Posted on 08/07/2007 6:51:18 AM PDT by LS
Tulane historian Douglas Brinkley has provided the first extended look at Ronald Reagan's personal diaries ("The Reagan Diaries" HarperCollins, 2007). He makes clear this is not the entire edited collection, which is being prepared separately, but just a sample---if a large one running 680 pp. He also alerts the reader that perhaps the first genuine, reliable biography of Reagan is forthcoming by former advisor Martin Anderson and his wife, which is reassuring after the debacle of "Dutch" by Edmond Morris.
Several themes stand out. First, any notion that any of the liberal journalists ever had that Reagan was lazy evaporate in the first pages. (One journalist quipped "Reagan rises at the crack of noon." Perhaps that's when the reporter got up---not RR!) Brinkley reprints two sample pages of the President's daily schedule---some of his lighter schedules, judging by the other entires. Merely the numbers of meetings the man had scheduled would tire a 30-year old, never mind someone twice that age, yet the Gipper daily conducted meetings, gave speeches, attended functions at night that easily ran from 6 o'clock to midnight.
Second, and perhaps the most surprising thing to me---though it shouldn't have been---Reagan religiously watched movies while in the White House. At least once a week he and friends watched either a new release or a classic. Predictably, he was generous to those in his former trade, seldom criticizing a film unless it was for too much bad language or sex. He called "Gandhi" a "truly great movie" (128). After watching Jessica Lange in "Country," however, he correctly called it a "blatant propaganda message against our Agri. programs." (271)
Third, Reagan's faith comes through, again and again. Paul Kengor ("God and Ronald Reagan") has already shown that the Gipper had a deep Christianity, and not just a generic "God" faith but a born-again, Jesus-Christ-as-Savior faith. When Nancy's father was seriously ill, Reagan recorded his concern that he make himself right with God ("I believe this is a moment when he should turn to God and I want so much to help him do that" [85]). When John Hinckley shot him, Reagan, before praying for his own health, realized he "couldn't ask for Gods [sic] help while at the same time I felt hatred for the mixed up young man who had shot me" (12). When Reagan received an award from the national convention of religious broadcasters, Reagan noted "Billy Graham called [my speech] the greatest declaration for the Lord any Pres. has ever made. I feel very humble." (128) He called Jerry Falwell "a good friend & highly supportive." (137)
Other interesting comments that surface repeatedly deal with Reagan's sense that the conseravtive establishment thought him too liberal. In July 1982, he wrote "The 'Conservative Digest' came out---an entire issue devoted to cutting me up down and crossways. John Lofton and his compatriots seem to be determined to pain me as a turncoat conservative." (94) In February 1983, he wrote "Front page of Wash. Times (which is becoming as R. Wing as the Post is L. Wing) had a story that the Conservative Union was cool to me Fri. night." Instead, Reagan said, "I was interrupted a dozen times with applause and got a lengthy standing ovation." (132) He also noted "Evidently the Right Wing Rebels have had little effect [in suppressing his support]." (132) After a meeting with N.H. Governor Mel Thompson, Reagan complained "he is convinced I've abandoned my conservative principles . . . . I'm afraid he gets some of his ideas from the Howie Phillips crowd." (184) Barry Goldwater was to Reagan what John McCain has been to George W. Bush: he was "raising h--l as chairman of the Intelligence comm. [saying] he was never briefed [on Nicaraguan harbor mining]. He was briefed on March 8 & 13."(231)
On the other hand, Reagan frequently referred to his Republican supporters in the House and the Senate as "rabbits," and more than once said "We have rabbits when we need Tigers." (142) Frustrated with Congress, he said "I am threatened with defeat by my own party." (170).
Repeatedly, Reagan noted that the press sought to create divisions in his administration, especially to pit Secretary of State George Schulz against other members. However, it is also clear that there were severe internal stresses---Reagan repeatedly has to put out fires, mostly between Richard Allen, Al Haig, and someone else. One gets the sense that both Allen and Haig were more trouble than they were worth.
