The much-anticipated biography of Ronald Reagan has not yet officially been published, and it is already stirring controversy among conservatives, historians, and journalists. We asked Dinesh D'Souza, the John M. Olin Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader. D'Souza was a Senior Domestic Policy analyst from 1987-1988 in the Reagan Administration.
1. What do you think of Morris' use of fictional characters? Was it necessary?
Morris's use of fictional characters is ironic in view of the fact that Reagan was himself frequently accused of exaggerating or inventing facts to make his point. In the 1980 campaign, for example, Reagan told the famous story of a welfare queen with 72 aliases who had bilked the government of hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, the woman had four or five aliases and had apparently cheated the government of a "mere" six or seven thousand dollars. Yet people didn't mind Reagan's gaffe, because they accepted the larger truth of his story — namely, that welfare fraud was a serious problem. And the woman whose story Reagan recounted did in fact exist. By contrast, Morris, who is a professional historian, has invented not one but several characters and given the reader no clear guidance about where fiction ends and fact intrudes. I fear that he has greatly compromised the historical reliability of his work, even if his literary license allows him, on occasion, to view his subject "close up."
2. The press has made much of Morris' assertions that Reagan was something of an intellectual lightweight. What do you make of that?
Reagan was not an intellectual, and therefore those of us who have a classic liberal education tend to see him as mentally simple or unsophisticated. The truth of the matter is that Reagan had a deep understanding of the larger current of world events. Morris, by contrast, is an esthete who has read lots of books and poems but whose understanding of politics can only be described as abysmal. For instance, Morris's discussion of Reagan's economic policies verges on the illiterate. When Reagan professes pride in the results of his tax cut, Morris can only roll his eyes. This may pass for sophistication at the American Historical Association, but it is no substitute for a serious discussion of the effects of Reagan's policies in liberating the private economy and accelerating the technological revolution. In short, when it comes to politics, it is Morris who is the lightweight and Reagan who comes out looking wiser than ever.
3. Why do you think Morris had such a hard time figuring Reagan out? Was it Morris, Reagan or both?
Morris and Reagan were two men who had very little understanding of each other. The difference is that Reagan had no reason to understand Morris. Morris, on the other hand, has taken on the challenge of his career and spent 14 years of his life trying to figure out Reagan. Morris does appreciate certain elements of Reagan's greatness, such as his vision, his strength of will, and his dogged determination. But Morris can't get over his cultural snobbery. To him, a man like Reagan who reads books about cowboys and Arizona Highways magazine is automatically a philistine and a yahoo.
4. In his Sixty Minutes interview, Morris contended that Reagan was not a compassionate man. Is this fair?
Reagan was extremely compassionate in his personal life. All the people around Reagan said he was a sucker for a sob story, and frequently wrote personal checks to help people who had written him to say that they were out of a job or down on their luck. Reagan couldn't bring himself to fire people, even those like David Stockman who were brazenly disloyal to him, because he didn't like personal confrontation and hurting people's feelings. Also, the reason Reagan started selling arms to Iran was because of his personal sympathy for the sufferings of the hostages and their families. So Morris does not seem to make a distinction between personal compassion and the politicized compassion that requires forcibly taking from some in order to give to others. It is possible to disagree with Reagan that private charity will be enough, but Morris doesn't make this argument. Once again, he shows his lack of political understanding, which is a major limitation in writing the biography of a political man.
5. Why was Reagan a great president?
Reagan was a great president because he almost single-handedly brought about a political, economic and moral transformation in America and the world. Under Reagan this country went from economic doldrums to an era of unparalleled prosperity. Under Reagan the Soviet Union went from apparent invincibility to an empire in the process of dissolving itself. Also, Reagan articulated an heroic moral vision of what it means to be an American. Today we are enjoying peace and prosperity, but we miss that articulation of American grandeur that is rooted in the original conception of the American founders.
6. How will he be remembered?
Margaret Thatcher said a few years ago that Reagan will be remembered as the man who won the Cold War without firing a shot. I think he will be recalled by history for more than this. His policies were instrumental in defeating the evil empire, and he helped revive the American economy and the American spirit after a long period of malaise. I am confident that history will give Reagan his due, but it would be nice to see the man receive some of this credit during his lifetime.
God bless Ronald Reagan.
I personally think that it's somewhat premature for someone to attempt to write the definitive biography of Ronald Reagan. From what I've learned so far, I suspect that the Morris book does not do justice to the historical importance of Mr. Reagan and the accomplishments of his presidency.
I have to wonder how anyone can spend 14 years on a subject and still seem so clueless.
