemakers. Perhaps it was that belief that women are most prone to bring peace that he took the courageous and historic step of making Jean Kirkpatrick the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and appointing the first female Supreme Court Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. It was in his strong belief in the necessary role women must play in the political and government process that Reagan was a progressive in the true sense of the word.

In his first essay, Reagan recounts a somewhat humorous story of a dinner taking place in a palace in India. As the diners enjoyed their repast, one of the Americans in attendance noticed that one of the servants placed a saucer of milk outside the door to the dining hall and left the door open. He knew that milk was used to lure cobras and that the serpent must be in the room. He feared moving lest he frighten the snake and cause himself or another diner to be bitten. Eventually, the snake made its way out from under the table. The man later asked the hostess how she knew the snake was in the room. She replied that it was lying on her feet during the meal.

His second essay tells of the courage of the women of Northern Ireland in the face of guerilla warfare in their country. The Irish Republican Army and their protestant counterparts too often considered children to be collateral damage in their war of terror against each other. Finally, the women had enough. Catholic and protestant women of Northern Ireland banded together and protested in the streets. They knew the feelings on both sides of the war over Northern Ireland were too powerful for them to stop it. But they demanded of their respective warriors respect the sanctity of life of children. It was a great risk, but the women prevailed.

Race Relations
Ronald Reagan was mindlessly derided as a racist by liberals of his day because he staunchly opposed race based solutions to race based problems. He saw the fundamental flaw of combating discrimination with reverse discrimination. While liberals may have mindlessly called Reagan a racist, those who knew him – including black liberals who knew him on a personal level -- knew differently. Reagan may have been the most colorblind president in history.

The first essay is an interview conducted by a sports program. It is a story that Reagan recounted in his autobiography and is often told by those who adore him. Reagan, as a young college football player, was shocked and dismayed that, in his home state of Illinois, racism existed. He found this out when his Eureka College football team tried to find a motel while playing in Illinois. Eureka had two black players on its team and no motel in the area would accept them. Reagan implored his coach to let the players stay in his parents’ home and to tell them that there simply wasn’t room. The young men stayed at Reagan’s home and the crisis was defused. According to Reagan, he did not know that his black friends were not fooled. The interviewer, who had spoken to one of the players involved, said the young man knew then as he knew today that he’d been refused a room. Reagan said he was surprised. I doubt this. Reagan often feigned ignorance of racial strife to demonstrate that he was above it. One can be quite confident that Reagan was aware his friends knew. That does not diminish Reagan’s progressive views on race in the era of Jim Crow.

The second essay is a radio eulogy of Gen. Daniel “Chappie” James, Jr, the first black four star general in the history of the United States. Rather than offering testimony to the greatness of the American melting pot that saw this man rise to this high rank, he offered testimony to the spirit of the man that was Gen. James – a man who would not let the ugly face of racism destroy his belief in the fundamental rightness of America and that for which she stands. James, as a young officer, had been denied entrance into officers clubs, despite his rank and his unabashed and undisputed heroism in battle. Gen. James was not ambivalent about racism. He knew it and experienced it. But he also knew America. James said of his country, "I fought in three wars and three more would not be too many to defend my country. I love America and as she has her ills and weaknesses, I’ll hold her hand.”

The third and final essay is yet another eulogy – this one for a San Diego police officer who was often part of Gov. Reagan’s protective detail when he visited the city. Reagan spoke of the man’s dedication to duty and to the people he knew growing up. He insisted on serving the poor neighborhood in which he grew up. Sometimes, he posted the bail of those he arrested, hoping that they would change their ways. He helped his neighbors by working on their cars – the cars upon which they depended to get them to and from work. He died of a rare disease at the young age of 42. Here, although he doesn’t say it, we see Reagan embrace compassion as part of conservatism – a vital component missing in many of today’s conservatives despite claims of compassionate conservatism. Not only that, Reagan never mentioned his race. He simply feted the life of a great man who lived a great life. Again, Reagan was colorblind. The man’s race didn’t figure into any equation in Reagan’s mind.

America
Ronald Reagan was the ultimate patriot. When America’s morale was low, it was Reagan who convinced us we could be great again. When we were victims, he lashed out at our enemies. When we were criticized abroad, he told the world we were the last, best hope for man on the face of the earth. In these essays, Reagan relates anecdotes that reflect his love of America and how others came to love it as much as he.

The first essay is about a young man by the name of Peter Johnson who, in 1973, decided to walk across America. It was not a marathon; he sought to promote no awareness of a social or political issue. Like many of the Vietnam era and the age of the hippies, he just started wandering. He walked from Connecticut to Oregon, taking a meandering course through the south and the southwest. Like many of his generation, Johnson didn’t care for America when he set out. When he waded into the Pacific Ocean five years later, joined by 150 people – ordinary Americans – he met on his journey. Each, in some small way, had lent him aid or assistance as he journeyed on God’s good graces across our country. He also discovered God and his good grace.

The second essay was written by a Canadian journalist in the 1970s, during Watergate and found new life during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. In 1973, as the world watched Watergate unfold and it seemed as if America was headed toward an ugly constitutional crisis on the heels of the Vietnam War, America’s morale was low and the opinion of it around the world had sunk to new lows. Canadian Gordon Sinclair took to the Canadian airwaves to extol American strength of character and charity. He talked of the valiant effort of our soldiers in World War II, the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe, the aid and assistance we lent countries in times of disaster. No other country, Sinclair pointed out, was so apt to step in and help in an international crisis. As Reagan notes at the beginning of the essay, it is right, proper, and sometimes patriotic to criticize government. But we, as Americans, can always be proud of ourselves as people and as a nation.

The third essay summarizes a capsulized summary of history called, There Once Was a Great Nation. It talked of its rise under the leadership of the hero of its independence. He then recounts the rise and eventual fall of that great nation under a burdensome and corrupt government. You believe he is talking about America, but it is the rise and fall of the Roman Empire he is recounting. Reagan believed that big government would forever be the doom of civilizations of the earth.

In fourth essay, Reagan described the early days of the healing process that followed the disaster in Vietnam. Vietnam was a subject little discussed in 1977. Reagan recounted how four Vietnam War veterans met by chance and ended up in Washington, asking for permission to return to Vietnam to help out a small village that was destroyed in the war. Reagan wrote the essay because he felt that it was unfair that, after President Carter provided amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers, that those who ducked the war were getting all of the attention while those who fought were being ignored while America tried to forget that abortive war and its own bad behavior during those years.

The last essay in the chapter, America, is also about Vietnam. Reagan notes that the movie, The Deerhunter had won an Oscar for best picture. Some Hollywood elites were bitter because of its positive portrayal of the Vietnam veteran as a virtuous person and America as a virtuous nation. He called on Hollywood to make a movie about the Hanoi Hilton and the experiences of Captain John McCain who was roasting in a coffin sized box whilst Jane Fonda dined with North Vietnamese leaders. He wanted the world to know of the experience of Jeremiah Denton who spent six years in the Hanoi Hilton and was beaten into making a statement to Fonda and the world about how well he was being treated, all the while blinking his eyes in Morse Code the word, “torture.” Basically, Reagan was telling the Hollywood elite – people he knew too well – they could shove their self loathing up their un-American asses.

People
Reagan was called the Great Communicator because of his remarkable ability to engage people. He could engage mass audiences and he could engage them one on one. Reagan was fascinated by people, but was actually a shy man who revealed very little about himself to those closest to him. He often forgot the names of his closest advisors. But there were people who made an impression on Reagan and he recounts some of those people in this series of essays.

