Was Reagan Really a Dumbass, or Did He Have a Sly Intelligence the Whole Time?

Written by 

ReaganWas Reagan really as dumb, sleepy and oblivious as he seemed?

Yes.

 

I recently read Ian Halperin's book The Governator: From Muscle Beach to his Quest for the White House, the Improbable Rise of Arnold Schwarzenegger. It contained an excellently concise overview of Ronald Reagan's progression from actor to politician. I'm sure people on the right would dispute this account, as the man's been lionized by conservatives since his death (they strangely ignore the multiple tax increases and massive swelling of the US's national debt under his watch). So I'll read a full biography on him and see if a more extensive look agrees with this summary, but in the meantime, here, in short, is the story of how a dopey, undistinguished actor became the most powerful man on the planet, and why.

 

-1962 - a small cable of wealthy California businessmen hears B-list actor Reagan mention that he's a Republican - something as unusual in Hollywood then as it is today.

Reagan as a sherriff

-The cabal, led by a used car salesman named Holmes Tuttle, approaches Reagan asking if he'd be interested in running for state senate to take over the seat of a retiring Republican. He declines, preferring the higher wages of movie acting.

 

-1963 - a public relations man from New Jersey founds the United Republicans of California (UCO), dedicated to establishing a far-right ideology in the US.

 

-1964 - Reagan gives a nationally televised speech at the republican convention endorsing far right candidate Barry Goldwater, who ends up squaring off against LBJ that November.

 

-this speech makes Reagan the right wing's golden boy, anxious as they are to take the Republican party back after the moderate policies of Eisenhower and Nelson Rockefeller.

 

-1966 - the UCO promotes Reagan as candidate for the governor's race against liberal Pat Brown. Brown runs a negative campaign highlighting Reagan's lack of qualifications. Reagan runs a genial campaign, full of optimism and cliches.

 

-Reagan's the surprise winner, and by a landslide.

 

-The businessmen who elected Reagan know he's easy to control and he proceeds to do their bidding, instituting free-market friendly policies, making his masters millions and millions.

 

-Reagan cuts government spending, taunts anti-war activists, cuts social programs and undoes the state's public university system, regarded as the jewel of the nation.

 

-Reagan's cabal already knew what his aides soon learn: he isn't very bright. He spends most of his time watching movies in the governor's mansion while businessmen run the state without his involvement or interest.

 

reagan-Years later, Margaret Thatcher, his close friend and ideological ally, says "Poor dear. There's nothing between his ears."

 

-1980 - many of the same members of that same cabal get Reagan to run for  president. He wins. These men continue to use Reagan as their willing marionette. They become known as the "kitchen cabinet."

 

-Under Reagan's two presidencies more conservative ideology and free-market policies are implemented, benefitting Reagan's businessmen/puppeteers beyond their wildest expectations.

Related items

Join the Discussion

Commenting Policy

Beams and Struts employs commenting guidelines that we expect all readers to bear in mind when commenting at the site. Please take a moment to read them before posting - Beams and Struts Commenting Policy

8 comments

  • Comment Link Chris Dierkes Tuesday, 15 May 2012 00:21 posted by Chris Dierkes

    I can't speak to his overall intelligence level--I personally never sensed he was that bright. And just to be clear I was a pretty obsessive watcher of politics even as a 4 year old. I was born just prior to Reagan entering office--he's the first president I remember.

    I will say though that I do think he actually believed in his political point of view. I certainly can get that he wasn't necessarily interested in the minutiae of governance but I don't think he was simply used. When he was spokesmen for GE (I think it was) in the 50s he talked about the plight of Prague in the '56 uprising.

    I seem to recall hearing him once mention that he was interested in doing 4 things:

    1. reducing taxes/cutting regulation
    2. putting back a spirit of optimism in the US ("morning in America") after Vietnam
    3. defeating communism
    4. shrinking the size of government.

    He achieved 1-3 and not 4. He did so I think (partly) by some phoney economic means which have come to bite us in the backside lo these years later. He also (as you mentioned) set the table for Republicans running huge deficits by reducing taxes but never reducing spending--largely because they refuse (as they still do) to reduce military spending (point #3 of Reagan's).

    So again, can't say he was the most intelligent guy. I think Thatcher's point is basically valid. But I do believe he had both very shrewd political instincts (at a very gut level) and did in fact have a sincere political ideology (one I think that had serious problems associated with it). He, as well as others, did in fact manage to radically shift the political ground for more than a generation.

  • Comment Link Chris Dierkes Tuesday, 15 May 2012 00:28 posted by Chris Dierkes

    Also as to your valid point that Reagan raised taxes--while St. Ronald is definitely canonized in the conservative pantheon it's really Newt Gingrich who is the one who set the Republicans on this path of radicality. And then post 2008 it's people like Eric Cantor (and the base of the Republican party) that has gone even further into total obstructionist policies.

    Reagan had a Democratic Congress while president. George HW Bush raised taxes as president and got hammered by his own side for doing that. George W. Bush passed a bipartisan Education bill, the biggest expansion of the social safety system since LBJ (prior to Obama's Healthcare Bill), and he wanted a--by today's political standards--fairly liberalized immigration reform bill. Something interestingly Reagan also passed during his time.