Certainly, however, Reagan knew that his more dangerous enemies were on the Left: "The d--n media has propagandized our people against our defense plans more than the Russians have." (135) He lamented his daughter Patti "has been taken over by that whole d--n gang" of helen Caldicott's anti-nuke activists. (117) When he spent "a lot of briefing" for a 2-hour CBS special with Dan Rather, he "Saw the show & wonder why we bothered." (65) As for the National Council of Churches, he wrote "Sometimes I think (forgive me) that Nat. Co. believes God can be reached through Moscow." (13) Sen. Alan Cranston (D-CA) met with Reagan and "said nothing" but "tore us apart on the law to the press." (146) Of Cong. Joseph Addabbo [R-NY], who "couldn't kill the B-1 but he tried" Reagan said "I've never heard such pious hypocrisy from him & his storm troopers---especially [TX Cong.] Jim Wright." (117) Of former Republican N.H. Senator Lowell Weicker, Reagan wrote "he was the head ringmaster against us as he is on everything we want. He's a pompous, no good, fathead." (227) After Arlen Spector (R-PA) and Sen. Charles Mathias (R-MD) voted against a USSC nomination of Bradford Reynolds, Reagan glumly wrote "Well there are 2 Sens. I won't have to help campaign."
"Press conferences," he noted, "anymore are an adversary contest. The press isn't after news---they want to trap you into a goof." (170) In 1984, he "Dropped in for a minute on the TV anchor men & women who were being briefed on [the] St. of the Union address. I cannot conjure up 1 iota of respect for just about all of them." (215) "The morning papers were worse than the TV news. I reached the boiling point" on El Salvador aid, he wrote (172). After the 1984 election, he noted, "The press is now trying to prove it wasan't a landslide or should i say a mandate?" When a cancerous polyp was discovered in his colon, Reagan "detected an effort on the part of some" to mischaracterize the surgery. Helen Thomas screeched "The President has Cancer." (343)
When Reagan patiently spoke to opponents of his policies, including students, he often ended with the phrase, "I spoke to ears that wouldn't hear." One time, I mis-read a phrase, which I thought said, "It's hard to keep from slugging Mondale." In fact, it said, "It's hard to keep from slugging AT Mondale." Oh well. We can dream.
There are many more nuggets---his obvious love for Nancy and his despondency when she was not around; his commitment to SDI, which was never, ever a "bargaining chip" to be traded away; and his amazing intellect, which comes through with his analysis of problems. He truly did think he had solved the immigration issue with Mazzoli-Simpson.
One last item worth mentioning is his assessment of Saddam Hussein: "I believe [Iraq was] preparing to build an atom bomb" when Israel bombed Iraq. (24) "Saddam is a 'no good nut' and I think he was trying to build a nuclear weapon. He has called for the destruction of Israel & he wants to be leader of the Arab world---that's why he invaded Iran."
The full diaries will likely offer more texture, but Brinkley has done an exceptional job of "letting Reagan be Reagan." Any Reagan fan should read the diaries.
Well, this just went to the top of my list. Thanks for the post, LS.
Also, please read Paul Kengor’s other book, “Crusader.” It’s the most in-depth look at how Reagan won the Cold War of any I’ve seen, including Peter Schweizer’s more famous “Reagan’s War.”
I bought it and am very slowly reading it. Unlike other books I’d finish in a weekend, the size is 650+ pages, and small print to boot, so it is going to take a while, and I often find myself jumping onto the ‘net to see who/what he is concerning himself about (scandals, news events, people).
So this’ll take a while, and well worth it.
I wondered when somebody here at Free Republic would do a review of this facinating book. I read it last month while on a business trip.
It documents something many of us have stated was true for decades, the media flat out lies, and intentionally misrepresents things based on ITS POLITICAL DESIRES.
The review is very good. I would add one more quote from the book that was very revealing to me, in today’s context.
‘Jim Webb resigned as under secretary of the Navy. I don’t think anybody at Navy will miss him.’
Paraphrased from memory, and I don’t remember the page number. But I had to laugh recall Webb trying to hang his hat on being in the Reagan administration for nine months. Pity the WaPo reinforced that misrepresentation.
Other interesting comments that surface repeatedly deal with Reagan's sense that the conservative establishment thought him too liberal
History repeats itself with the current President George W Bush.
A few years ago there was a book, “Reagan: In his own hand,” or something similar. Is this book different writings, or is there a lot of overlap....or are you unfamiliar with the previous?
I have Reagan’s War, but not Crusader. Both will be great to take when visiting the granddaughter next month. There ya go, spending my money again :)
BTW, I’m going to a Republican event in Rockford (IL) tonight to meet with some of the state representatives, possibly including our congressional rep. Don Manzullo. It should be a VERY interesting affair.