The first essay is about a brave University of California student who touched Reagan’s heart. Reagan was the governor who imposed tuition upon the students of California who before enjoyed a free college education at the various campuses of the U.C. He was hated for that and for his conservative politics when he was governor of California. One day, Reagan had to attend a board of regents meeting in San Diego. Students there devised a clever and effective means of protest. Instead of shouting at Reagan, they decided to line the sidewalks and remain silent as Reagan walked the 200 yards from his car to the building. Reagan felt the tension and admits he was intimidated. Just before he got to the building, one young woman stepped forward, extended her hand, and told Reagan how much she appreciated his leadership. Reagan said he could not reply for the lump in his throat and troopers whisked the girl away before he could get her name. Reagan says he never found out who that girl was, but that he would be forever grateful for her kind words.

His second essay extols the virtue of President Calvin Coolidge. Some historians blame Coolidge for setting the stage for the Great Depression (he actually tried to warn of its coming) and others claim that he simply did nothing while he was in office. He was mocked as “Silent Cal,” for his penchant for saying little in public. But, as Reagan notes, Coolidge turned debts into surpluses and presided over the largest economic expansion in American history to that point. America moved forward economically, technologically, and socially in the era of Calvin Coolidge. That is why Reagan feted him by hanging his portrait in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

Reagan enjoyed extolling the virtues of the American Dream and worked hard to convince Americans that it still existed even when President Carter told us we had a “crisis of confidence” in ourselves. The third essay is about a high school dropout who went on to serve in the Army. He returned from the service and decided to take courses to first get his GED and eventually his college diploma. He learned to play a musical instrument (Reagan never says which one) and played with his city’s philharmonic orchestra. He went on to form two successful business enterprises and become comfortably wealthy. Reagan saw all of this on the CBS News. The last line struck Reagan as the man told the world that anybody could do what he did if they would only take advantage of what was available to them in our great nation.

The last two essays are a two part story about a 27 year old man whose productive years seemed to be cut short when an industrial accident made him a paraplegic. After a period of feeling sorry for himself, this man decided to resume his hobby of riding horses. He found a horse that was yet unbroken. He then hired a blind horse trainer. Together, they trained the horse and the man took to touring the country, showing off his skills to the handicapped to show them that they need not be defined by what made them different.

Enter the big, bad government. This man only made enough on his shows to break even. He received a regular disability check, but the government cut that off because they deemed him a “performer” capable of earning a living. The story ends with the banks threatening to repossess his horse. Reagan derides the “computers and desk jockeys,” of the Social Security Administration for their lack of humanity and desire to crush a man who worked so hard to make something of what he thought was a ruined life.

Values and Virtues
Reagan holds forth on the values that are desirable in Americans. I doing this, he quotes the son of one of our greatest Americans, and then describes the business practices of one of America’s legendary entertainers who was an immigrant.

The first essay is about Charles Edison, the son of Thomas Edison. Reagan recounts how a reporter once asked Charles if his father had given him any important advice. Charles replied that he sought advice from his father, but his father was convinced that youth wouldn’t take advice; that youth had to learn lessons "on the battlefield of their own experience." One lesson that Thomas Edison imparted to young Charles was the importance of honor in all facets of life. A life that is lived honorably will be naturally fruitful and rewarding.

The second lesson is about Lawrence Welk. For my generation, and my parents' generation, Lawrence Welk, with his bubble machines and wacky tuxedos, was the punch line of a joke. But there is no doubt he was one of the most enduring figures in American cultural history, remaining popular from the Big Band era of music through the days of The Beatles and The Doors on Ed Sullivan. Reagan tells us that no musician has a contract with Lawrence Welk. If you were a talented musician or performer, willing to live by the values established by Lawrence Welk, you would be employed by Welk and paid handsomely with a nice pension, profit sharing, and benefits to boot. Reagan says that if anyone had spent time with Welk and his cadre of 50 performers, they would have found a strong family spirit of mutually supportive people.

Reagan’s final essay in the chapter is a tale common, but uplifting. A boy living in Seattle had cancer. While sick, he got to meet two famous football players: Jim Zorn, quarterback of the Seattle Seahawks and running back O.J. Simpson. Reagan said that this young man probably thought it was a special moment for him, but the moment was probably more special for Zorn and O.J. when they found out this kid played football – and started for his high school team – while undergoing treatment for cancer.

Human Nature, the Economy, and Progress
Ronald Reagan spent his entire political career railing against government intrusion into the lives of Americans. Reagan did not espouse these values because they fit some preconceived idea of what the Constitution says, like today’s doctrinaire Tea Party. He espoused these values and fought for them because they improved the human condition. Ronald Reagan didn’t preach constitutional principles. He simply sought to improve the human condition – something the modern Republican Party ought to re-examine.

The first essay is simply called, The Hen and is a parable on the nature of man to take the path of least resistance when it is offered. I believe my grandmother told me something very similar when I was in junior high school to demonstrate to me how welfare was killing America. For those of you not familiar with the story, a hen spends the entire summer growing grain, harvesting it, and baking bread while the other animals lie about and give the hen excuses as to why they can’t help. Then, when the bread is done, they all want to partake. The hen wants to keep all the bread since she worked for it, but the farmer (government) says you must give up half your bread to feed those who did not contribute.

The second essay is an example of an argument a socialist and a conservative might have. Reagan says today’s (read 1970s) socialist ignores the strength of the human spirit to achieve if it is set free to do so. While the above parable is brilliant in its simplicity, this essay reads more like a grade school screenplay. Sometimes event the brilliant miss the mark and Reagan’s simplistic argument fails to impress.

The third essay is entitled, Kettering, drawing its name from a former General Motors vice president, C.F. Kettering, who delivered a speech on how one generation builds upon the accomplishment of others. He goes on to show how the development of the radio (the modern means of mass communication at the time Kettering delivered his address) actually started before Christ when Greek philosopher, Thales of Miletus, discovered that rubbing together two pieces of amber created a force that would pick up straw – the discovery of electricity. Reagan’s use of the Kettering speech demonstrates what was at the core of Reagan’s foreign policy, his economic policy, and his social policy: that man, when left to his own devices, is capable of achieving great things. It was stories like that told by Mr. Kettering that Reagan kept in his head and could tell flawlessly on a moment’s notice.

A fourth essay is entitled, Pollution, but has very little to do with clean air or clean water. Rather, Mr. Reagan tries to demonstrate to a younger, pessimistic generation in the late 1970s that their ancestors did not have it so well. Pollution comes into play when Reagan talks about the coal burning furnaces with which every home was equipped and how every home belched coal smoke into the sky every night from autumn through summer. He goes on to talk about the unsanitary conditions of the outhouse and the rapid spread of disease in the prior generation. He concludes that perhaps life was not so simple before the mechanized age.

The former essay is a poor segue into the final essay which is entitled Freedom. Here, Reagan tries to make the case that in the good old days, things were much simpler. The good old days were before government placed regulations on everything. He talks about how there was no government mandated age for a driver’s license. In his day, if you drove well enough for your father to trust you with his car, you drove well enough for the motoring public. He points out that after he graduated from college, with the Great Depression in full swing, he had to take a job doing construction. He’d need half a dozen licenses to do today what he did to get by during the depression. He concludes by saying, “We are all stamped – ‘Property of the United States Government. Do Not Fold, Bend, or Mutilate.’”

Reagan’s Own Life in Stories and Humor
Reagan loved telling stories about Hollywood and the glamorous life he led while working as an actor. He also enjoyed the folkish stories he told of his youth. History has shown us that Reagan had a troubled youth with a ne’er do well father who was an alcoholic. Reagan never discussed that. He chose to remember his youth as a idyllic time.

