Resurrecting Reagan

Republicans are doing their damndest to bring the Gipper back to life. In case you weren't aware or simply don't care, twenty years ago yesterday Ronald Reagan delivered his Brandenburg Gate address. Since Reagan uttered his "tear down this wall" line, Republicans have credited Mr. Reagan with everything short of inventing tactical nukes. But now the nostalgia turns from worship to an almost creepy fetishism. We all know that Republicans aren't exactly thrilled with their candidates for '08, but trying to resurrect Ronnie won't make their choices look any better. For one thing, there isn't one chance in a million that any of their candidates are going to inspire, let's just say, McCain Democrats or Rudy Democrats; as for Romney Democrats, that should come complete with a full on spew alert.

Powerline has a blog post featuring the man who wrote Reagan's speech that day, Peter Robinson, complete with pictures, which actually are very cool, if only for history's sake. They're compliments of the Reagan Library. But I simply cannot equate the rhetorical flourishes like this one with the Reagan reality of that year.

The Bible instructs us that a word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver. Something of the meaning of that simile is brought home to us in Reagan's great speech of June 12, 1987.

But I guess as conservatives look at Mr. Bush, the "great communicator" would probably sound like "apples of gold in pictures of silver" right about now.

Rick Moran starts his commemoration with a traditional spiritual: "Joshua Fit the Battle of Jericho." At least Rick realizes that Reagan hardly did the job alone:

I like the idea of Reagan as Joshua, sounding the ram's horn of freedom which spurred a mighty shout from the host of oppressed peoples, bringing the whole rotten edifice of Communist tyranny crashing down. Of course, it was much more complicated than that. More than a 40 years of spadework had been done under both Democratic and Republican Presidents that gradually ate away at Soviet authority and the myths that kept the tyrants in power.

Rick should phone Sean Hannity immediately, before the man makes a bigger drooling fool of himself.

NRO keeps it simple: Our Hero.

It's important to remember that when Reagan said the words that resonated similarly to John F. Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" (which, by the way, is exactly the way it should have been said), it was 1987. To say that Republicans and conservatives today have a selective memory about Ronald Reagan is an understatement. Having voted for him in 1980, I recall vividly the disillusionment after that vote and it didn't take long before Ronnie's mystique began to unwind. But 1987 was a particularly bad year.

Two words for you: Iran Contra. True historians, of which I am not one, can add their own.

Three additional words: Tower Commission Report. No, it didn't conclude Ronnie knew what his national security staff was doing, but it was obvious that as President of the United States he sure should have. In November of 1987 Congress issued it's report saying so emphatically: "If the president did not know what his national security advisers were doing, he should have."

There's John Poindexter allegedly telling Donald Regan that he'd condoned the diversion of funds to the Contras. The White House releasing a finding that was signed by President Reagan in 1986, which authorized the sale of arms to Iran, while also ordering the CIA to keep Congress in the dark. Reagan reportedly did not read the memo justifying the strategy of arms to Iran.

"A few weeks ago I spoke about our initiative toward certain factions in Iran. And I mentioned then that a widespread perception exists that this Administration traded arms for hostages, thereby violating our own strong policy of making no concessions to terrorists. When all the facts are out, the American people can make up their own minds on that key question. But the American people should also know that the President is certain to this very day that he did not authorize 'arms for hostages.'"

Uniting against terrorism - George Bush's address before an international conference on terrorism sponsored by Discover magazine on Jan. 20, 1987

Then came March of 1987.

President Reagan addresses the American people on the Iran-Contra Affair, acknowledging that his overtures to Iran had 'deteriorated' into an arms-for-hostages deal.

The news got grimmer by the day.

The podium was shorter than usual, but even so, Ronald Reagan seemed diminished as he stood behind it -- "smaller and frailer," one friend thought, with lines of strain around the eyes and mouth. Sounding tentative, he stumbled twice over his lines as he thanked the three-man panel he had asked to pass judgment on his handling of the Iran scandal; whatever the commission found, he promised to "enact the proper reforms." Then, in a din of shouted questions, he was ushered protectively to the door of the briefing room on the arm of the diminutive chief judge, former Texas Sen. John Tower. Reagan's stricken look was fully justified: he had already heard the verdict.

The Tower commission's report was devastating -- a calm, searing appraisal of Reagan's presidency that threatened to shrink him to irrelevance for the rest of his lame-duck term. The only good news was that Tower and his colleagues, former Secretary of State Edmund Muskie and former national-security adviser Brent Scowcroft, believed the president's story that he genuinely wanted the truth to be told about the Iran-contra affair and that he hadn't intentionally misled the nation. For the rest, he emerged as a careless, remote and forgetful leader, too indifferent to supervise the reckless swashbuckling of his aides. His Iran policy was found to be foolish and counterproductive, and it was carried out unprofessionally and perhaps illegally. None of the officials involved in the dealings escaped criticism; in Tower's words, the president "was poorly advised and poorly served." But Reagan himself "clearly didn't understand" what was going on: he let his emotions rule him, never ordered a critical review and allowed his aides to manipulate him and make their own foreign policy as they lied, diverted arms profits and tried to cover up the scandal.

Reagan's Failure
A scathing report on Iran finally forces Regan out. But can the president recover?

I've done years of research and writing on John F. Kennedy, including a political show that takes in the whole man, including his vices, his women, and his health, which would have killed lesser men. Politicians are not perfect. They're human. It's their humanity that makes them great or weak.

However, there's something about conservatives craving to carve out Reagan as the second coming of a political Christ-like figure, likely in order to rescue them and their party from the abyss, that is revisionist history at its worst. It's not only a bit frightening, but it borders on a dangerou zealotry that could wind up getting us all in trouble all over again. Their righteous efforts simply fall flat in the light of facts, but that hasn't stopped the voters before. However, first Republicans have to come up with a candidate they can stomach and actually has principles that actually matter to him.

However, Kennedy and Reagan did have one thing in common. They both stood down the Soviet Union without firing a shot. Bush couldn't even fend off a spider hole dictator, without WMDs, and only a bunch of palatial mansions from which to pontificate, which is likely the reason Republicans everywhere are trying to resurrect Ronnie. They're desperate for an infusion of faith into the conservative movement, which is cracking before our eyes, and since reality is simply too grim, a little fantasy will have to do.

- Taylor Marsh LIVE! can be heard from 3-4 pm eastern - 12-1 p.m pacific, Mon.-Thurs, with podcasts available.