Monday, February 07, 2011

How I just missed Ronald Reagan's birthday party

I was invited to Ronald Reagan's 70th birthday party and didn't even know it until is was over.

There have been a lot of posts celebrating Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, so it's time to tell my political "how it got away story." I may have mentioned this before on this blog, but it's worth telling again.

When I was at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) back in the early 1980s, I was a conservative newspaper columnist on our college daily (after a brief stint as assistant editorials editor the year before), and was a member of the Students for Reagan. Despite the fact that UCSB was about as left-wing in its campus politics as Berkeley, most students were fairly conservative--as evidenced by the fact that the group was the largest student group on campus.

It was Reagan who inspired me to become a Republican, and he was running for President. I was also a member of the College Republicans, which was sponsored by Brooks Firestone, one of the heirs to the Firestone fortune and a prominent California Republican. He was a frequent visitor to the Reagan Ranch in Santa Inez, which was only about 20 minutes from the UCSB campus.

On one weekend in early February of 1981, I had taken advantage of the proximity of the campus to my home (it was a little less than two hours away) to visit my parents for the weekend. I don't remember what I did that weekend--all I remember is the phone call I got at my Santa Barbara apartment when I got back on Sunday night.

The phone rang and picked it up. "Dude, where were you?" It was the head of the College Republicans.

"What do you mean?"

"Saturday night, man."

"What was going on Saturday night?" I asked.

"We were all invited up to the Reagan Ranch by Brooks Firestone for Ronald Reagan's 70th birthday party! I tried to call your apartment, but I didn't get an answer." I don't think I said anything. "You want to hear about it?"

"No thanks," I said. "I'll call you back later." I hung up the phone. Despondent.

Of course, I've gotten over it. But one thing I haven't gotten over is the high regard for Reagan himself. I usually avoid excessive accolades for politicians. I have been around too many for too many years, and know what most of them are really about. There are certainly exceptions to the rule that very few politicians are true statesmen, but, as a rule, it applies pretty universally.

Reagan was one of the more extraordinary exceptions.

I divide politicians into two groups: Machiavellians and Ciceronians. The Machiavellian politician is exemplified by Bill Clinton. Like Machiavelli himself, these kind of politicians are amoral in their politics. Their chief concern is the acquisition and maintenance of power, and the political positions they take are subordinate to that purpose. Pollsters and focus groups characterize the Machiavellian.

The second kind of politician, the Ciceronian, is exemplified by Reagan. Like Cicero, politics serves these kind of politicians as a mere means to a more substantive end. Unlike the Machiavellian, policy objectives are not means to the end of power; rather, power is the means to the ends of the policy objectives. Principles and substantive policy prescriptions characterize the Ciceronian.

Now there are a couple of things to not about this division. First, like all divisions of human beings, no one fits exclusively into one category. There seems to be a spectrum such that no particular politician will be exclusively one or the other.

Secondly, notice that there is nothing in this division (other than the particular politicians I have chosen as examples) that would allow anyone to identify either one of the types of politicians with any particular party. If you are a Republican, you will probably think that your party is more Ciceronian than the Democrats, and vice-versa. However, you can easily see that this division crosses party lines. Ralph Nader, for example, a Democrat, obviously does not belong among the Machiavellians, while Charlie Crist, who I believe is still a registered Republican, does.

Reagan, as I have said, was clearly a Ciceronian.

I grew up in California, and I not only remember his two terms as governor, but his daily radio addresses on a prominent Los Angeles radio station. From the very beginning, he knew what he was and what he believed in, and he articulated it at every opportunity.

Today's national Republican politicians commonly pay obesience to Reagan, but I sometimes wonder if many of them admire him only for his political success. What sets off many modern Republicans from the Republicans who made the party successful in the 1980s is the willingness to admire and emulate Republicans were were not successful.

The Republican Party owes its own successes over the last 50 years to a small cadre of late 20th century Republicans (Reagan among them) who admired a man who was a political failure: Barry Goldwater. They admired him because he put principle above politics. He said was he thought and let the chips fall where they may.

What separates the conservative men from the Republican boys is whether they would have admired Reagan if he would not have won two national elections.

13 comments:

Lee said...

Have you noticed, since the recent elections, that the media is using the word "Reaganesque" to describe Obama, and that Newsweek even put Reagan and Obama on their cover as if they were old buds?

I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Singring said...

If I were Obama, I'd be furious to be compared to a guy who negotiated with terrorists secretly to sell weapons to Iran and said such monumentally stupid and dangerous things as:

'Within the covers of the Bible are all the answers for all the problems men face.'

Because we all know that it says in the Bible how to make Alzheimer medication or how to build infrared missile detectors, right?

But then again, Obama is too polite to complain about almost anything.

Steve Billingsley said...