In a letter to a constituent written in 1984, Reagan describes his youth in those idyllic terms and the essay is called, Reagan’s Huck Finn Years. Reagan attributes his family’s nomadic ways to his father trying to achieve upward mobility in the shoe industry. There is some truth to this as Jack Reagan was always chasing the next big job and moved the family all over Illinois. But Reagan omits that his father lost jobs because of his alcoholism. One can hardly blame him for this omission. I knew children of alcoholics when I was growing up. It was always something that the family believed it was keeping secret. I’m sure the Reagans were no different.

The second essay is entitled Reagan’s First Jobs and is also written in 1984. Reagan tells again the story about working construction and tells how he ended up working as a lifeguard. He then talks about how he got into radio which was his dream. He hiked all over Illinois trying to see program managers to demonstrate his talent. Nobody would even see him since he didn’t have any experience. He finally got a program director at WOC in Davenport to listen to him retell the play by play of a Eureka College football game. He got the job rebroadcasting Cubs games as they came into him via teletype. Reagan’s public career was launched.

Ronald Reagan loved to tell jokes. At no point was this more evident than when he was shot and quipped with hospital staff until he was sedated. In 1986, he was asked by a reporter what three jokes he enjoyed the most. He replied, “I assume he [Ullman] means stories suitable for speeches.” Reagan was quite fond of the raunchy joke and he and Tip O’Neill use to exchange them every time they saw each other. Reagan was quite fond of Irishman jokes.

In 1937, Reagan’s hometown newspaper asked him to send back regular updates on how his Hollywood career as a contract player was going. Reagan writes to his hometown paper through 1937, telling them about how tough the job was sometimes, how he got to meet Olivia de Havilland, and how uncomfortable he was seeing himself on screen for the first time when he had to attend a movie premier.

What comes out of all these essays is Reagan’s simplistic – sometimes excessively simplistic views on life. Coolidge read Plato. Reagan read Sports Illustrated. Nixon read Cicero. Reagan read the funny pages.

One should not sell Reagan short, claiming he lacked intellectual curiosity. Reagan was an avid reader of newspapers and contemporary political thought. He was an intelligent man gifted with incredible insight into the American character. Just like Kennedy (who was no Rhodes Scholar like Bill Clinton), Reagan proved a man need not be an intellectual giant to be a great leader.

He was called the Great Communicator. His detractors would say he was great at reading a script. Even a cursory examination of Reagan reveals that there was much more depth to Reagan’s skill. Like Kennedy, Reagan was a gifted writer. Kennedy’s detractors will point to Ted Sorensen as the genius behind Kennedy’s eloquent prose and verbiage. Sorensen was a great speechwriter, but it was Kennedy who put the flourish and the style into Sorensen’s rough drafts. Kennedy almost always knew what he wanted to say and just how to say it.

Reagan was very similar. Reagan employed speechwriters, but he saved the writing of the most important speeches for his own hand. As one can see in the marked up rough drafts of the essays, Reagan put a great deal of thought into what he wrote and usually exercised good judgment in his editing. Like Kennedy, Reagan understood words. He knew how to deploy the English language for maximum benefit.

I would point to this book when I hear Reagan’s intellect derided. Yes, Reagan had a simplistic view of America and the world. Sometimes, those views were old fashioned. Sometimes he mixed anecdote with fact. But he was a smart, intelligent man gifted with the ability to write and speak. I would challenge any Reagan detractor to read these essays. They may not change their views of Reagan’s politics or principles, but they would dispel any notion of Reagan as an intellectual lightweight.

Shadow: Five Presidencies and the Legacy of Watergate

Shadow: Five Presidencies and the Legacy of Watergate
By Bob Woodward
Copyright 1999

Introduction
Bob Woodward played a formative role in the downfall of President Nixon, therefore is fully qualified to examine the legacy of Nixon’s deception of the country (as well as that of Lyndon Johnson) and how those lies and deceit changed the nature of the relationship of the presidency, the men who held the office, and the media.

The presidents who followed Nixon withstood greater scrutiny than their predecessors. They withstood it to varying degrees. Woodward examines the scandals that befell the Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton presidencies and how each president dealt with them.

He also examines the “Ethics in Government Act” and how that law that created the office of special prosecutor dramatically changed the relationship between the president, his attorney general, Congress, and the American people.

Gerald Ford
Woodward opens with a narrative account of a meeting between President Nixon and his chief of staff, Alexander Haig on August 1, 1974. Nixon has spent the evening prior listening to tapes of conversations he held with his then chief of staff, Bob Haldeman in June 1974. Nixon, who still believes he’s innocent of any wrongdoing, is a smart enough lawyer to comprehend the damning nature of the Smoking Gun tape. He knows it will end his presidency. He’s preparing to resign he tells Haig.

Al Haig immediately contacts Vice President Gerald Ford’s staff and informs them that they need to be prepared for a transition. He asks for permission to meet with Ford to prepare him for that transition. That meeting is set for the next day.

Inexplicably, Haig shows up at that meeting, not with notes on how an unprecedented transfer of power will take place, but with a list of pardon options for the man who will soon be president of the United States. He starts to list for Ford his options and the precedents of presidential pardons. Ford listens for awhile before telling Haig he will consider pardons later.

That meeting would cause Gerald Ford and his staff great trepidation in the months ahead.

Ford would assume the presidency on August 9, 1974 upon the resignation of Richard Nixon. Approximately one month later, Ford would grant Richard Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for all crimes that were committed in Watergate.

Woodward examines the behind the scenes battles among Ford’s staff over Nixon’s pardon. Most of Ford’s staff – especially his younger staffers – were against the pardon. They saw it as political suicide. Ford argued that constant questions about Watergate and Congress’ ongoing obsession with the scandal were hindering his ability to address the country’s problems which were vast and deep at the time. He wanted to put Watergate behind him and behind the country.

There was also a personal aspect to the Nixon pardon. Gerald Ford genuinely liked and cared about Richard Nixon. They had been colleagues in Congress for years and Ford had worked closely with Nixon’s White House. The reports he was receiving from San Clemente (Nixon’s home in political exile) were alarming. Nixon was physically frail, emotionally exhausted, and seemingly had lost the will to live. Ford was not going to allow the scandal to physically kill Richard Nixon the man as it had Richard Nixon the president.

The political backlash against President Ford upon his pardon of Nixon shocked him and even his most cynical staffers. Immediately, rumors of a secret deal between Ford and Nixon whereby Nixon would relinquish the presidency in exchange for the pardon developed. Congress was demanding a full scale investigation of this alleged deal.

To meet the challenge, Ford resolved to take the unprecedented step of going to Capitol Hill and testifying before a House subcommittee investigating the matter. Ford disclosed his meeting with Haig on August 2, but did not reveal its true substance. As Woodward put it, Ford hid the truth in plain site.

The pardon and the rumors of a secret deal haunted Jerry Ford throughout his presidency and for many years after. Time and the forgiving nature of the American people erased that ire, but there is little doubt that the pardon of Richard Nixon was the largest factor that cost Gerald Ford the presidency in 1976.

Jimmy Carter
Through the primaries of the 1976 election, Jimmy Carter’s stock line had been, “Hi. I’m Jimmy Carter and I’m running for president.” After the primaries, when everybody knew he was running for president, he came up with, “I’ll never lie to you.”

