Reagan’s intelligence was vastly underrated. William F. Buckley more than once referred to Reagan as his hero, and Buckley was not one to consider others to be above himself very often. Buckley and his wife were personal friends of the Reagans, and they occasionally spent the night in each other’s homes. Buckley loved to relate an occasion when the Reagans were staying the night in his home and he and Reagan got into a spirited disagreement over some matter of economics. When Buckley arose the next morning, he found that Reagan had slipped a detailed ten page manifesto, written by hand after they’d all retired the night before, slipped under his door and explaining perfectly Reagan’s position on the matters they had discussed the night before, outlining perfectly the justifications for his reasoning and what he expected to result from them – all of which left Buckley, by his own admission, quite impressed.
Simply put, Reagan was far from the dunce that his opponents liked to portray him as being. Frankly, I think he relished being underestimated – as he almost always was – and felt that it worked in his favor. I believe that he, more than any president of my lifetime, was both fully in command of and perfectly comfortable with the role of being president. It fit him like a well made suit and he wore it well.
He was probably bright enough when he first took office, but his mental decline began after he was shot during the assassination attempt, and he took a slow ride down after that. I don’t think the perception that he was dumb, but that he was publicly going more and more senile.
Palin during the Q and A after the speech was asked about who she could decide to endorse answered
“But if they feel they are taxed enough already and they make a commitment to do something about it and if they just believe in the constitutionally limited government that the federal government has to start abiding by,a lot of the things perhaps the details, the things on the periphery, perhaps I would not agree with every single aspect their agenda that they would like to implement ,they have got the basics down. I think it would be wise for us to be supportive”.
This is who you follow? She is the dumbest person to ever get within smelling distance of the presidency. Save us from Sarah.
Maybe. But if he said dumb things on purpose in order to be underestimated by his opponents, then his supporters can’t really complain because his intelligence got underrated.
Reagan may have been out of the closet as a thoughtful policy wonk with close personal friends like Buckley, but in his public persona he certainly played up his genial populist disdain for policy wonkery and all that egghead stuff.
Correction: This is the left’s interpretation of Reagan’s years in office. His Doctors had a differing opinion.
Forgotten the “Two Tribes” video by Frankie Goes To Hollywood, already? Or Reagan being burned in effigy? I knew a lot of people who thought he was evil personafied - the only thing standing in the way of nuclear disarmament and a senile warlike aggressor who was going to push the Soviets straight into WWIII.
Here’s a group of happy campers expressing their mild disagreement with the amiable old coot.
I think that’s pretty close. In the decades before the 90’s, politicians on both sides were much more likely to be willing to compromise. Tip O’Neill and Reagan managed to cut a lot of deals with each other.
What changed was that the cold war ended, and with it the few common threads shared between the parties. There were always the defense hawk Democrats like Sam Nunn, and the more pacifist Republicans like Ron Paul. Given the seriousness of the issue, it forced a lot of coalition building between the two parties. The times were just too serious to allow for temper tantrums and stupid Senate Games.
But then the cold war ended, and the parties drew back into their separate corners. And they’ve been sniping at each other ever since.
But nobody is even making up yarns about Palin spinning policy proposals out of stardust while they sleep, right? I mean, the idea with her is that she does not think deeply- that is a benefit, right?
I guess I understand where Reagan’s supporters had something to grab onto. Thanks for the context, though. Palin is just baffling.
Not only did the pictured protest not take place during the time that Reagan was actually President, it had absolutely nothing to do with “the left’s” views on Reagan!
I know you would not have dishonestly attempted to palm off false evidence on us to support your assertions, Sam, so all I can say is that citing that photo was pretty, um, disengaged of you.
I think you’re right. He portrayed the image of being a genial, lovable grandfatherly figure, occasionally hitting a dead end when trying to think of a word or nodding off during cabinet meetings, but I think the reality was anything but. Take for example the debate with Mondale. Reagan tried to repeat his famous “There you go again” line that had been so successful against Carter. Mondale was ready for it and delivered a scathing response, leaving Reagan apparently at a loss for words and stumbling helplessly in an attempt to recover. Many Democrats thought they scored a direct hit, but all it really did was make people feel sorry for Reagan and resent Mondale.
It was not for nothing that Reagan was called the Teflon president, and this is just one more example. I think Reagan knew a trap had been set and he deliberately tripped it, knowing that his innate lovability would cause Mondale to come off looking mean. And it worked. People didn’t think of Mondale as having won a key point; instead they thought he’d been a jerk to this sweet old man and it only made them love Reagan that much more.
It was very difficult to go up against Reagan and not come off looking like a jerk, and I think Reagan very shrewdly played that to his advantage.
