Reckoning with The Reagans (Take One)
Televison movies are rarely avenues for serious "artistic integrity." And that applies also to silver screen pieces of trash that try to address politics and history. I'm particularly thinking about the insipid "An American President," which is one of the most intellectually dishonest pieces of smarm I had the displeasure of watching. It is one of the few films that made me want to chuck something at the screen. But at least that provoked a reaction from me, which is more that I can say for the epic drama "Pearl Harbor" and comedic masterpieces like "Dave," "The Distinguished Gentleman," and "Bullworth."
What disturbs me about this whole Reagan flack that the Left is trying to disavow its intentions in kicking an ex-president when he's still "living" and unable to defend himself. At the same time, as a former president and actor Reagan would realize that any movie about his life -- even a crass, crappy one -- is a backhanded tribute. If you really find someone odious, the best thing to do is to ignore them. Look at all the TV coverage and newspaper ink this story has gotten. It was largely fueled by Drudge, talk radio, and Bill O'Reilly, and for awhile there it looked like they were all doing Mr. Les "Friend of Fidel" Moonves a favor by making it a "must see" program. What was the last miniseries to get so much hype? "Lonesome Dove?"
The Right is also guilty of its own brand of political correctness by circling the wagons, writing letters, making phone calls, and threatening to boycott sponsors of the miniseries. For the past half century (since at least the Kennedy Administration), those who advocate radical notions like anti-communism, the bounty of the market process, and individual rights have struggled against an intellectual and ideological climate in the ivory tower and the media -- largely warmed over socialists who bemoan the very idea of an America where people are free to make their own decisions regarding their income, their families, their businesses, and their property. They do so by clinging tightly to the expansion of the welfare state and group rights to combat perceived inequities and tangible hardships that are largely intrinsic to the human condition, especially in a free society.
The Left is still winning, whatever the spin. Can it really be said that the Leftist vision of America is on the decline when we have a Republican President and Congress who are championing the greatest expansion of entitlement spending since LBJ (the $400 billion prescription drug Medicare plan)? Bush demands his guns, so his political opponents will get their butter (and the decapitated heads of failed judicial nominees). In terms of the real growth of government expenditure, we limited government types pine for the halcyon days of Clinton-Gingrich showdowns.
"The Reagans" upped the rhetorical ante by that now infamous line which epitomized the film's creative license, "They who live by sin shall die by sin." While it is a dishonest portrayal of the personal and political beliefs of the man himself, it resonates today because a great number of those on the Right wholeheartedly believes this, and not only as it applies to same-sex relations. It pinpoints the current prudish, arrogant, and blissfully ignorant posture that many bring to the public square. Unless, of course, it involves William Bennett's gambling or Rush Limbaugh's pill popping. Or the gay offspring of conservative stalwarts like the current Vice President, Phylis Schafly of the Eagle Forum, or Calif. State senator Pete Knight (the principal sponsor of California's "Defense of Marriage" initiative). The line captures the spirit of the now-defunct Moral Majority, which was an instrumental part of the Reagan coalition.
Unlike George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, Reagan was not a born again Christian. Thankfully, most of his rhetoric that invoked religion was done so as a matter of good speech writing and playing to his audience. He had neither the audacity nor the conceit to admit that he committed adultery in his heart or that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher. His "shining city on a hill" was one where, yes, government was largely "secular" while people remained free to practice their religious beliefs. He did not really "preach" about moral matters, unless it was in defense of the unborn or to combat godless communism. In the former case, he kept his distance and gave a knowing wink to the Right to Life Constitutional Amendment; he addressed pro-life rallies via telephone, which is a rather harsh rebuke when one considers how his telegenic nature was central to his political career. When addressing the latter, one of the great accomplishments of his administration was the program that freed thousands of Soviet Jews through good diplomacy with the USSR. "Just Say No," however, was a saccharine slogan that masked the acceleration of the Drug War and the dangerous federalization of criminal law, including mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines; a federal government with overarching police powers is hardly something that those who believe in the Constitution should counsel.
On the AIDS crisis, it is undeniable that he didn't do "all that could be done." But for anyone who was paying attention, we didn't know precisely what it was we were dealing with. And we still don't. That gay men and intravenous drug users were the demographic groups who were affected by it at the outset obviously did not make it a top priority. Even so, what could have been done that was not done? Of course, more money could have been spent. But if all it took was money and willpower, could have we have cured AIDS long ago, or for that matter any other disease? And we think that an entity that has spent trillions in the neverending quest to combat poverty would be effective in this seemingly intractable endeavor? We are still searching for answers fifteen years and billions of dollars later.