Thank you for posting this fine article.
Amen and God Bless President Ronald Reagan because he was not an elitist, intellectual, simpering, disingenuous man, but because he truly was a MAN who possessed a large, strong beating truimphant heart for America and her citizens. We were so lucky and at times we didn't even know it.
Admirably succint and to-the-point answers from D'Souza. His biography of Reagan is excellent. Don't hold out much hope for Morris's.
I have always liked D'Souza and find his writing to always be clear and well thought out. I learned so much when I read his "The End of Racism". It really is too bad the press immediately began bashing that book because it was so very informative and, at the end, very hopeful.
"...Reagan had no reason to understand Morris"
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, silly biographer! LOL!
Remember, "clear and well thought out" = "shallow" to the liberal mindset. Their model for intellectual discourse is the shell game; their biggest fear is that anyone should understand what they're really saying.
D'Nesh now has a moral obligation to write a fully informed political biography of RR. I saw Morris a couple of years ago and he seemed to have a PROFOUND understanding of the importance of RR's "EVIL EMPIRE" speech, i.e., "THAT IT HELD A MIRROR TO THE FACE OF EVERY RUSSIAN, and the metaphor, "evil empire" contained a truthe too apinfully true for any Russian to deny." The much-maligned "EE" speech was "the most instrumental" element in the COLLAPSE OF THE old Soviet Union, because of the stark and candid truth this couragteous man, RR, spoke to the Russian people. IT WAS ABSOLUTLEY THE PIVOTAL EVENT in the Cold war and in WINNING the CW, according to Morris, in his talk at a smallish dinner of some three or so years ago, in Washington. Perhaps Morris put too much faith is the words, but in the words was an existential act of COURAGE, and Morris was onto at least a gains of truth in his laudatory assessment of RR at that time.... Morris, I believe, tries tobe fairevenif he seeminglyseemstobekow-towing to the conventional wisdom of of his fellow intellectuals.
D'Nesh now has a moral obligation to write a fully informed political biography of RR. I saw Morris a couple of years ago and he seemed to have a PROFOUND understanding of the importance of RR's "EVIL EMPIRE" speech, i.e., "THAT IT HELD A MIRROR TO THE FACE OF EVERY RUSSIAN, and the metaphor, "evil empire" contained a truthe too apinfully true for any Russian to deny." The much-maligned "EE" speech was "the most instrumental" element in the COLLAPSE OF THE old Soviet Union, because of the stark and candid truth this couragteous man, RR, spoke to the Russian people. IT WAS ABSOLUTLEY THE PIVOTAL EVENT in the Cold war and in WINNING the CW, according to Morris, in his talk at a smallish dinner of some three or so years ago, in Washington. Perhaps Morris put too much faith is the words, but in the words was an existential act of COURAGE, and Morris was onto at least a gains of truth in his laudatory assessment of RR at that time.... Morris, I believe, tries tobe fairevenif he seeminglyseemstobekow-towing to the conventional wisdom of of his fellow intellectuals.
D'Nesh now has a moral obligation to write a fully informed political biography of RR. I saw Morris a couple of years ago and he seemed to have a PROFOUND understanding of the importance of RR's "EVIL EMPIRE" speech, i.e., "THAT IT HELD A MIRROR TO THE FACE OF EVERY RUSSIAN, and the metaphor, "evil empire" contained a truthe too apinfully true for any Russian to deny." The much-maligned "EE" speech was "the most instrumental" element in the COLLAPSE OF THE old Soviet Union, because of the stark and candid truth this couragteous man, RR, spoke to the Russian people. IT WAS ABSOLUTLEY THE PIVOTAL EVENT in the Cold war and in WINNING the CW, according to Morris, in his talk at a smallish dinner of some three or so years ago, in Washington. Perhaps Morris put too much faith is the words, but in the words was an existential act of COURAGE, and Morris was onto at least a grain of truth in his laudatory assessment of RR at that time.... Morris, I believe, tries tobe fairevenif he seeminglyseemstobekow-towing to the conventional wisdom of of his fellow intellectuals.
