Skip to comments.Peter Bart: Ronald Reagan Would Have Hated Donald Trumpís Narcissistic Rag [Major Vomit Alert]
Posted on 08/31/2017 7:37:47 PM PDT by EdnaMode
The mounting intensity of Donald Trumps war on the press confounds news veterans like me who remember Trumps history as a media whore. During my 20 years as editor-in-chief of Variety, I knew Trump as an avid self-publicist who frantically sought loftier standing on Hollywoods power pyramid.
But heres the rub: My perspective on Trump is shaped by my earlier relationship with another icon who also yearned to leverage showbiz fame into political power. Assigned to cover Ronald Reagans first gubernatorial campaign for The New York Times, I had an inside seat to observe how a vastly different style of showbiz-politician dealt with the media.
On one level the similarities are striking: Both were once Democrats whose ideologies remained ambiguous. Both were drawn to branding rather than to conventional business Trump with clubs and hotels, Reagan as the symbol of General Electric. Both were committed to media manipulation: Trump let Marla Maples know when he was divorcing her by leaking it to the New York Post. Reagan let reporters know loud and clear that his soon-to-be ex-wife, Jane Wyman, was dumping him mainly because he was a liberal and she was staunchly on the right (Reagan formally shed his liberal leanings in 1962).
But heres where the similarities end: While Trump instinctively responds to attack with narcissistic rage, Reagan normally took refuge in his good guy persona. Thus, in his latest tirades, Trump seems to be encouraging his base to inflict physical harm on reporters, if given the opening. But the Reagan I covered liked schmoozing with the press and, in his early political days, was not above admitting to total confusion on certain issues. As president of the Screen Actors Guild, he was puzzled and appalled by the ubiquity of the blacklist. He knew he had to recite his obligatory I-hate-all-Communists lines for the public record and even gave up some names of supposed Communist sympathizers to a Congressional committee, but complained to me, Do these politicians really expect me to create a little FBI to tell them whos a Commie and who isnt?
I do not intend here to paint over Reagans frailties. He once observed, Politics is like show business in that you need a helluva opening and you can never get away with coasting. I understood Reagan took a liking to me because I was with the Times and he wanted good press. He had also learned I had voted for Barry Goldwater, as had he, and hence had passed the trustworthy test (like Trump, Reagan believed all reporters had to be liberals to get a job). But when I wrote some snarky pieces about his strategic dependence on Stuart Spencer, his political gun for hire, he reacted with a good-natured wince. Spencer formulated his key positions because he understood the political rules and Reagan early on sensed he was tactically clueless. It was Spencer who told him he had to say things like lets send the welfare bums back to work, and Reagan complied. In discussing his shifting ideology, Reagan liked to say, I didnt leave the Democratic party, it left me. In reality, as Reagans acting career faded and General Electric put him under contract as its spokesman, Reagan realized that GEs conservative lexicon could be his meal ticket. The man who had once supported liberal candidates and fought anti-Communist zealots like Richard Nixon was suddenly Americas champion of the free market economy.
Reagans record as governor was a mixed bag. He violated right-wing dicta by raising taxes and signing a lenient abortion bill. But he panicked when agitators took over Berkeley, calling out the National Guard and creating a firestorm of controversy.
Reagan was never a great actor, but he projected his smiling good guy image with superb consistency. Even when he made the most egregious mistakes, we all had a tendency to forgive him and to assume his good intentions. Thats not the case with Trump. During his fifth season of The Apprentice, Trump acknowledged: Nobody takes things more personally than me. When somebody says something personal about me I hate them for the rest of my life.
Under no conditions would Reagan have engaged in the sort of cultural warfare that has consumed Trump America. If he were around today, Reagan would feel that Trump is practicing bad politics. Even worse, it is lousy showbiz.
P.S. Ronald Reagan would probably have loved twitter.
Just say “NO!” to Fake News.
...During my 20 years as editor-in-chief of Variety...
In this case, the editor in Chief of Variety lays an egg.
Who cares what Peter Fart says, whoever the hell he is.
According to this article Bart is the actual blowhard that he paints Trump to be:
...During my 20 years as editor-in-chief of Variety...<<
LOL...His name will go down in History as a great example of the “Peter Principle”...
Libtards know so much that just isn't so.
Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I would like to talk about another way because this threat is with us, and at the moment, is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.
Its very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly cant afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.
Now , Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.
Walter Ruther said, Its no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance. And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Well, let us see what the socialists themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we cant say we havent been warned.
Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, "What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?
Thats ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time -- socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.
They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Lets take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But lets also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, its like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he cant live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how Id feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a mans working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it's a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son wont decide when hes in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the worlds history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of mans relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, When the American people wants something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want."
So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, dont let him get away with it.
Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments dont tax to get the money they need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system.
You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he's on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from my constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now call your friends and them to write.
If you dont, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you dont do this and I dont do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our childrens children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
Editor at an entertainment industry rag that translates press releases into “news articles”. < snicker >
>>In reality, as Reagans acting career faded and General Electric put him under contract as its spokesman, Reagan realized that GEs conservative lexicon could be his meal ticket. The man who had once supported liberal candidates and fought anti-Communist zealots like Richard Nixon was suddenly Americas champion of the free market economy.
Reagan fired by General Electric
Reagan was fired by General Electric in 1962 in response to his reference to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) as one of the problems of “big government”. Reagan would subsequently reiterate his points in his famous 1964 televised speech for Republican presidential nominee Barry M. Goldwater of Arizona entitled, “A Time for Choosing”:
President Kennedy would have hated Hillary’s pro-abortion position. FDR too.
We can play this game (it is a game) all damn day.
"I've never witnessed such hatred for a man, who is willing to work for free to make his beloved country a better place. It is pathological!"
editor-in-chief of Variety,
Just the type of person one would look to for advice.
Woods’ tweet sums it up perfectly. What a shame he has been blacklisted by Hollywood.
Sadder still is why articles like this keep getting posted on FR????.....we could use with better articles favorable to Trump and this Administration rather than all this propaganda junk...or at least focused on what Trumps got in the pipeline and open for discussion....it gets real boring seeing all the demorat trash posted here when there’s a lot of really good articles out there....written by our guys!
....Border Wall Prototype Contracts Awarded to Four Companies
....Louie Gohmert to Establishment RINO Leaders: Weve Had the Majority and You Havent Let Us Hold Anybody Accountable
....Mattis Dismisses Talk of NKorea Disagreement With Trump
....Sebastian Gorka Goes Off on Foreign Reporter: Just Keep Spinning Your Left-Wing Wet Dreams
....Allen West: We Need to Understand the Lefts Strategic Endgame To Negate Absolute Truth
Liberals who find Republicans they can praise, when they hated him equally as bad, just typical of them I say.
Good points. I think that will be the last fake news/negative article I post for a while.
Heck Putin and Netenyahu had a 3hour meeting this past week and there's nothing in our news about it.....that's important to be aware of....and other such articles...we use to be able to know what was going on here and worldwide but the libs have everybody in a stronghold of nonsense stories....and loving it that they do.
Good grief an entire news cycle was all about Melania's shoes.....and everybody chimed in how stupid it was...which just kept it going.
I'm afraid too any are taking the Dems bait to get everybody talking about the ridiculous then THEY aren't being exposed....and the really important stuff is hidden behind that screen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.