After Watergate and the uncertainty around President Ford and the pardon of Richard Nixon, it had a nice ring to it. It was simple and from the heart. But Carter’s campaign people – and even Carter’s own mother – tried to discourage him from using it. It was not a standard any president could meet.

Carter came to DC a decided outsider. He spurned the Washington establishment and brought in his own people from Georgia. Among those he brought with him was a banker named Bert Lance who was to serve as Carter’s budget director. Lance was Carter’s close friend and the two prayed together to start every morning.

It wasn’t long before Carter’s sterling reputation for honesty and squeaky clean deportment would take a serious hit. Bert Lance came to him one day in late 1977 and told him he was in deep financial trouble. He was heavily leveraged, heavily mortgaged, and Congress would soon be asking questions. Before the situation could taint Carter and his administration, Lance wanted to resign.

Carter thought it was nonsense. He refused to allow Lance to resign despite Lance’s reservations. It wasn’t long before Congress schooled Jimmy Carter in the ways of Washington.

The scandal broke into the mainstream when former Nixon speechwriter William Safire wrote a column in the New York Times about mismanagement at Calhoun First National Bank in Atlanta. Safire revealed assets double and triple leveraged, schemes to fool bank inspectors, and sweetheart loans for friends. The column won Safire the Pulitzer Prize.

Carter piously held onto Lance, despite the overwhelming appearance of impropriety. (Lance was later found not guilty of all charges related to Calhoun First National). Republicans were eager to take shots at Carter who, before the scandal, enjoyed high popularity. Democrats in Congress, whom Jimmy Carter immediately alienated upon his arrival in Washington, were not willing to expend any political capital on his behalf. Lance was doomed and eventually resigned – but not before putting a hit on Carter’s sterling reputation. Carter’s poll numbers went up and down for another year before starting their final plunge, but the American people never looked at Carter the same way again.

The combined congressional classes of 1974 and 1976 were eager to prevent future Watergates and future Saturday Night Massacres (referring to when Nixon fired special Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox on Saturday, October 20, 1973). They authored the Ethics in Government Act which required a three judge panel to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate wrong doing by administration officials. The threshold for triggering the act was exceptionally low (painfully low as Democrats would find out decades later). It didn’t take long for the law to find its first test case.

Hamilton Jordan was a young, brash good ole boy from Georgia who worked in the Carter administration, eventually becoming Carter’s Chief of Staff. But in 1978, his world came crashing down around him when the owners of New York’s notorious Studio 54 night club claimed that Jordan had used cocaine and tried to purchase cocaine at the club.

Forget that the charges were leveled by two men facing multiple felony drug and conspiracy counts. There was an appearance of wrong doing and an independent prosecutor was named. Jordan endured six months of hell as a lawyer armed with a staff of lawyers investigated the claims. Only two witnesses claimed to have seen Jordan use cocaine. Neither could provide specific dates, locations within the club, or other witnesses to corroborate their story. Eventually, the prosecutor cleared Jordan. But not before his reputation was smeared.

With weakness and political ineptitude being the hallmarks of the Carter presidency, Carter might have looked to hang his hat on the political peg of honesty. Despite the fact that no one had ever proven any of the charges against Carter’s men, his well known penchant for honesty in government was a joke by the 1980 election.

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan’s ordeal with the independent prosecutor’s office would last much longer, be much more painful and result in real convictions – and deservedly so, because Reagan’s national security staff subverted Congress and the law to trade arms for hostages and to divert profits from illegal weapons sales to the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.

However, before Iran-Contra, was the quixotic investigation of EPA counsel Ted Olson. Olson’s case demonstrated how the Ethics in Government Act could be deployed for political purposes.

Democrats in Congress alleged that, in testifying before a congressional committee, Olson had deliberately withheld information about EPA policy. Of course he did. Testifying before a hostile Congress, the opposing party doles out as little information as possible. In 1986, three years after his testimony before the committee, some Democratic congressmen alleged that Olson had withheld documents and provided false and misleading testimony. The accusation had been made, creating an appearance of impropriety. A special prosecutor had to be appointed, even though Olson had been out of government for nearly three years.

Olson had the temerity to challenge the constitutionality of the Ethics in Government law. He claimed the law essentially established a fourth branch of government and usurped the congressional authority to oversee and check the executive branch. He lost in the Supreme Court with only Justice Scalia agreeing with his arguments.

The special prosecutor dissected Olson’s life. Olson had made casual remarks to some friends at a basketball game. They were summoned to testify. Olson himself withstood hours of grilling by the prosecutor and his staff. Millions of dollars were spent. The conclusion: Olson had been artful and evasive, but had not perjured himself or deliberately mislead Congress.

Another special prosecutor was needed to investigate Iran Contra in 1986. I have dissected and examined Iran-Contra in my review of Lou Cannon’s President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime. Clearly, there was wrongdoing within Reagan’s National Security Council and Judge Lawrence Walsh was appointed as special prosecutor to oversee the investigation.

Walsh’s investigation would set the gold standard for slow, inefficient, sometimes mindless examination of facts and witnesses and would cost the taxpayers millions while yielding few convictions. Many of the convictions Walsh did obtain were overturned on appeal because of prosecutorial misconduct.

While Walsh managed to convict Admiral Richard Secord (overturned), Lt. Col. Oliver North (overturned), and Admiral John Poindexter (overturned), for trading arms to Iran in exchange for hostages held in Lebanon, and then taking cash earned in these transactions and diverting it to Contra rebels, he was never able to nail Reagan with the charges.

Reagan was in deep political trouble in 1986 at the height of Walsh’s inquiry and a competing congressional inquiry. There was talk of impeachment. Reagan’s standing with the public had taken a severe nosedive. However, Reagan did something that no president had ever done. He went on television and told the American people that what he’d told them earlier was not true; that people within his administration had misled him and the American people.

That solved Reagan’s political problem and got him through his presidency. It was not until 1991 that Walsh got around to cross examining Reagan. By then, it was too late. The Alzheimer’s that would eventually take his life was already at work on the former president. Not only could he not remember details, he could not remember the names of his closest aides. He did not provide any information the prosecutors could use. Walsh concluded that Reagan set the tone, allowed the crimes to be committed, but had not instigated any criminal activity nor been a participant in it.

But Walsh wasn’t done yet. A new president was soon to take office and Walsh set his sights on George Bush.

George Bush
If the Lawrence Walsh couldn’t nail a president in his years and millions of taxpayer dollars investigating Iran-Contra, perhaps he could nail the vice president. After it was clear to Walsh that Reagan’s declining mental faculties had put him out of reach, he set his sights on George Bush.

Ronald Reagan often complimented George Bush as the most effective and most engaged vice presidents in history. That was a true statement at the time. pessimists would argue that VP Dick Cheney was the power behind the George W. Bush presidency and one could make a strong case for the effectiveness of Joe Biden. George H.W. Bush was certainly the most engaged vice president since Richard Nixon served Dwight Eisenhower.

Yet, when suspicion began swirling around the vice president just as he was launching his own pursuit of the presidency, he fell back on the traditional role of the vice president as not being a figure in policy making. Bush argued he was “out of the loop” in Iran-Contra decision making.

History seems to have borne out the fact that Bush (despite his intelligence background) was not involved in the planning or execution of Iran Contra, his own journal entries as well as the testimony of Reagan advisors put him in the loop and in the know.

Walsh was desperate to show something for all the time and effort he’d put into his investigation. He decided to indict former defense secretary Casper Weinburger on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for providing misleading testimony regarding Bush and Reagan. Walsh hoped to get Weinberger to divulge what Bush knew and when he knew it.