As for homosexuality, Lou Cannon's latest book on Reagan notes that it does not appear anywhere in the writings of his post-gubernatorial, pre-presidential newspaper columns or radio addresses. And while there was a "purge" of one gay staffer during his gubernatorial tenure, he publicly opposed a 1978 initiative that would have banned gays from teaching in California's public schools. One interesting bit of trivia is that the decorator who Nancy hired to remodel the White House was actually the first openly gay film star, albeit of the silent screen. His name was William Haines, and he and his partner (one of Nancy's favorite shopping pals) stayed at the White House on several occasions without comment. That speaks for itself.
I am fascinated as to how Reagan still polarizes people after all these years. People on the Left and the Right get so emotional -- and irrational -- about him. The books by Peggy Noonan and Dinesh D'Souza on the Reagan years are slavish hagiographies that are reminiscent of the Left's Camelot worship. I don't think that politicians ought to be imbued with a sort of mystic reverence that is indeed more befitting of despotisms and dictatorships. There is a tangible Reagan record to be assessed, in addition to a more ethereal personality that befuddles even his so-called intimates (including his wife). Instead, we get lionizations on the one hand and vilifications on the other. That is the real tragedy for those of us who endeavor to comprehend politics and public policy as an exercise of the intellect.
CBS was wrong to try to edit the miniseries and it was wrong to pull it, at least from the standpoint that they look like reactionary cowards. It is not censorship, though, as they are a private corporation who is free to make whatever programming decisions they want. As you know, people in the entertainment biz are very risk-adverse, at least in the major corporate venues. And that is unfortunate on the "artistic" level. I am uncomfortable with the herd mentality that animated the protest. It is akin to those Hollywood cranks who did not clap for Elia Kazan at the Oscars. At least this controversy did prompt some sort of debate and reflection about the Reagan years, but hardly any of it was informative or otherwise illuminating. Reagan's legacy was the world he left behind, which was appreciably freer and more prosperous than the one he inherited.
I'm just glad that Babs is throwing a hissy fit. Funny to hear her talk about the First Amendment. I wonder what she thinks of the Second. Or the Ninth, if she even knows what it is. Too bad that the publicity will inevitably boost the sales of her new CD.
What disturbs me about this whole Reagan flack that the Left is trying to disavow its intentions in kicking an ex-president when he's still "living" and unable to defend himself. At the same time, as a former president and actor Reagan would realize that any movie about his life -- even a crass, crappy one -- is a backhanded tribute. If you really find someone odious, the best thing to do is to ignore them. Look at all the TV coverage and newspaper ink this story has gotten. It was largely fueled by Drudge, talk radio, and Bill O'Reilly, and for awhile there it looked like they were all doing Mr. Les "Friend of Fidel" Moonves a favor by making it a "must see" program. What was the last miniseries to get so much hype? "Lonesome Dove?"
The Right is also guilty of its own brand of political correctness by circling the wagons, writing letters, making phone calls, and threatening to boycott sponsors of the miniseries. For the past half century (since at least the Kennedy Administration), those who advocate radical notions like anti-communism, the bounty of the market process, and individual rights have struggled against an intellectual and ideological climate in the ivory tower and the media -- largely warmed over socialists who bemoan the very idea of an America where people are free to make their own decisions regarding their income, their families, their businesses, and their property. They do so by clinging tightly to the expansion of the welfare state and group rights to combat perceived inequities and tangible hardships that are largely intrinsic to the human condition, especially in a free society.
The Left is still winning, whatever the spin. Can it really be said that the Leftist vision of America is on the decline when we have a Republican President and Congress who are championing the greatest expansion of entitlement spending since LBJ (the $400 billion prescription drug Medicare plan)? Bush demands his guns, so his political opponents will get their butter (and the decapitated heads of failed judicial nominees). In terms of the real growth of government expenditure, we limited government types pine for the halcyon days of Clinton-Gingrich showdowns.
