Peter J. Wallison - Ronald Reagan: staying the course

Throughout American history, how a particular president actually conducted his office has been a puzzle for historians and biographers, who have had to look for insights to his autobiography, if any, to the papers or tapes he left behind, and to the recollections of those who worked with him. But in Ronald Reagans case, it was different. There, an independent scholar, Edmund Morris, a Pulitzer Prizewinning biographer of Theodore Roosevelt, was given an opportunity to enter the White House, stay for several years, and report on what he saw.

The decision to permit Morris this access was apparently made by Nancy Reagan and Michael Deaver, then Reagans deputy chief of staff and longest-serving aide. Some might think it strange that a scholar and independent biographer was permitted this unprecedented access to a president who has been so lightly regarded by the press, by historians, and by the intelligentsia generally. One would imagine that if Ronald Reagan were as intellectually challenged and as disengaged as his detractors suggested, it would have been in the interests of those closest to him to conceal these deficiencies, not expose them to an unsympathetic observer.

But this paradox simply suggests one of the many mysteries about Ronald Reagan: what was it that Nancy Reagan and Mike Deaver saw that others, at some distance, could or would not see? A hint of this came with the publication in 2001 of Reagan in His Own Hand, a collection of over 670 radio addresseson every conceivable major national issuethat Reagan had researched and written himself between 1974 and 1979. This body of work seemed inconsistent with the public image of Reagan as an affable fellow, a great communicator, but not of substantial intellectual weight or engaged on policy matters.

As it turned out, Edmund Morrisas accomplished a writer and biographer as he iswas the wrong man to do the definitive biography of Ronald Reagan as president. Morris, as shown by his work on the Roosevelt biographies, is a brilliant writer on personality, but by his own admission he has no interest in policy. Ronald Reagan, however, was precisely the opposite. His only interest was policy. He had no peculiarities of personality; there was nothing particularly colorful about him; he was a kind, old-fashioned, formal, and intelligent man, who also happened to be the president of the United States. Andworst of all from Morriss point of viewRonald Reagan was a shy man who did not like to talk about himself. Morriss book, Dutch: A Memoir of Ronald Reagan, is full of his frustration in trying to discover Reagans eccentricities from independent sources, or to pry out of Ronald Reagan himself the inner thoughts that make for an absorbing biographical work.

If the purpose of admitting Morris to the White House was to show the world what Ronald Reagan was really like, it was doomed from the start. Ronald Reagan was interested in ideas, not in Ronald Reagan. If Morris had been in the Lyndon Johnson White House, he would have come away with something significant, for Johnson was clearly interested in Johnson. Little prying would have been necessary. But no independent biographers were allowed to observe Johnson, or Kennedy, or Carter, or Clintonall of whom no doubt, if they had had the confidence to open themselves to independent observation, would have provided wonderful raw material for a writer of Morriss skill.

In the end, then, what Nancy Reagan and Mike Deaver saw in Ronald Reagan was never discovered by Edmund Morris. Dutch failed to capture the essence and uniqueness of Ronald Reagan because these lay not in his personality but in how his unique capabilities, and his unique way of conducting his presidency, contributed to his success. No amount of pounding could get the (literally) square Ronald Reagan into the round hole of an Edmund Morris biography.

Oddly, despite his enormous impact on American government and politics, there has been only one other attempt to write a serious full-scale biography of Ronald Reagan. That work is President Reagan: TheRole of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, a journalist who covered Reagan both as governor of California and as president. As the title of Cannons book implies, he saw Reagan through the prism of Reagans initial profession as an actor. His book is a thorough record of Reagans presidency, and a sympathetic one in many respects, but it does not see Reagans governing style in an historical context, nor account for Reagans undeniable success on any basis other than his acting skill.

Yet from my perspective, having served in his administration for a total of five years and in his White House for one, Ronald Reagan was unique among politicians and modern presidents. First, his interest in and commitment to his ideas in the broadest sensein a philosophy of government that he had developed and honed over the yearstranscended anything else one might say about him. Throughout his presidency, he had a sign on his desk that said: There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesnt mind who gets the credit. To Reagan, this was more than a motivational aphorism. He truly did not seem to care whether he received the credit for what he achieved, as long as his ideas were accepted and implemented. As he said in his autobiography, Id come to Washington to put into practice ideas Id believed in for decades. This attachment to ideas is highly unusual among politicians, let alone those who have the drive and ambition to reach the nations highest office.

In addition, Reagan had convictions. By this I dont mean simply that he believed strongly in his ideas. His commitment went beyond that; unlike his predecessorswith the possible exception of Lincolnhe was willing to put his presidency on the line for his convictions, to take enormous political risks because he believed that the cause in which he was acting was the right one.

Finally, Reagan had a philosophya fully thought-out and consistent way of looking at government and its relationship to the American people that proceeded from premises to conclusions. No other modern president has allowed himself to be guided so completely by a philosophy. It was this philosophy, too, more than anything else, that he successfully communicated to his fellow citizens through his speeches, and was the source of a singular unity of purpose in his administration that other presidents have achieved only in national crises. As he said in his farewell address, I won a nickname, the Great Communicator. But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasnt a great communicator, but I communicated great things.