Walsh announced the Weinberger indictment on October 30, 1992, on the eve of the presidential election. Furthermore, Walsh’s statement directly implicated Bush in the plot, despite any tangible evidence other than Bush mentioning the episode in a couple passing diary entries.

Bush had run behind Clinton throughout the entire campaign, but had been closing the gap. The Walsh announcement took the wind out of the sails of the Bush campaign. George Bush, bitter and angry upon losing the campaign, took the wind out of Walsh’s sails, pardoning Cap Weinberger on Christmas Eve of 1992.

The Walsh investigation was a travesty that should have demonstrated to Congress just what a poor mechanism for oversight the special prosecutor was. Walsh didn’t release his final report until 1993 – seven years after he was appointed to investigate.

Walsh should have come away with more convictions than he did because there is no doubt that those within the Reagan intelligence community had thwarted the will of Congress. But because of his ineptitude, nobody got punished.

Bill Clinton
President Bill Clinton was destined to be a special prosecutor’s delight. An affable man who was exceptionally intelligent and as politically shrewd as any in Washington, he often had trouble telling the truth – even in the simplest of matters. Clinton’s series of half truths and outright lies soon landed him in the sights of the most onerous and prolonged investigations in American government history.

The Clintons – both Bill and Hillary – came under investigation after the New York Times reported the accusations of a Little Rock Banker, David Hale, that, while he was governor of Arkansas, Clinton had pressured him into providing loans to Jim and Susan McDougal.

The McDougals were partners in a land investment along the Whitewater River in Arkansas. The deal soured and the Clintons lost money. A federal investigation had implicated the McDougles in illegal doings, but found no evidence that either Clinton had done anything wrong. Nonetheless, there was an appearance of wrongdoing and that was enough to trigger the appointment of a special prosecutor. Robert Fiske

Fiske investigated the land deal. He was also handed the investigation of the death of Clinton aide and long time family friend, Vince Foster, who had apparently committed suicide in a Washington, D.C. park. Some speculated that Vince Foster may have been murdered and that records from when he and Hillary Clinton had worked together at the Rose Law Firm.

Fiske quickly disposed of the Foster investigation, concluding that there was no evidence of any foul play and that Vince Foster had indeed committed suicide. His ambiguous suicide letter, where he declared that Washington was a place where people were ruined for fun and sport, was the source of much speculation long after Fiske wrapped up his investigation.

On the same day Fiske released his report on the Foster death, Clinton signed a new law that changed the title of special prosecutor to independent counsel. With the change of title came a new investigator -- Ken Starr.

Starr soon found his operation the repository for a number of accusations of wrong doing by the Clintons. Starr was called upon to investigate the firings of employees of the White House Travel Office – allegedly ordered by Hilary Clinton. When some of Vince Foster’s files mysteriously appeared in the White House residence, seemingly out of thin air, Filegate as it came to be called, landed in Starr’s lap.

Ultimately, Starr would get convictions of Jim and Susan McDougle was well as Arkansas Governor, Jim Guy Tucker, for their roles in the botched Whitewater land investment. That alone gave Starr a better track record than Walsh.

Meanwhile, in Little Rock, an Arkansas government employee by the name of Paula Corbin Jones was suing Bill Clinton for having sexually harassed her in a Little Rock hotel room, groping her and inviting her to perform oral sex. A federal judge ruled that the lawsuit could go forward, ruling that the president of the United States was not immune from civil litigation. A criminal investigation was also proceeding.

Clinton was forced to provide grand jury testimony in the case. He testified that he’d not behaved in the manner in which Jones described. Prosecutors were trying to establish that Clinton had a pattern of behavior with women that lent credence to the Jones allegations. They had a list of women they suspected Clinton of having affairs with. One name on that list was a former White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton denied ever having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. The die was cast for one of the most dramatic showdowns in U.S. government history.

Lewinsky’s name got on the list because a woman by the name of Linda Tripp had informed prosecutors that Lewinsky, a friend and coworker with her at the Pentagon public affairs office, had confided in her that she’d had a physical, sexual relationship with the president. Furthermore, she had tapes of phone conversations with Lewinsky discussing the relationship and how Lewinsky acted to make sure that evidence such as gifts exchanged could be returned to cover up the relationship.

Lewinsky had signed a false affidavit in the Jones case, saying she did not have a physical relationship with the president. Starr knew he had this young girl cornered before she even knew that the independent counsel was looking at her.

Starr forced Lewinsky to recant her affidavit, offering her immunity from prosecution. Lewinsky would go on to testify, in graphic detail, each sexual encounter she had with the president.

Bill Clinton was once again forced to testify in a grand jury. This time, they were looking into the possibility the president had committed perjury and obstructed justice. The testimony, later released to the public, was not one of Clinton’s finer moments as he parsed the meaning of the word, “is” and gave evasive answers.

When the case went public, Clinton’s people opened up a new front in the battle. Through Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, and Filegate, the fights had all been handled by lawyers and courts. Now, the Clinton people started an all out war on Starr politically, trashing his reputation and making him appear to be an overzealous partisan on a witch hunt.

That was not true of Ken Starr early on. Woodward’s sources demonstrate a Ken Starr who respected the president and the presidency and pursued his investigation doggedly, but within the confines of his mandate and without an accompanying political campaign. The turning point, which one can conclude, turned the investigation into a truly sordid episode in American history came when Ken Starr attempted to resign to take a job as Dean of Law at Pepperdine University.

Clinton’s political attack dog, James Carville, took to the talk shows, calling Starr a coward and demanded that he stay and finish the job he started. Had Carville let Starr go, another prosecutor may have been more measured in his behavior than Starr was after the political attack. Instead, an angry, bitter, Ken Starr agreed to stay on. But he was angry at having his reputation besmirched by the likes of Carville. Starr’s tactics changed. Instead of an impartial lawyer, he became a political warrior.

From that point on, Starr’s release of information was timed to bring maximum embarrassment to Clinton. Finally, Clinton was backed into a political corner when it was revealed that semen on a dress owned by Lewinsky contained his DNA.

Clinton took to television and, in an angry, bitter address, admitted that he had had an improper relationship with Lewinsky. He denied he’d done anything illegal and from that point on, the matter was one between himself, his family, and his God.

Starr wasn’t going to let Clinton or his friends off that easy. He prepared a report to the House Judiciary Committee detailing what he believed to be incidents of perjury and obstruction of justice. The law stated that he needed to advise the committee of any impeachable offenses he found. But Starr went one step further in his report, actually advocating impeachment. He then released his salacious report which was 50 percent legalese and 50 percent cheap romantic novel. It was a bombshell.

The rest was history of the highest drama. The House Judiciary Committee voted out four articles of impeachment. While they deliberated, someone released information that Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) who chaired the judiciary committee had carried on affair thirty years prior. Allegations of an affair came out against Clinton’s chief antagonist in the House, Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN). Eventually, allegations of an affair took down House Speaker Robert Livingston who had just taken over the job from the disgraced Newt Gingrich who had a litany of moral and legal issues that drove him from office. Livingston promptly resigned from the speakership and the House, inviting Clinton to do the same.

The House voted on and passed two articles of impeachment, mostly along party lines. In a moment of historical high drama, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and his delegation met Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott (R-MS) in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol and formally delivered the articles to the Senate.

A trial was held in the Senate. All through the trial, public opinion showed that the American people thought that Clinton was a scumbag, but had made a good faith effort to conduct his office in a legal manner. His approval rating was in the 60s. Democrats in the Senate knew they had the political cover to vote for acquittal no matter what kind of case prosecutors put forward.

