Deconstructing Reagan: Conservative Mythology and America's Fortieth President

by Kyle Longley, Jeremy Mayer, Michael Schaller

Although he left office nearly 20 years ago, Ronald Reagan remains a potent symbol for the conservative movement. The Bush administration frequently invokes his legacy as it formulates and promotes its fiscal, domestic, and foreign policies. His name is watchword for campus conservatives who regard him in a way that borders on hero worship. Conservative media pundits often equate the term "Reagan-esque" with personal honor, fiscal rectitude, and unqualified success in dealing with foreign threats. But how much of the Reagan legacy is based on fact, how much on idealized myth? And what are the reasons - political and otherwise - behind the mythmaking? "Deconstructing Reagan" is a fascinating study of the interplay of politics and memory concerning our fortieth president. While giving credit where credit is due, the authors scrutinize key aspects of the Reagan legacy and the conservative mythology that surrounds it.

168 pages, Hardcover

First published December 1, 2006

About the author

The author of nearly a dozen books, Kyle Longley is widely considered an expert in the field of U.S. foreign relations. Consulted by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and MSNBC among others, he has taught in the field of modern U.S. history for more than 25 years.

Reviews

[Gregg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don't be misled by the title. This easily-digestible text argues that the myths that are being spun about Reagan are easily dissected and exposed, but it doesn't seek to demonize him or sacrifice him on the altar of neoconservativism or anything like that.

The writers present their case in four essays dealing with finely-drawn parameters concerning the Reagan legacy: economic policy, character, race/racial issues and foreign policy. They show, quite convincingly, that Reagan's policies and beliefs often had nothing to do with each other, that the myths of Reaganomics don't square with the massive deficits he ran up in the eighties (though the numbers pale in comparison to today's), that his credentials as the tax-cutting-to-prosperity president were more damaging than his three-tax-hikes-to-repair-the-damage-of-those-tax-cuts president, that if he didn't know about Iran/Contra he was surely a bumbling, ineffectual affector of global circumstances, and that while he wasn't racist per se he was devilishly good at playing to white fears about minority dissent. (Mayer's discussion of wealth inequity and how Reagan exacerbated it is particularly stirring, forecasting to a T the rhetoric of the Occupy movement several years beforehand.)

The authors fumble the ball in a few places, making casual observations that call for further explication in places, and coming up with too-easy-explanations of troubling behavior in others. For example, one of the authors makes the offhand remark that Reagan's lack of interaction with dissenting figures in his cabinet is a byproduct of his being raised by an alcoholic father--seems like an idea that could use a footnote from a psychiatric journal or something. Also, the writers argue that Reagan's lies are not on a par with Nixon's, but more on a line with Clinton's, as well as Gore's "misrepresentations" about his role in creating the Internet. This is really surprising: Nixon's role in Watergate, while shady, is vastly overshadowed by the actions of a man who negotiated with terrorists and armed contra fighters who killed tens of thousands of people in Nicaraugua; Clinton may have minced words, but to my knowledge, he was being grilled over an extramarital affair rather than foreign and domestic policy which, again, led to losses of life overseas. And Gore and the Internet? Are we still going on about that? The truth of what he said is easily discovered.

Overall, though, Deconstructing Reagan is easily digestible, amply documented, and a simple rebuttal to any of the rubbish still being thrown around about the Gipper in an effort to justify neoliberal policies, the ruin of which we're still dealing with today. If George W. Bush was supposed to be Reagan 3.0, he succeeded, but in the wrong ways. Now that the 2012 election has Republicans casting about furiously for either an image makeover or a stronger argument, we'll see what the myth evolves into by 2016.

[E.H. Nolan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Usually, when someone chooses to read a book about a president, it’s because he or she particularly likes that president. Why else would you read a whole book about him, right? In this case, fans or critics of President Reagan will be pleased, so whether you liked or disliked his legacy, feel free to pick up Deconstructing Reagan.

It’s pretty short, for a political biography book, at 150 pages, and it’s separated into four easy to read essays. Two of the authors have written entire books about Reagan, so they’ve definitely done their research as they discuss his economic and foreign policy legacy through the decades. The latter two essays deal more with Reagan’s personal character, rather than his policies. If you like him, you’ll feel validated. If you’re more critical, you can use these essays as a starting point for you to debate those who feel he can do no wrong.

I’m not really a fan, but I still thought this was a good book. Give it a try and see what you think!

http://hottoastyrag.weebly.com/decons...