This was a unique movie that I kind of happened to stumble upon. Yet, it was fascinating, taking a very different approach than most documentary movies do. I have only seen a couple of movies like this, where there was absolutely no narration other than the news reports and news makers themselves. The only one that immediately comes to mind outside of this one, in fact, is the one episode of 30 for 30: June 17, 1994.
Here, you see Reagan behind the scenes, and you can catch a glimpse of the man behind the role he was acting. And before anyone gets offended by my saying that he was acting a role during his presidency, he himself states, right in the beginning of this film during an interview with David Brinkley, that he could not imagine anyone not being an actor getting through a presidency.
It should be made clear that this movie is not very flattering towards President Reagan. He often times looks indecisive, and even contradictory. We see it when he kind of waffles on the selling weapons to Iran controversy, although it seemed a bit surprising that they did not delve deeper into this particular chapter of the Reagan presidency. And we see it again when he is confronted directly with his labeling of the Soviet Union as the “Evil Empire” while visiting that nation, and he is heard saying that he no longer believes that it is the “Evil Empire,” and that he meant it during a different era of the nation’s history.
We also see Reagan’s adversarial relationship with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and we see that he is not alone. Indeed, a lot of major American news media at the time seemed to take Reagan’s side on the matter, and viewed Gorbachev’s efforts for peace in purely cynical terms as some kind of ploy, much like they viewed the positive impressions of Gorbachev by Europeans, including heads of state like Margaret Thatcher, as largely having had the wool pulled over their heads. So much for that myth of the “liberal media bias,” which similarly sided with George W. Bush in the leadup to the Iraq invasion in 2002 and 2003. I remember Matt Lauer – this was before he was forced off the public eye in disgrace – expressing his admiration of Tony Blair for being very courageous in going against popular public opinion in Britain and going ahead to support the Bush administration’s ill-advised war with Iraq. In fact, Blair helped Bush aggressively pursue the war that lacked serious justification with manufactured “facts” of his own. It should be noted that the Bush administration wasted no time pointing fingers at the faulty information received from Blair’s Britain.
But I digress.
It is not a shock, exactly, that we see this more cynical side of Reagan. Yet it confirms some of the worst fears at the time. With the highest stakes imaginable during an age of heightened tensions with another major nuclear power, we see Reagan playing the part of a tough guy cowboy, as if this was one of the roles that he played in one of his movies from decades earlier.
And Reagan comes across as more of an obstacle to world peace, rather than as a promoter, although that changes a bit late in the movie, when Reagan begins to agree with disarmament, and attacks conservatives who are critical of Reagan in this matter, and doing so in pretty brutal fashion, at that.
In any case, this was a fascinating, behind-the-scenes glimpse of a famous presidency which remains a major topic of conversation, to the point that it is still discussed today, even after several decades have passed. Reagan is still held up as a model of a successful presidency by many, and not just Republicans. Obama made it clear that he did not view the Clinton presidency as the bar to aim for, but rather, the Reagan presidency. Indeed, Reagan seems to have become a conservative icon that Republicans – even ones who often have conflicting views and approaches – hail as their model and source of inspiration.
It was a complicated time, and on many levels, this adds a different kind of perspective on the Reagan administration, and specifically on Reagan the man. And it is a view that will challenge a lot of people’s views of him as someone who was always in control and in command of everything that went on in his White House.
To me, Reagan was the first president to set what have become modern American trends, for better or for worse. Without him, President George W. Bush and Donald Trump are not possible. Hell, maybe even Bill Clinton, or the political incarnation that he would become, would not have been possible. Perhaps this last sentiment deserves an explanation.
Growing up in a family that were not admirers of Reagan in the least, there was this sense that he could pretty much get away with anything and everything - and did. There were major controversies during his administration that, frankly, might have completely undid previous presidents, but Reagan got away with it. At the time, it seemed like this was a particular political skill or ability that he specifically had, and which earned him the moniker as the "Teflon President." Since then, we have seen Clinton, then George W. Bush, and then Donald Trump, seem to cast Reagan's serious scandals in the shadows. Watching this, I almost got a feeling - almost, but not quite - of these being simpler and more innocent times. Yet, the two biggest scandals of Reagan's presidency, the Iran-Contra Affair and the Savings and Loan scandal could easily have defined his presidency in a very negative light. The fact that he got away with it, and in fact, that he continues to be regarded as some kind of brilliant president, reveals more about the current American political landscape then it does about a serious and honest look at Reagan's legacy.