Singring,

Below is a link to the perspective of a woman who worked with President Reagan. Not that I hold out much hope that you would take this seriously, as your response is as predictable as it is ignorant. But it would be worth your time to read.

http://www.imaginativeconservative.org/2011/02/remembering-ronald-reagan.html#more

Singring said...

You are right. I won't take seriously any adulation of anyone that speaks in glowing terms of Mother Teresa, the woman who said that the greatest evils in the world were not poverty, not famine, not war, not HIV - but contraception and abortion. That paragraph alone tells me that I cannot take anything Ms. Elliot says seriously, because she abandons her capacity for critical thinking the moment anyone who is declared a 'saint' opens their mouth.

But the next paragraph was the real killer. Let me tell you why: I am German. And let me tell you that my gall rises when Ms. Elliot has the audacity to lecture Germans on allowing nuclear missiles be stationed in their back yard. I lived no 5 miles from a Pershing missile site - a site at least 50 miles from the next major city. Ms. Elliot makes the absurd claim that the nuclear missiles were there to 'keep us safe'. Does she not realize that the moment those missiles were placed close to our home, at least 10 Russian missiles were pointed directly at us in preparatory retaliation and possibly still are, thanks to Russian military incompetence? Is she honestly trying to tell us that having nuclear missiles stationed 5 miles form your house and paraded through your streets in addition to having nuclear missiles pointed at your country makes you more safe than only having nuclear missiles pointed at your country? If this is the kind of thinking that pervades conservative circles, nothing coming from that side should surprise me.

Come now, Steve. Don't tell me you buy this stuff.

Granted, Reagan dealt with Russia fairly well - but it was falling apart anyway, so I don't really understand why everyone in teh US paints this ridiculous image of Reagan single-handedly destroying the USSR. Personally, I give far more credit to Lech Walesa and others who worked behind the iron curtain - people who actually worked for change from within, ofetn risking their lives.

Ms. Elliot of course makes no mention of Iran Contra.

What do you think of Iran Contra? That it was a great moment in presidential history?

Or what about that quote from Reagan? Does that strike you as the kind of thing the most powerful man in the world should ever believe, let alone say?

Joe_Agnost said...

Sugar coating the Reagan era seems to be a popular pastime among conservatives these days... here's an article on this very subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/02/limbaugh_and_conservative_delu.php

Joe_Agnost said...

The end of that URL is:

limbaugh_and_conservative_delu.php

Steve Billingsley said...

As I said, I didn't entertain much hope of you taking this seriously.

I don't view Reagan as a perfect leader and he certainly made many mistakes (including Iran Contra).

But his Presidency was significant and accomplished a great deal of good.

President Obama obviously considers him significant and not just in a bad way.

I will ask you one question. As a German would you prefer to have the Berlin Wall back? Because most of the world leaders of the 70s and 80s took it for granted that it wasn't going to come down anytime soon.

Other than that, enjoy your ignorance.

Singring said...

'As a German would you prefer to have the Berlin Wall back?'

Of course not. What a ridiculous statement. As if teh collapse of the USSR had anything to do with military pressure. It was economic collapse.

The US had plenty of nuclear submarines and enough ICBMs to blow up the world 10 times over, even if you think that nuclear armament was a reason for the USSR to collapse.

'But his Presidency was significant and accomplished a great deal of good. '

I never said it wasn't, I never said it didn't. Of course I disagree with most of his policies, but he certainly wasn't quite as disasterous as Bush Jr.

I'm simply amazed that this man is being almost deified by the right, even though he did many things (explode the deficit, raise taxes, negotiate with terrorists, support anti-democratic military militias etc.) that Republicans would abhor today. The Republicans basically went apoplectic when tax cuts on the super-rich were to expire, yet Reagan raised taxes several times.

Just look at Martin's latest post - he rips into Biden for stating that he wouldn't call Mubarak a dictator (and rightly so!) - but then you have him adulate Reagan who we know supported right wing militias that wanted nothing but a military dictatorship.

That's what I find puzzling.

Singring said...

'The US had plenty of nuclear submarines and enough ICBMs to blow up the world 10 times over, even if you think that nuclear armament was a reason for the USSR to collapse.'

Was trying to say: Even if you think that nuclear weapons were responsible in some way for ending the cold war, there was no requirement for stationing Pershings in Germany as the US had enough nuclear submarines and long-range ICBMs to blow up the world ten times over.

'Because most of the world leaders of the 70s and 80s took it for granted that it wasn't going to come down anytime soon.'

What has that got to do with anything? Just because people thought the wall was not going to fall (and I agree, most thought it wouldn't) doesn't mean that US posturing was a significant factor in it happening. We know that it was economic collapse and widespread social unrest in the satellite states that were the primary causes of it happening.

Art said...

I divide politicians into two groups: Machiavellians and Ciceronians. The Machiavellian politician is exemplified by Bill Clinton. Like Machiavelli himself, these kind of politicians are amoral in their politics. Their chief concern is the acquisition and maintenance of power, and the political positions they take are subordinate to that purpose. Pollsters and focus groups characterize the Machiavellian.