Wary Republicans and Democrats not too pleased with their president tried to find a means through which the drama of a president on trial could be avoided, yet see that Clinton was properly rebuked for his behavior. The idea of presidential censure was bandied about.

One of the most outspoken opponents of censure was my boss at the time, Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH). DeWine, a trial lawyer and a man well acquainted with the Constitution, said that the Constitution laid out the remedy for a president who had broken the law and that censure was not a constitutional remedy. DeWine and his colleagues won the day. The trial went forward.

The senate voted not to remove Bill Clinton from office. But the Clinton presidency and his place in history are forever tainted. Soon after the vote, Starr wrapped up his investigation.

What emerges from the Clinton episode is that Bill Clinton was the cause of all of his own problems. He admitted that his administration, early on, were amateurs who bungled the travel office firings, the handling of the Vince Foster files, and the Rose Law Firm files. Clinton, like Nixon, sometimes parted ways from the truth and got away with it. Like Nixon, Clinton made enemies that would gladly use a sword thrust into their hands by the target of their ire. The political shenanigans of the Clinton White House in its early years coupled by Bill Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky and the lies he told to try to get out of it were the stuff of such swords. While his enemies did not slay him with that sword, they certainly did permanent damage.

Starr’s conduct later in the scandal was also beyond the pale. The notorious Starr report should never have been released in the manner in which it was written. Starr wanted to stab back at the Clinton people who had dragged his name through the mud. Much like Lawrence Walsh, he acted vindictively when he laid out the case for Clinton’s impeachment, far beyond his legislative mandate.

It was an episode that should have never happened. Clinton’s enemies were overzealous in taking advantage of the special prosecutor/independent counsel statute. They could produce just the flimsiest of evidence to trigger an investigation.

Clinton just could not bring himself to tell the truth when cornered. His entire career was checkered with lies and half truths. He also left a trail of women who alleged they’d had sexual relationships with him and at least two women came forward to say that Clinton forced himself upon them. Whether or not they were all true, some were. And Bill Clinton put himself in that position of not being believable. Then to be so reckless as to engage in a sexual relationship with an immature intern and put the country through nearly two years of political trauma was Clintons’ greatest misdeed. He and his behavior put this country through a needless constitutional crisis when it should have been enjoying some of the happiest and most tranquil times in its history.

I am fortunate to have actually lived day to day with this historic event. I worked in one of Sen. DeWine’s state offices, answering the phones and discussing events with hundreds of people as they unfolded. I was but a minor staffer and speechwriter, but I consider it a rare privilege to have been on the front lines of such historic events, however unpleasant and tawdry they might have been.

Conclusion
Woodward states that none of his successors truly learned the lessons of Watergate – that every deed committed in good faith or bad, was subject to the scrutiny of this ambiguous fourth branch of government. Woodward concludes that Watergate diminished the presidency inviting unprecedented scrutiny of presidential behavior – official and unofficial. I disagree.

To be president is to make huge decisions with huge ramifications. Sometimes, especially in crisis, those decisions can take a president outside the boundaries of the law. Ford may have not been truthful in talking about pardon discussions with Al Haig, but history has borne out Ford’s decision to pardon Nixon as the correct one.

I make no secret that I find Jimmy Carter to be a poor president and loathsome person. However, he made the correct call in standing by Bert Lance at least early on. A president willing to jettison aides at the first hint of scandal will not earn his staff’s loyalty. The Hamilton Jordan fiasco followed by the Ted Olson non-scandal should have served as evidence that the Ethics in Government Act was a horrible statute that was as effective in ruining the reputations of the innocent as anything perpetrated by the Red Baiters of the 1950s.

Iran-Contra certainly deserved scrutiny. But instead of employing a half-assed, vindictive jerk like Lawrence Walsh, Congress should have used the Watergate model of appointing a committee to investigate, take testimony, and forward it to the justice department for action. Yes, there was an Iran Contra committee, but Daniel Inouye’s committee did not come close to achieving the results of Sam Ervin’s Watergate committee. Walsh’s political indictment of Cap Weinberger will always taint him as a bitter man willing to influence elections and ruin reputations to justify his own incompetence. The fact that so many who were guilty escaped punishment while Walsh pursued what he regarded as big fish put the exclamation point on that tarnish.

The book ends shortly before the end of the Clinton presidency. Like Nixon, Clinton turned to foreign affairs where he had unmitigated influence. But Bill Clinton – the leader of domestic tranquility was diminished badly. No major legislation passed after the scandal. Domestic policy seemed to have shut down. Meanwhile, bubbling within the dark chambers of Wall Street, was the dotcom fiasco. Clinton’s people never made a move to defuse the crisis that would destroy the retirement plans of so many Baby Boomers.

Thankfully, the independent counsel law is dead. We still have the Constitution that clearly provides Congress with the legal means to investigate the actions of the executive branch.

President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime by Lou Cannon

President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime
By Lou Cannon
Copyright 1991

Lou Cannon is the most prolific writer on the subject of Ronald Reagan, having written three tomes on the Gipper. Among his works are Governor Reagan, Reagan, Ronnie and Jesse: A Political Odyssey, and President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime. Cannon covered Reagan for the San Jose Mercury News while Reagan was governor of California and covered him in the White House as senior White House correspondent for the Washington Post.

This volume is perhaps the most expansive examination of the Reagan record ever published. Cannon engages in political analysis, describing how Reagan rose to power in both California and the United States and how he avoided being tattooed with major scandals such as the “homosexual scandal” that occurred within his executive office when he was governor of California, and Iran-Contra.

Cannon also delves deep into psychoanalysis, trying to determine what in the shielded psyche of Ronald Reagan made it so easy for him to connect with the American people, yet so difficult to connect with individuals on a personal level – including his own children.

There is also some policy analysis, although not as much as one would like. Cannon provides more of a chronology of policy than analysis. In politics, as in nature, for every action there is a reaction. Cannon examines both the good and bad that came from Reagan’s policies and actions as president.

As the title implies, Cannon looks at Reagan’s political career as a performance. Reagan’s detractors often criticized him for being little more than an actor and mocked him for his profession (as if there are only certain professions that prepare one for the presidency).

Cannon’s thesis is that Ronald Reagan was an actor playing a president. This may sound condescending or pejorative, but Cannon intends no disrespect to Reagan or the presidency. He describes in great detail how Reagan’s acting ability helped him achieve the presidency, maintain spectacular popularity ratings through most of his presidency, and conduct the office with a degree of style and flair that served his ends as well as those of the American people.

Perhaps it was more Reagan’s tenure as a pitchman for General Electric that prepared him for the presidency than his movie career. To be a successful salesman, one must believe in what he is selling. Reagan believed in what he was selling – even when that belief had little ground in fact. His advisers and even many of his critics that knew him say he was incapable of lying. He sometimes chose to believe things that weren’t true.

Reagan’s reliance on scripts figures heavily into Cannon’s analysis. Cannon documents three shining moments in his presidential debates where the answers, while well thought out, are supposed to be spontaneous.

His first moment where he shone was sort of spontaneous. In a New Hampshire debate in 1980, Reagan was speaking into a microphone, arguing over whether all of the Republican candidates should be allowed to participate or just he and George Bush. As Reagan, whose campaign funded the debate, argued for allowing all of the candidates on the stage, a debate moderator asked that the microphone be turned off. Reagan shouted into that microphone, “Mr. Breen [sic], I’m paying for this microphone.” The press took notice. No one remembered the substance of the debate.