Indeed, it seems in this post-Watergate era, that Americans have almost no tolerance whatsoever for serious reflection on potentially serious political scandals at the highest level. How else can you explain how Clinton, Bush, and Trump kept getting away with scandal after scandal? In the case of Clinton and Bush, they seemed to grow more popular over time, just like Reagan did. Even in the case of Trump, who never particularly thrived in terms of approval ratings, saw his highest approval ratings ever only after the extent of his crimes - yes, I use the word crimes here - were revealed. He sure seemed incompetent and xenophobic and incapable of meeting the high standards that the office he held demanded, and many viewed him as a buffoon. But once it was proven that he engaged in what truly could only be regarded as criminal behavior, his approval ratings rose. I was going to say soared, but that would be an exaggeration. However, it would be more true to suggest that the ratings of two recent presidents did soar. One was Bill Clinton. The other, of course, was Ronald Reagan.
And that brings me back to the focal point of this movie: the presidency of Ronald Reagan, and it's impact on modern American politics. One apparently mistaken impression that I had at the time, and for some years that followed, was that Reagan got away with his scandals because of the popular image that he had, part of which was as a doting grandfather type. When he was grilled for serious issues, as could only be expected for someone holding the highest office in the land, there was a strong popular sentiment that felt that the media should just lay off him, let him be in peace. In other words, there was a sense of the media being somehow mean-spirited and, in some cases, anti-American, attacking this all-American hero president, which made Reagan feel like a caricature. At one point in the movie, it was mentioned that Reagan seemed to desire some kind of return to the Norman Rockwell America, which in fact, never actually existed in this country's history. There was no point where we were fully innocent and lived in simple times, only the popular (and mistaken) perception that this was so. I feel that Reagan has become that new myth, the new, more modern version of a more ideal time in America, as if Cold War tensions and serious scandals could or should be regarded as quaint. Back then, people seemed to long to return to the Rockwell America of the 1950's and early 60's. These days, it seems that many - particularly conservatives - long for a return to Reagan's America of the 1980's.
This film should reveal to us that this was largely an illusion, and that Reagan pretty much admits to playing an acting role as some kind of ideal and heroic president. Americans largely bought into it. As if to underscore this fact, remember that he won 49 of 50 states in his successful bid for another term in 1984. And it is a kind of made for TV movie, complete with that trademark Reagan smile and charm, that many in the country keep wanting to return back to and watch again, time and time again. This movie shows that, indeed, the popular perception of Reagan and his presidency most likely is far more fiction than reality, and that we Americans should probably get more serious in scrutinizing those we elect to our very highest office.
If anything, recent history should reveal to us that we can no longer afford the luxury, or the conceit, of believing only what we want to believe, even in cases when the truth overwhelmingly contradicts those beliefs. It is not enough simply to ignore these inconvenient facts, either. Was there ever a time when this tendency was charming, perhaps indeed during the Norman Rockwell era? That is debatable, but it should be quite obvious now that this can lead to serious trouble, because I was not kidding: Clinton, Bush Jr., and Trump all were only possible because of Reagan. Each seemed like a step farther down what has become a steep and obvious decline in the country, and it should be clear by now that being told comforting lies and sold on comforting myths about our elected leaders, and then simply believing what we want to believe regardless of facts, has not worked. But doing this has apparently been our choice for a long time now. Far too long, frankly.
Yet, it is a choice. And we can choose to reverse our course before it is too late. It seems obvious to me that the Trump era has been America's most serious flirtation with dictatorship. True, he is no longer the sitting president, but he clearly wants to be, to the point that he may run again. Even if he does not, the threat of what has come to be known as Trumpism has not been extinguished. As I mentioned before, without President Reagan, President Trump is not possible. It took a series of steps down to get to that, but we got there. And it is not entirely clear that we hit bottom with Trump, because he might become a step towards something even more sinister down the road.
If we want to avoid that, then we should begin to examine our leaders, and our legacy, far more closely. It might not be fun or comfortable or something that most want to engage in. However, it is necessary, before we see just how much worse things can get. I only wish that I could believe that Trump was the very worst that this country could do, but my suspicion is that we will flirt with something potentially far worse. Before that happens, let us examine what we have become, and the trend of our elected leaders that we keep allowing to get away with more and more. It seems obvious to me that, ever since Reagan, leaders - particularly in the White House - have pushed the envelope farther and farther to see just how much more they could get away with than their predecessors. And Reagan feels like the beginning point for that particular brand of what now passes for leadership. This movie unmasks him, and lends us a view of the real man, and the real presidency, behind the popular mythology. It has already angered and even outraged some. But we could do worse than to take a more revealing, honest approach and begin to demythologize Reagan, to begin with. And this movie can help us start to do it.
The Reagan Show is a terrifically entertaining — and unnerving — take on a presidency by Alissa, Jun 29, 2017:
The documentary uses outtakes from the stash of “the Great Communicator” to tell his story and suggest its connections to today.
No comments:
Post a Comment