    Reagan built his coalition on the three-legged stool of social conservatives, economic (libertarian) conservatives, and security conservatives. What's happened I think since Reagan is the way in which each of those three has gotten even more radical. The economic cons have become the Tea Party. The security cons have become the neoconservatives--Reagan pulled out of Lebanon for example. And the social cons have become the anti-gay, anti-woman side of the party.

    Weirdly also the economic conservative argument has been bought into almost completely by the social cons--who largely come from the lower middle classes. This economic point of view works against their economic interests as detailed in Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas?

  • Comment Link Susan Cannon Tuesday, 15 May 2012 04:15 posted by Susan Cannon

    I agree with Chris' comments, and as much as I disagreed with Reagan and his policies at the time, dumbass is not how I'd characterize him.

    If you want a clear, scrupulously researched, and balanced insight into the real Ronald Reagan, read Lou Cannon's book President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime. Lou started covering Reagan when he was running for governor of California, and was senior white house correspondent for the Washington Post during the Reagan years. Lou is also a respected presidential historian (full disclosure- he's also my father-in-law).

    Nancy Reagan was furious with Lou over that book because it revealed the bad with the good (and she wanted the myth). As punishment, she gave Edmund Morris the job of writing Reagan's official biography. After 14 years Morris turned out a controversial postmodern fictionalized account which she hated even more!

    Morris just couldn't "get" Reagan---he's not exactly the simpleton he might seem.

  • Comment Link TJ Dawe Wednesday, 16 May 2012 19:48 posted by TJ Dawe

    Chris - thanks for this overview of Reagan's presidency. I'm definitely interested in finding out more about the man and what happened under his watch (whether he initiated given decisions and policies or not).

    I agree about his political views preexisting his political career. This is what attracted the cabal of businessmen to him in the first place. I'm curious as to what happened in between him turning down the offer of running for state senate in 62 and giving his speech for Goldwater in 64. Did the seed planted in 62 slowly take root and grow? Or was it the influence of the UCO?

    And how is it that United Republicans of California abbreviates to "UCO"?

    Susan - very much looking forward to reading Lou Cannon's book. Thanks for the recommendation. I just looked up Edmund Morris' book, and on the wiki entry for it, it says "Some debate if Dutch should even be referred to as a biography at all."

    You're right - "dumbass" isn't a good descriptive term. That choice of word was more of a desire for an eye-grabbing title.

  • Comment Link David MacLeod Thursday, 17 May 2012 16:20 posted by David MacLeod

    I have to admit, unfortunately, that I voted for Reagan in the first term of his Presidency.

    I was quickly disillusioned, first when his budget directord, David Stockman, admitted that "trickle down" economics doesn't work. I think it was an interview in the Atlantic Monthly at the time, but here is something more recent:
    http://flaglerlive.com/8577/david-stockman-reagan-nixon-bush-trickledown/

    My second round of dissillusionment occurred with the Iran/Contra scandal. No one covered that better than Bill Moyers' documentary on "The Secret Government."
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRBxDEGDqw

    These two issues should be considered in any evaluation of the Reagan legacy. The economic program set the stage for the current economic crisis, and the Iran/Contra issue illuminates the neo-con strategy and moral bankruptcy, to which the American public responded with a yawn.

  • Comment Link TJ Dawe Saturday, 19 May 2012 18:58 posted by TJ Dawe

    David - greatly looking forward to reading/watching these - thanks.

    You're right - the American public did respond with a yawn. I remember an A & E series in the early 90s called Class of the 20th Century - various public figures (Oprah, Carl Bernstein, Kareem Abdul Jabaar) talking about different issues and events (mostly American) for a time capsule to be opened in the year 3000 (sure hope they can figure out how to work the VCRs packed in the capsule). Rob Reiner expressed astonishment at the disparity between the public reaction for Watergate, and that of Iran/Contra. Reagan basically got a slap on the wrist, and now the Right remembers him with fondness, as does much of the American public. How did that happen?

  • Comment Link Eleanor O'Brien Tuesday, 22 May 2012 16:35 posted by Eleanor O'Brien

    My grandfather hated Ronald Regan with a passion - not for his political career, but for what preceded it. His tenure as president of SAG led to one of the biggest swindles in theatrical history. "The contract that Reagan and company arranged with the studios is still known in Hollywood as "The Great Giveaway"; it provided residuals for actors only from films made after 1960." My grandfather made 36 movies - 8 of which were made after 1960. He decimated the retirements of movie legends, who had the misfortune to have had careers before 1960. You can follow the trajectory (including his alliance with the mob) here. http://www.moldea.com/ReaganRedux.html

  • Comment Link TJ Dawe Wednesday, 23 May 2012 19:30 posted by TJ Dawe

    I'd be really interested to know why Reagan was in favour of such a move. It'd make total sense that a studio exec would argue for that, but an actor??? But he must have had a reason that made sense to him. Mustn't he? Was someone pulling his strings even then? Gotta read that bio by Lou Cannon.

    Couldn't get that link to work, by the way.

    What was your grandfather's name? I wanna look him up on imdb now.

Login to post comments

Search Beams

Most Popular Discussions