"The Reagans" upped the rhetorical ante by that now infamous line which epitomized the film's creative license, "They who live by sin shall die by sin." While it is a dishonest portrayal of the personal and political beliefs of the man himself, it resonates today because a great number of those on the Right wholeheartedly believes this, and not only as it applies to same-sex relations. It pinpoints the current prudish, arrogant, and blissfully ignorant posture that many bring to the public square. Unless, of course, it involves William Bennett's gambling or Rush Limbaugh's pill popping. Or the gay offspring of conservative stalwarts like the current Vice President, Phylis Schafly of the Eagle Forum, or Calif. State senator Pete Knight (the principal sponsor of California's "Defense of Marriage" initiative). The line captures the spirit of the now-defunct Moral Majority, which was an instrumental part of the Reagan coalition.
Unlike George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter, Reagan was not a born again Christian. Thankfully, most of his rhetoric that invoked religion was done so as a matter of good speech writing and playing to his audience. He had neither the audacity nor the conceit to admit that he committed adultery in his heart or that Jesus was his favorite political philosopher. His "shining city on a hill" was one where, yes, government was largely "secular" while people remained free to practice their religious beliefs. He did not really "preach" about moral matters, unless it was in defense of the unborn or to combat godless communism. In the former case, he kept his distance and gave a knowing wink to the Right to Life Constitutional Amendment; he addressed pro-life rallies via telephone, which is a rather harsh rebuke when one considers how his telegenic nature was central to his political career. When addressing the latter, one of the great accomplishments of his administration was the program that freed thousands of Soviet Jews through good diplomacy with the USSR. "Just Say No," however, was a saccharine slogan that masked the acceleration of the Drug War and the dangerous federalization of criminal law, including mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines; a federal government with overarching police powers is hardly something that those who believe in the Constitution should counsel.
On the AIDS crisis, it is undeniable that he didn't do "all that could be done." But for anyone who was paying attention, we didn't know precisely what it was we were dealing with. And we still don't. That gay men and intravenous drug users were the demographic groups who were affected by it at the outset obviously did not make it a top priority. Even so, what could have been done that was not done? Of course, more money could have been spent. But if all it took was money and willpower, could have we have cured AIDS long ago, or for that matter any other disease? And we think that an entity that has spent trillions in the neverending quest to combat poverty would be effective in this seemingly intractable endeavor? We are still searching for answers fifteen years and billions of dollars later.
As for homosexuality, Lou Cannon's latest book on Reagan notes that it does not appear anywhere in the writings of his post-gubernatorial, pre-presidential newspaper columns or radio addresses. And while there was a "purge" of one gay staffer during his gubernatorial tenure, he publicly opposed a 1978 initiative that would have banned gays from teaching in California's public schools. One interesting bit of trivia is that the decorator who Nancy hired to remodel the White House was actually the first openly gay film star, albeit of the silent screen. His name was William Haines, and he and his partner (one of Nancy's favorite shopping pals) stayed at the White House on several occasions without comment. That speaks for itself.
I am fascinated as to how Reagan still polarizes people after all these years. People on the Left and the Right get so emotional -- and irrational -- about him. The books by Peggy Noonan and Dinesh D'Souza on the Reagan years are slavish hagiographies that are reminiscent of the Left's Camelot worship. I don't think that politicians ought to be imbued with a sort of mystic reverence that is indeed more befitting of despotisms and dictatorships. There is a tangible Reagan record to be assessed, in addition to a more ethereal personality that befuddles even his so-called intimates (including his wife). Instead, we get lionizations on the one hand and vilifications on the other. That is the real tragedy for those of us who endeavor to comprehend politics and public policy as an exercise of the intellect.
CBS was wrong to try to edit the miniseries and it was wrong to pull it, at least from the standpoint that they look like reactionary cowards. It is not censorship, though, as they are a private corporation who is free to make whatever programming decisions they want. As you know, people in the entertainment biz are very risk-adverse, at least in the major corporate venues. And that is unfortunate on the "artistic" level. I am uncomfortable with the herd mentality that animated the protest. It is akin to those Hollywood cranks who did not clap for Elia Kazan at the Oscars. At least this controversy did prompt some sort of debate and reflection about the Reagan years, but hardly any of it was informative or otherwise illuminating. Reagan's legacy was the world he left behind, which was appreciably freer and more prosperous than the one he inherited.
I'm just glad that Babs is throwing a hissy fit. Funny to hear her talk about the First Amendment. I wonder what she thinks of the Second. Or the Ninth, if she even knows what it is. Too bad that the publicity will inevitably boost the sales of her new CD.
posted by Nikos A. Leverenz @ 1:21 PM
<< Home