D'Nesh now has a moral obligation to write a fully informed political biography of RR. I saw Morris a couple of years ago and he seemed to have a PROFOUND understanding of the importance of RR's "EVIL EMPIRE" speech, i.e., "THAT IT HELD A MIRROR TO THE FACE OF EVERY RUSSIAN, and the metaphor, "evil empire" contained a truth too painfully true for any Russian to deny." The much-maligned "EE" speech was "the most instrumental" element in the COLLAPSE OF THE old Soviet Union, because of the stark and candid truth this couragteous man, RR, spoke to the Russian people. IT WAS ABSOLUTLEY THE PIVOTAL EVENT in the Cold war and in WINNING the CW, according to Morris, in his talk at a smallish dinner of some three or so years ago, in Washington. Perhaps Morris put too much faith is the words, but in the words was an existential act of COURAGE, and Morris was onto at least a grain of truth in his laudatory assessment of RR at that time.... Morris, I believe, tries tobe fairevenif he seeminglyseemstobekow-towing to the conventional wisdom of of his fellow intellectuals.
D'Nesh now has a moral obligation to write a fully informed political biography of RR. I saw Morris a couple of years ago and he seemed to have a PROFOUND understanding of the importance of RR's "EVIL EMPIRE" speech, i.e., "THAT IT HELD A MIRROR TO THE FACE OF EVERY RUSSIAN, and the metaphor, "evil empire" contained a truth too painfully true for any Russian to deny." The much-maligned "EE" speech was "the most instrumental" element in the COLLAPSE OF THE old Soviet Union, because of the stark and candid truth this courageous man, RR, spoke to the Russian people. IT WAS ABSOLUTLEY THE PIVOTAL EVENT in the Cold war and in WINNING the CW, according to Morris, in his talk at a smallish dinner of some three or so years ago, in Washington. Perhaps Morris put too much faith is the words, but in the words was an existential act of COURAGE, and Morris was onto at least a grain of truth in his laudatory assessment of RR at that time.... Morris, I believe, tries tobe fairevenif he seeminglyseemstobekow-towing to the conventional wisdom of of his fellow intellectuals.
Okay already, we get your point.
I personally think that it's somewhat premature for someone to attempt to write the definitive biography of Ronald Reagan.
He's been out of office for almost eleven years. That's STILL not enough time to properly gauge his impact on history, or to weigh his life objectively.
But, remember this: Morris' book, however accurate or innacurate it may be, doesn't matter at all. Twenty years from now it will be all but forgotten. But Ronald Reagan will never be forgotten. And when all the people who hate him now are gone, there will be his legacy that will live on for generations to come. Our children and their children will read of a great man, who did great things for the sincerest motivations. As for his enemies: all they'll know is that there were some people who hated him. And in the end, they were proven wrong. Not even their names will really matter.
They'll compare Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton and there will be no contest as to who they will want to emulate more. Long after we are gone, Reagan, and the times he brought about, will be rewarded handsomely in the history books. And history will judge him a good man.
Think about that tonight. Bill Clinton is damned forevermore by history. Everyone who's supported Clinton blindly is damned by history. But Reagan will be immortalized as the greatest American president of the second half of the 20th Century.
Bump for D'souza's book. Reagan fans need look no further. Morris's book so far sounds like kitty litter in the making.
To put it simply: Reagan belonged in the White House. Clinton belongs in a rock band.
The "evil Empire" speech was indeed a turning point, but that observation is so frequently made that Morris would have had to have been comatose NOT to agree. D"Souza's biography of Reagan BTW is very instructive about Reagan's almost mystical mastery of the American political process. People claim that clingon is a great politician--but he will go out of office reviled and ridiculed, and his star will only diminish. No one will duplicate the love of the American people for Ronnie, and for the simple reason that--he loved the American People. Hence the chasm between him and the America-hating clingon.
Morris's book so far sounds like kitty litter in the making.
Kitty litter or Kitty Kelley? Same difference!
Think about that tonight. Bill Clinton is damned forevermore by history. Everyone who's supported Clinton blindly is damned by history. But Reagan will be immortalized as the greatest American president of the second half of the 20th Century.
Agreed in toto. History will be fair to both -- Ronald Reagan will be "immortalized as the greatest American president of the 20th Century," and Bill Clinton will be remembered as the most corrupt of the entire history of tne American presidency.
It really is too bad the press immediately began bashing that book because it was so very informative and, at the end, very hopeful.
The true sign of a successful conservative.
bump
If you want to learn about Reagan, D'Souza gets it right! I hope the result of the release of the Morris book is that it will lead to more people reading D'Souza's book instead.
Their model for intellectual discourse is the shell game; their biggest fear is that anyone should understand what they're really saying.
My gracious, what a lovely turn of phrase. BtD intends to steal it immediately! BTT...
My pleasure! I'm old enough to understand how these people operate.
I have to wonder how anyone can spend 14 years on a subject and still seem so clueless.
Man's wisdom is but foolishness to God.
[
Top
|
Last
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |