Caveat lector

LOU’S CANON! Curious about what Reagan was like? We recommend Lou Cannon’s texts:

THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2004

LOU’S CANON: What was Reagan actually like? For those of you who find yourselves wondering, let us stand with Eric Alterman. On Monday, Alterman recommended Lou Cannon’s “fair-minded [1991] biography, President Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime, a book that can be admired by honest fans of Reagan as well as honest opponents.” (And yes, both groups do exist.) In the past few days, we’ve been rereading parts of Cannon’s book, and we must say this: Every time we revisit this text, we’re more impressed by its author’s rare abilities. Few writers can describe a pol’s failures so frankly, then turn around and dispassionately describe episodes where he performed more ably. We’ll also recommend Cannon’s 2003 book, Governor Reagan, which takes us up to Reagan’s inauguration as president. Did Cannon ever vote for Reagan? Read these endlessly instructive texts. See if you can tell.

Cannon was a longtime Reagan-watcher, having reported on the Gipper for the Los Angeles Times, then the Washington Post. One great strength of his 1991 book is the unvarnished look it takes at Reagan’s peculiar mental style. Of course, such topics have been swept away as hagiographers have worked their magic on cable this week. But whatever one thinks of Reagan’s policies, he was surely one of the most unusual men ever to occupy the White House. Cannon goes deep inside his subject’s ability to believe things that were plainly untrue. For those who want to explore this side of the Reagan legacy, we recommend Cannon’s detailed passage on Reagan’s claim to have filmed Nazi death camps at the Holocaust’s end, and his lengthy treatment of Reagan’s long-time belief in Armageddon. Did you recall that Reagan was actually asked about the latter topic in one of the Mondale debates?

But if you want to review just one topic, read Cannon’s lengthy account of the Iran-contra affair. It’s hard to find words for the endless lunacy of this episode–and Cannon’s description of Reagan’s role flies in the face of the cheerful portrait painted by grinning entertainers Russert and Mitchell on Sunday’s Meet the Press (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/7/04). In Cannon’s description, Reagan was functioning very poorly by late 1986, when this matter came to light. No, Cannon doesn’t shrink from saying that Reagan “lied” at various times as this matter unfolded. But beyond that, he seems to feel that Reagan was only marginally functional as his aides fought off impeachment. Here’s his description of what occurred when Reagan testified for the second time to his own Tower Commission (on 2/11/87). Try to reconcile this account with the stories you’ve heard this past week. (Warning: Don’t confuse Reagan’s name with that of his chief of staff, Donald Regan):

CANNON (page 631): [I]t was obvious to [Donald] Regan and [White House counsel Peter] Wallison that the president was still shaky in his recollections. Wallison drew up what Abshire called an “aide-memoire” to help the president recall what he had told them. At the top Wallison wrote, “On the issue of the TOW [missile] shipment in August, in discussing this matter with me and David Abshire, you said you were surprised to learn that the Israelis had shipped the arms. If that is your recollection, and the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised.”

The question, of course, came up...After a preliminary question about presidents and their NSC staffs, Tower asked Reagan about the discrepancy between his statement and Regan’s on the question of whether he had given prior approval to the Israeli arms shipment. Reagan rose from his chair, walked around the desk and said to Wallison, “Peter, where is that piece of paper you had that you gave me this morning?” Then he picked up the paper and began to read, “If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised.”

Tower’s jaw went slack. It was, as Abshire put it, “a low moment.” Tower suspected that Reagan was being manipulated by his counsel, and the Tower Board’s chief of staff, Rhett Dawson, asked Wallison for a “copy of the script” when the board departed. But Wallison was even more amazed than the Tower Board by Reagan’s response. “I was horrified, just horrified,” Wallison recalled later.

Why have we seen so much silly clowning on cable? In part, because that is the way your “press corps” functions in every area, with all public figures. If The Group doesn’t like a public figure, they invent vicious stories and stage Group Recitals, trying to destroy their target’s reputation and abusing the public’s right to know. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/5/04, for just one in an endless list of such stunning, inexcusable episodes. But if a public figure is looked on with approval? Then, pundits recites silly, bowdlerized tales, like the one Russert and Mitchell performed on Sunday’s Meet the Press.

In this morning’s Washington Post, sane-and-balanced Jim Hoagland hints at the shape of this remarkable problem:

HOAGLAND: The craving by Americans for uncluttered heroism–for what is seen in retrospect as the order and clarity of the Cold War–also powers this yearning for a near-mythical transformation of Reagan’s death into a moment to sweep aside the dread and anguish of the wars in Iraq and against al Qaeda.

Yes, winners always write the history. But it is dangerously easy today to make the leap from that news footage of Reagan speaking at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin to concluding that he came to office with a master plan to make victory in the Cold War inevitable. As one television executive said to me not long ago, “Today history is what we say it is.”

At times, did Reagan work from the type of “script” Rhett Dawson demanded? Yes, but your “press corps” works from such scripts every day. No wonder they see a congenial figure in the man who good-naturedly claimed, to two different world figures, that he had filmed the Nazi death camps. Yes, Reagan often made strange claims. But none of his claims were half as strange as the claims your “press corps” makes routinely. Your brain will now recommend denial, telling you this can’t be so. We suggest you read Cannon’s books, then watch an hour of cable.

SEND IN THE CLOWN: For sheer clowning, you had to catch Bill O’Reilly complaining last night about the politicization of Reagan’s death. “Now for the top story tonight,” he began, “a behind-the-scenes look at the Reagan memorial and how politics as usual are happening even as Mr. Reagan is being eulogized.” Monica Crowley and Michelle Malkin took turns complaining about the far left’s carping. Soon, Bill was griping again. Enjoy a mordant chuckle:

O’REILLY: I don’t want politics to intrude in any way. And that's why I was so angry yesterday. You know, this–these pictures are what this is all about, dignity and grace, and honoring a man that was a patriot, whether you agree with him or not.

But when we come back, I want to talk about Bill Clinton apparently is miffed that he wasn't invited to speak, but he did speak at the Richard Nixon funeral.

MALKIN: Well, certainly the liberal media is discombobulated by all this. You know, Doug Gamble, who is a humor writer for the Reagan, always said that it was so easy to write jokes for him because he had an incredible innate sense of timing. And even in choosing his death, he has done so as well. Of course, the Democrats are mad about this. It sucked the oxygen out of all their manufactured scandals.and out of the launch of Bill Clinton's book. And as you mentioned before the break, of course, Clinton is livid that he is not in the spotlight at this point.

O'REILLY: We haven't been able to confirm that, though. I want to be absolutely fair. And that has been my mantra ever since the presidential race began. I want to be absolutely fair. We haven't been able to confirm that former President Clinton is angry he wasn't invited to participate here. So I will tell you it has been reported. People are running with it. But we have tried and we are still trying–maybe we'll have more tomorrow, haven't been able to confirm it. But he did.

How did our country reach the point where such clowning clowns are defining our discourse? Where timorous “good guys” hide behind desks, afraid to tell Bill to grow up?

NOTE: Under the circumstances, Crowley deserves a good deal of credit for noting that Senator Ted Stevens’ speech was also a bit too political. Her exchange with Mr. O’R:

CROWLEY: And Senator Stevens tonight, I think he made a very political speech, which was not appropriate to the moment. If you're going to eulogize somebody, and this is a former president, and you’re engaged in a state funeral, you do not weigh down your remarks with policy.

O'REILLY: Yes, I was a little taken aback that Stevens would take that tack, because Cheney didn't.

CROWLEY: That’s right.