Legacy of Reagan's Presidency Now Begins the Test of Time
By R. W. APPLE Jr.
Published: June 11, 2004
...Clearly, Mr. Reagan died a respected, perhaps even a beloved man, although the affection was far from universal, as is true for any public figure. In office, his popularity, though dented, survived the Iran-contra affair, but popularity is never a reliable test of greatness. Harry S. Truman, now counted among the near-greats if not the greats, retrospectively admired for his prosecution of the cold war, left office with an approval rating of only 23 percent. Warren G. Harding, now disdained, whose stated ambition was to be remembered as the country's "best-loved president," came close to that goal after his sudden death in 1923.
It could be argued that Mr. Reagan's greatest triumphs came in his role as chief of state rather than as chief of government. He was often ignorant of or impatient with the policy minutiae that preoccupy most occupants of the Oval Office, sometimes with unfortunate consequences (as when Oliver North ran amok in the Iran-contra affair, for instance). But his extraordinary political gifts carried him through — his talents as a communicator, his intuitive understanding of the average American, his unfailing geniality even after being hit by a would-be assassin's bullet, his ability to build and sustain friendships across partisan lines (as with Tip O'Neill, for instance).
Those gifts — and his conviction that words counted for far more in politics than mere deeds — enabled him to convince large majorities that as long as he was in charge, it would remain "Morning in America." They made it possible for him to redraw the nation's political map, moving the center so abruptly to the right that even Bill Clinton would proclaim the end of "big government," and to remold his party in his own image. They gave him the eloquence to lead the country in mourning after the Challenger disaster and to celebrate "the boys of Pointe du Hoc" near Omaha Beach on the 40th anniversary of D-Day....
***
"But he was not a great president," said Sean Wilentz, professor of history at Princeton University. "He was master at projecting a mood; he could certainly rally the country. He would have made a great king, a great constitutional monarch, but we do not have that form of government."...
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/politics/11REAG.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