I recall an interview with Reagan that took place in his Los Angeles office several years after he left office, and the subject of Iran and the Contras came up. He showed a very complete grasp, some years after the fact, regarding details of the things he was being asked about, plus names, dates and so forth, with no hesitation whatsoever. This was around 1992, two years or so before he announced that he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s.
His doctors are full of shit. His decline was plain to see. I was a Reagan supporter during that '84 debate. I voted for him (I was 18. It was my first election). I wasn’t looking for him to stumble. I cringed watching it.
Never heard of it, I was into metal, but Frankie Goes to Hollywood was British, so they don’t really count as the American left.
No, I don’t remember that. Who burned him in effigy?
Well, I can’t speak for the people you knew in Canada, but the American left generally did not hate or fear him. They made fun of him, they were angry after Iran-Contra, they were satirically hyperbolic at times, but the real, vicious venom we have now didn’t exist yet. Politics in the US did not yet have the rancor that began to be ginned up after the Clinton election.
Holy fuck! When did the Phelps clan become part of the American left?
That’s the best you can do? A Reagan dummy in a go cart with the word “EXPLOSIV” [sic] written next to it. I don’t know what that means, nor do I know the context or who made it.
That’s part of it, along with the generational and social changes that came with the Clinton election, the cynicism and lack of faith in the Presidency caused by the Watergate and Iran-Contra scandals, and the rise of right talk radio.
Cable news has driven things too. Political stories and squabbles didn’t used to get so ramped up to such hysterical levels by 24 hour news cycles. Complete and utter trivia is dissected endlessly. The writing on Palin’s hand would not have been given a moment’s notice then, nor would such non-events as Obama ordering mustard on a hamburger or bowing when he meets a foreign leaders. That kind of shit never used to be newsworthy, now it’s all grist for the never ending food fight.
Reagan was notorious for being able to confidently fabricate facts and figures out of thin air. He was especially good at fabricating statistics, and always made sure to put a decimal point in to make them sound more authentic. "47.8%’ sounds more authentic than “60%.”
His staffers and handlers usually had to clean up after him by correcting his facts. he was an actor. He was good at faking it.
It was a clip from a video. I’m trying to remember who conducted it. I’m thinking maybe Buckley, Limbaugh or perhaps Charlie Rose, but I’m not sure. I haven’t been able to turn it up with Google, Bing or Youtube. I did however find this speech, which Reagan made to the Republican convention in August of 1992. Note that he speaks more or less extemporaneously, cracking occasional jokes and rarely looking at his notes, for almost forty minutes. (It might be worth noting that so far neither Palin nor Obama seems capable of the same.) I think it’ll serve as a pretty good illustration as to the state of Reagan’s mentality as of 1992, four years after he left office.
Yes. I wonder if voter interviews have been collected into book form: they’re very revealing. In the 2000 election many voters applauded Bush because " … He’s one of us … a regular guy … would be fun to drink beer with …"
He was always just great with a teleprompter, and like all Alzheimer’s sufferers had good days and bad days. A lot of insiders at the time remarked on his ability to snap out of his normal, comatose stupor when somebody pointed a camera at him.
I didn’t see any teleprompters when the camera panned the audience. Plus if there’d been teleprompters, why notes on the podium?
As far as his snapping out of it in front of a camera, oh, please. Do you honestly think he would have been booked to make this speech in the hope that he’d be able to successfully snap out of it when the time came?
I saw it too. But having a bad debate is not proof of Alzheimers, or of anything more sinister than poor preparation or an off night.
That article I cited lists many medical experts who examined tape of Reagan’s post-presidential interviews, psychological tests and the like, and they agree that he showed no signs of Alzheimers whatsoever until several years after his Presidency ended.
I’m mystified by this “no one hated Reagan” thing. I remember the Reagan years vividly, and the left (mostly the activist left and college students) were quite vocal about him.
I remember the posters, the marches, the effigies. I remember being told that RONALD WILSON REAGAN was an anagram of INSANE ANGLO WARLORD. I remember the “bombing Russia” joke and the fallout [sic] to that. I remember Iran-Contra, the (utterly stupid) Grenada invasion, and the various other scandals associated with his administration. The left hated Reagan, and had (mostly) good reason to.
But he was, as he was called, The Great Communicator. He painted a picture of America not as it really was but as he wanted it to be, and he sold it to the rest of America. His “Morning in America” thing was exactly what the country wanted to hear at a time when things were bad - economic turmoil, oil crises, hostages in Iran, lingering angst from Watergate…
Reagan made us feel good about being American again. the fact that it was all a happy story based on a tissues of lies didn’t matter. As subsequent events have shown, people will take a good story over a harsh truth any day.