The second kind of politician, the Ciceronian, is exemplified by Reagan. Like Cicero, politics serves these kind of politicians as a mere means to a more substantive end. Unlike the Machiavellian, policy objectives are not means to the end of power; rather, power is the means to the ends of the policy objectives. Principles and substantive policy prescriptions characterize the Ciceronian.


"Principles and substantive policy prescriptions"? Reagan's enduring legacy is and will be his "discovery" that a politician can buy political power in the here and now with our childrens' money. I don't consider this to be Ciceronian in any sense, except the one where political power is a "substantive policy consideration".

Lee said...

> "Principles and substantive policy prescriptions"? Reagan's enduring legacy is and will be his "discovery" that a politician can buy political power in the here and now with our childrens' money.

In that case, you must really dislike Obama, with his trillion dollar deficits.

Steve Billingsley said...

Singring,

You really are a predictable thinker. Notice I didn't say consistent, but predictable.

"Of course not. What a ridiculous statement. As if the collapse of the USSR had anything to do with military pressure. It was economic collapse."

The two are related. The economic collapse had much to do with the amount of military spending that the USSR did in an effort to keep up with the spending of the US. The US economy was robust enough to handle this spending (and in fact in some ways benefited from it, as military related spending often produced a lot of high paying jobs). The Soviet economy wasn't.

I don't deify Reagan. There may be some who do, but I think that he was an effective and able leader.

"Granted, Reagan dealt with Russia fairly well - but it was falling apart anyway, so I don't really understand why everyone in the US paints this ridiculous image of Reagan single-handedly destroying the USSR. Personally, I give far more credit to Lech Walesa and others who worked behind the iron curtain - people who actually worked for change from within, ofetn risking their lives."

Again, you are caricaturing the viewpoints of others. I don't know of any serious thinkers who believe that Reagan single handedly brought down the USSR. But if you could ask Lech Walesa of what he thinks of Reagan, you would get an answer that gives a great deal of credit to Reagan. Differentiate the response of Reagan to the efforts of Solidarity and Soviet dissidents to the response of Obama to dissidents in Iran, where his tepid response was viewed with bewilderment by dissidents there.

You seem to admire Obama from what I can tell from your responses. Do you see him as perfect? Has he not made any mistakes? He has pretty much kept the majority of Bush's foreign policy (Guantanomo is still open, the withdrawal of troops from Iraq was on the exact same schedule set by the Bush administration, he has escalated the war effort in Afghanistan, the policy of extraordinary rendition is still in place, the Patriot Act was renewed). He agreed to keep the Bush tax cuts in place. Do you agree with all of his decisions. Oh, and by the way, he professes Christian faith (did you see his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast a couple of days ago?)

Is it not possible to admire someone and still disagree with some of their actions?

Don't be so simplistic.

Singring said...

'The two are related.'

They certainly are. But you give the refutation to your own argument within your post:

'The US economy was robust enough to handle this spending (and in fact in some ways benefited from it, as military related spending often produced a lot of high paying jobs). The Soviet economy wasn't.'

This is true, but it is of course a consequence of a systemic problem with the Soviet economy. To suggest that simply putting military pressure on the USSR led to the downfall is simplistic, because Russian military spending was exorbitant (just as it was in the US) long before Reagan's presidency.

In any event, my point was that it is simply ridiculous to make any kind of argument that stationing nuclear missiles in a given country makes that country more safe from a nuclear strike.

'You seem to admire Obama from what I can tell from your responses. Do you see him as perfect? Has he not made any mistakes?'

I admire Obama for his intellect and ability as a suave political figure, I certainly don't admire his policies or his performance so far. I didn't even think much of Obama during the primaries - he was way too much of an opportunist and populist. My favourites would have been: Mike Gravel (the only true socialist on the ballot) and Dennis Kucinich. Of the 'realistic' candidates I would have preferred John Edwards, for a number of reasons I won't elaborate on. If I had to pick who I wished was President right now, I'd go for people like Bernie Saunders, Al Franken and especially Alan Grayson.

Persoanlly, I think Obama has been doing a very poor job so far. Any Democrat who professes an interest in health care reform who does not push for a single payer system when he has sixty votes in the senate is a lilly-livered chicken in my opinion. Consequently, the health care debate devolved into a farcical comedy routine, as seen from Europe. Guantanamo, Afghanistan - you name it, Obama has let the left down.

Finally, as an atheist I was truly appalled when teh administartion appealed the National day of Prayer ruling. That was just bizarre.

In any case, if you would like to call me simplistic for supporting Mike Gravel, go right ahead.

I'll tell you this though: You come across as a far more reasonable and considerate conservative than most others frwequenting thsi blog and you make some good points. I respect that 100 %.