Certainly the emotion was spontaneous as the Reagan and Bush campaigns had argued for several days over whether or not to limit the number of candidates. However, the line was similar to a line that Reagan had once used in a movie.

When he debated Jimmy Carter in Cleveland in 1980, he delivered a body blow to Carter with the quip, “There you go again!” Reagan and his debate coaches knew Carter was going to make claims that Reagan planned to cut social security. The claim had dogged Reagan in the primaries and continued to resonate with older voters. Nobody remembers the substance of that debate, or even that issue. What they remember was the plaintive dismissal in Reagan’s voice when he delivered the line. It resonated enough to mask Reagan’s otherwise tenuous grip on hard policy questions.

“I promise not to make my opponent’s youth or inexperience an issue in this campaign,” was the line Reagan used to get back on the offensive in the 1984 campaign against Walter Mondale. Mondale had beaten Reagan badly in their first debate, demonstrating a strong grasp of policy while Reagan struggled with the facts and figures he’d rehearsed. Reagan and his campaign struggled to develop a debate strategy for their candidate who was strong with “the vision thing” but weak with policy. They decided to “let Reagan be Reagan,” and deliver a one-liner that would serve as the sound bite on the news. The strategy paid off as Reagan’s poll numbers rebounded after the debate.

Cannon asserts that Reagan relied on scripts to conduct his entire presidency. Reagan worked well with a Tel-E-Promp-Ter, but preferred index cards. Not only did he use these index cards for speeches, he used them for policy meetings. Cannon makes a large issue of this, but oddly, the people he met with when using his notes did not.

Reagan was not a man who grasped the intricacies of government policy or mechanics well. An argument can be made that a president doesn’t need to. Jimmy Carter was probably the most wonkish president in history, yet was an abysmal failure. Because Reagan had to read his points from prepared notes does not mean he didn’t believe them or that they weren’t true. It simply means that he wasn’t able to remember all of them.

Another Reagan tool – one that was sometimes used against his administration – was the anecdote. While Reagan couldn’t remember the percentage of American adults receiving AFDC, he could remember a story and he had literally thousands of anecdotes memorized that he could draw on to make points and achieve policy objectives. Some of the anecdotes were of dubious origin. Nonetheless, they served him well.

One anecdote that Reagan applied forcefully and with great success was that of the Welfare Queen. A woman by the name of Linda Taylor from Chicago had created more than 80 aliases through which she was able to obtain welfare benefits and cheat the government out of thousands of dollars. While most people on welfare were barely able to subsist, Reagan made her emblematic of a wasteful and inefficient welfare system. The story of the Welfare Queen became ingrained in the American psyche. It was a story I heard from my father and grandmother (the two most anti-welfare people I ever knew) repeatedly as they tried hard to instill in me a work ethic.

Reagan without a script was uneven at best. Aides lived in fear whilst Reagan conducted press conferences. When talking about ideas, Reagan the performer did fine. When pressed on policy issues, Reagan stumbled, slipped, and was often incoherent. Reminded of something he’d said earlier in his presidency or even earlier that day, Reagan would often ask, “did I say that?” Obviously Reagan would have failed as an improv comedian.

Cannon’s psychoanalysis centers on Reagan’s boyhood and being raised by an alcoholic father. As Cannon points out, children of alcoholics hate confrontation, discord, or disagreement. Reagan’s father, when drinking, had a quick temper and there were undoubtedly many tense moments in the Reagan household. These children also tend to be introverted, not forming close bonds or friendships.

Reagan hated confrontation much more than the average person. He hated arguments in his presence. He could not fire aides that clearly needed to be dismissed. When arguments arose or tempers flared in his presence, he withdrew mentally. As a result, policy matters were usually resolved outside of his presence and the consensus delivered to him with for his approval or amendment.

This would seem to make for a weak presidency. In Reagan’s case, it did not. In his first term, Reagan had a strong executive office, headed by James Baker, an old Bush hand from Texas. Baker controlled the flow of paper, people, and ideas to the Oval Office with great effectiveness. Reagan knew what he wanted to achieve. He knew what he believed in. If policy arrived at his desk and presented to him in a manner true to those beliefs, he approved. If they did not, Reagan could be stubborn to a fault.

In confronting people, Reagan ill-served himself, the country and the world. Al Haig created many problems within the cabinet and with the American people with his imperious conduct as Secretary of State. Despite the pleas of close aides such as Michael Deaver and Baker, Reagan could not bring himself to fire him. Not until Haig started delivering ultimatums to the Oval Office was Reagan forced to ask for his resignation.

Another case is Secretary of the Interior James Watt. That this buffoon ever held a cabinet position is testimony to the fact that even idiots can achieve high office. Watt made many insensitive and intemperate remarks, calling a presidential commission, “A black, a woman, two Jews, and a cripple. And we have talent” That remark alone was not enough to get Watt fired by Reagan. It was not until the outcry became so loud from his supporters that he could no longer ignore Watt’s idiocy that he acted.

An issue often brought up by his detractors was Reagan’s intelligence, or lack thereof. Cannon skirts this issue. Cannon does not seem to regard Reagan as being dumb, and he should not. Reagan was not the most intellectually gifted of presidents. I would argue that the presidency does not require advanced degrees or high I.Q.s. Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Carter, and Woodrow Wilson were all intellectually gifted, yet did not achieve great results. Meanwhile, men of lesser intellect such as Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, and Reagan excelled in the office. The Presidency requires the ability to lead people – sometimes where they do not want to go. Reagan had this quality. As to his intelligence, most people who knew him thought him to be a man of above average intelligence with a gift for speaking and writing.

With Reagan, people out of sight were out of mind. He had no close friends and was not close to his children. He often forgot the names of even his closest aides, hurting their feelings and lowering their morale. He seemed to care little about them as people. This is not to say Reagan was without compassion. As I noted earlier, Reagan used anecdotes to serve his purpose. Sometimes, his opponents used anecdotes as well. Shown how a policy or action hurt someone in real life, Reagan was prone to surrender and his aides tried to shield him from this. This was a strategy employed by Nancy Reagan often when she wanted to move the president in a particular direction.

Cannon is clearly an opponent of most of Reagan’s domestic policies. He illuminates the debate within an administration that had promised to cut taxes and balance the budget. Fierce battles were waged by both sides since both sides knew only one could be accomplished. The tax cutters won. Reagan never presented a balanced budget in his eight years and dramatically increased the federal deficit.

Despite these deficits, the economy turned around and the longest period of economic expansion in our nation’s history began. When Reagan took office, economists were in a quandary because the Phillips curve – the inverse ratio between unemployment and inflation – had broken down. The nation had been through two periods of stagflation with high unemployment and inflation. The Keynesian model of spending the way out of a recession and cutting spending to reduce inflation no longer held. Under the leadership of Chairman Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve began manipulating the economy through monetary policy. By expanding and contracting the supply of capital available, the Fed hoped to control inflation. Monetary policy as a tool for manipulating the economy emerged in the Reagan years.

The experiment worked, but with terrible consequences. By late 1981, the prime interest rate was near 21 percent. No one could afford to purchase a home or car. Inflation fell dramatically and unemployment soared to levels not seen since the Great Depression. By 1983, with inflation at an acceptable four percent, the Fed began to lower interest rates and the economy eventually took off. Reagan, whose popularity had sunk to the low 40s, proclaimed it “morning again in America.” Soon, his popularity would rise to 70 percent, making him the most popular president in the era of polling.

In Reagan’s conduct of foreign affairs, Cannon is a bit more complimentary. The START Treaty with the Soviet Union stands as Reagan’s greatest achievement and Cannon carefully documents the genesis of the idea and the negotiations that led to the landmark treaty.

Reagan strongly believed in the biblical prophecy of Armageddon. He feared nuclear war and despised the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) as a guarantor of peace. He discarded the notion of the Cold War being the uneasy coexistence of competing ideologies. A Cold War was a war and wars are fought to be won.

To win, Reagan needed to negotiate with the Soviets from a position of strength. He recognized his opponent as being weaker, with the Soviet economy withering under the burden of defense spending. Reagan rearmed the nation with an unprecedented level of peacetime defense spending, causing massive deficits. He also introduced the concept of the Strategic Defense Initiative or “Star Wars” as the media dubbed it.

SDI frightened the Soviets. Whether SDI was practical as a concept or a dream of Reagan’s we will never know. But the Soviets took it seriously. After watching Soviet leaders Leonid Brezhnev, Yuri Andropov, and Konstanin Chernenko – all hardline cold warriors – die, Reagan found in Mikhail Gorbachev and communist with whom he could do business.

In Gorbachev’s mind, stopping the development of SDI was top priority. Reagan stubbornly held on, claiming it as his duty to protect American citizens from nuclear war. Whether it was science fiction, abstract policy, or cutting edge technology, SDI drove the Soviets nuts. Reagan used this leverage to his advantage in negotiating with Gorbachev.

Cannon gives Reagan high marks for imagination, vision, and daring to great things in the area of foreign policy. Before Reagan, treaties between the super powers limited the expansion of nuclear arsenals and defense systems. Reagan’s imagination led to the actual reduction of those arsenals and he dreamed of a day when those arsenals will be gone. Despite having no significant foreign policy experience, Reagan achieved what only his imagination could have envisioned during the hottest point of the Cold War: the partial disarmament of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

Cannon devotes two chapters to the Iran-Contra scandal and is hyper-critical of Reagan. That it was a foreign policy blunder cannot be argued. That it violated the law is not in contention. How much blame Reagan bears for the blunder is a matter of contention.

The earliest development of the scandal came from the noble vision of national security advisor Bud McFarlane. With relations between the US and Iran non-existent after the Khomeini government seized American hostages was non existent. McFarlane envisioned a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran similar to what Nixon had achieved with China. Khomeini was in ill health (although he would go on to live another eight years) and McFarlane was receptive to moderates within the Iranian government who promised warmer relations with the US in exchange for arms with which to fight Iraq. The carrot they used to lure McFarlane was the release of American hostages being held in Lebanon.

In his eagerness to achieve this magnificent diplomatic coup, however, McFarlane ignored State Department intelligence that his primary contact in Iran was actually a great bullshit artist who had little influence within the country. McFarlane made deals and sold the Iranians anti-aircraft missiles and other military hardware from Israeli stocks, then replaced those Israeli stocks with American equipment. Each time McFarlane made an arms shipment, one hostage was released. Unfortunately, more hostages were taken.

McFarlane eventually burned out, knowing he’d been had. His replacement, John Poindexter, continued the policy, but sold the arms at a highly inflated price and deposited the profits in a Swiss bank account. It was from that account that Poindexter aide Col. Oliver North withdrew funds and diverted them to the Contra rebels, fighting the Marxist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. This was in direct violation of a law passed by Congress prohibiting the use of American funds to aid the Contras. Much of that money never made it to the Contras. It went into the pockets of another Poindexter aide, Richard Secord who simply took it to enrich himself.

When the scandal broke, the old Watergate question of “What did he know and when did he know it,” began haunting Reagan. Reagan assured the nation that he did not trade arms for hostages. A special presidential commission was appointed and a congressional committee also investigated. Meanwhile, the American public grew skeptical of Reagan’s claims and his approval rating took the most precipitous drop in national history.

Reagan continued to resist the notion that he’d approved the deal, even when presented with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. Finally, with the scandal eroding his ability to govern and the unspoken threat of impeachment hanging over his head, Reagan went on national television and confessed that, despite his own belief that he had not, the evidence showed that he did approve the deal. With the admission, his poll numbers went up again. Reagan did what is so rare for presidents in our nation’s history: he admitted he made a mistake.

Cannon blames Reagan’s detachment from his policy making apparatus for this. Cannon does not take into account that when Reagan gave his approval, he was recovering from cancer surgery, having had several linear feet of his large intestine removed. Trading arms for hostages was no doubt an egregious policy error. However, decisions made while recovering from that kind of surgery have to be suspect and Reagan should have never been put in the position of making that decision at that time. The fault there lies with chief of staff, Donald Regan.

No one was ever able to prove that Reagan knew about the diversion of funds to the Contras. Cannon is more forgiving here, stating that no one presented any hard evidence that showed Reagan approved or knew of the diversion. Even North, at his congressional testimony and his criminal trial, refused to blame Reagan for this blunder.
gn policy as the Cold War ended and tensio

I have more historical insight now than Cannon had 20 years ago when he wrote this book. Iran-Contra had very little effect on American foreins in the Middle East heated up. It was a policy blunder of the highest magnitude. But its effect on the nation and the world was negligible.

As I stated earlier, Reagan started his presidency with a strong team within his executive office that balanced out what was a weak cabinet. Baker was a masterful chief of staff who ran the White House staff with efficiency, offset his boss’ weaknesses, and made sure that Reagan was well prepared for his duties each day. He had a stellar supporting cast in men like Michael Deaver, Richard Wirthlin, and Ken Duberstein.

The cabinet started out weak, but got better. However, Reagan relied very little on his cabinet. He also provided very little oversight of it. As a result, more government officials were convicted of crimes during the Reagan presidency than any other – even surpassing the Grant administration. George Schultz was an improvement over Haig and his appointment helped Reagan gain a better understanding of international relations. Jean Kirkpatrick’s name is now lost in history. But her work as the United Nation’s ambassador lifted the perception of the United States to levels not seen since the end of World War II.

While most cabinet officers were incredibly average, Reagan’s justice department was never up to par. William French Smith tolerated way too much corruption in a department whose sole purpose was to assure lawful conduct. One area where Cannon and I are in strong agreement is that Ed Meese was a total failure as an Attorney General and was an overall liability to Reagan at Justice and as deputy chief of staff. A man with a tin ear, callous attitude, and disregard for the necessity of compliance with the law and the perception of compliance was doomed to be a failure.

Reagan’s second term was less successful primarily because of the appointment of Donald Regan as Chief of Staff. Where Baker cultivated the press on behalf of Reagan, Regan disdained the press. When he did talk to them, it was for his own aggrandizement. Instead of offsetting Reagan’s weaknesses, he played to them to ingratiate himself. Presidents need to be protected from their own impulses and the bad ideas of others. Baker was exceptional. Regan was horrible. It was Regan who allowed Iran Contra to land in the Oval Office. When Howard Baker replaced Regan in 1986 at the behest of Nancy Reagan and Republican members of Congress, Reagan regained his footing and was able to move his tax reform plan through a congress controlled by the Democrats.

Cannon concludes by saying Reagan was successful in that he dared to dream great dreams, see greatness in America, and communicates well with the American people. He goes on to state that Reagan was too far removed and too disengaged from the day to day operations of government or even the activity of his own cabinet. Both conclusions are probably true. However, Reagan subscribed to a management style employed by many in the public and private sector. Select good people for the job and let them do the job. With few exceptions, Reagan did this.

What Cannon does not say, and is without contention, is that Reagan left the country and the world a better place than when he found it. That is the proper measurement of an effective president and Ronald Reagan stands higher than most of his predecessors in that regard.