My agenda: 1) Reclaim the governorship; 2) Increase representation in the legislature; 3) Send Turban Durbin packing; 4) Border security (should Manzullo be there).
I’m spending the day arming myself with facts. HA!
‘Reagan In His Own Hand’ was a compilation of Ronald Reagan’s writings over the course of years. It included a forward by George Schultz. I have it in my library. The book includes letters, articles, radio scripts, etc. It is not (as I recall) a collection of his diary entries.
can’t quite get why they let Brinkley write it, but nevertheless it’s great stuff and a joy to read.
I believe he was asked by Nancy Reagan to write the book. She had contacted him about the diaries the Gipper had kept. Apparently she didn’t trust Reagan’s official biographer, Edmund Morris, with the material.
So, does this mean I'm now spending your money while LS is spending mine? :)
Yup!
I just purchased this book and am looking forward to starting it at the beach in Cape Hatteras next month. Right now am still reading Patrtiots History of the US (shameless plug for you LS!)
Ask and you shall receive: (580) “Present Sec. Webb resigned over Navy budget cuts. I don’t think Navy was sorry to see him go.”
Yes. Much, much different writings, quite similar in content. “In His Own Hand” were the edited speeches that RR gave on his weekly radio addresses. More content in those. The diaries are much briefer (naturally) but offer a daily glimpse of what he was thinking.
Good luck. Quite ambitious. Have to admit I’m seriously depressed here in OH. Strickland has screwed up a little with the accidental release of all the state employees’ names, but he’s hitting a lot of hot-button, feel-good issues that are winning him points as gov.
The whole Reagan biography thing was so ridiculous: Morris had unfettered access---you can see in the "Diaries" how many times RR sat down with him, and even let him follow the Pres. around (even in meetings!) for an entire day). And that idiot blew it. Now, no one else will ever get the same chance.
Ask and you shall receive: (580) “Present Sec. Webb resigned over Navy budget cuts. I don’t think Navy was sorry to see him go.”
Thanks LS.
Its a facinating glimpse behind the scenes. I was surprised to learn that only four other President’s in history have made daily entries, and the last one was a more than a century ago.
What I also found interesting was Reagan didn’t ‘beat his chest’ in those entries about the things we all remember and cite as ‘Why I loved Reagan as President’. He barely mentioned the behind the scenes debate about ‘Tear down this Wall!’ for example.
And he was remarkably candid about his first debate with Mondale in the 84 race.
Also, btw, I too found it to be great, especially because I bought and read the hit piece titled ‘Dutch’.
Thank you very much. I can confidently say, you’ll love both books. While I’d like to think all my books are good, the fact is, Patriot’s History is probably a once-in-a-lifetime thing. I re-read it myself and am amazed it came off my computer-—and Mike Allen’s.
Oh, how I loved Reagan...God, how I miss him!
Oh, and this: his kids, Ron and Patti, were nutso about SS protection. He had MANY entries recounting how they were raising hell about the "intrusion" on their privacy. Finally, he said, "let them go."
I agree-depressing for sure. I couldn't stand Taft, but I must confess I had tears in my eyes when I came back from Charleston SC trip and entered OH to come home..and was greeted with the "Welcome to Oh--Gov Strickand" sign. It makes me sick.
‘Oh, and this: his kids, Ron and Patti, were nutso about SS protection. He had MANY entries recounting how they were raising hell about the “intrusion” on their privacy. Finally, he said, “let them go.”’
Yep. I got the feeling they treated the USSS worse than the Clinton’s did.
spoiled children, in short. To be fair, Michael Reagan doesn’t come off too good either.
No, but this was before MR’s great epiphany where he came to love and appreciate his dad. I think Ron comes off OK except for the SS business. They had one big blowup over something, then he called regularly and came over for dinner.
Thanks. We need it here in Illinois (Moscow on the Michigan). George Ryan helped screw up the Republican Party here very nicely, thank you. But a lot of the blame has to go to the party itself for not combating it's failing image, and not recruiting strong candidates.
Illinois is a major uphill battle for sure, but I want to see and hear for myself what their plans are. I know both our state reps, and I've met Manzullo. I have no reason to be shy about things. Oh, boy.
New Hampshire Senator Lowell Weicker???
Great work. Makes me want to go out and read the book.
Haven’t read the Diaries yet, but certainly will.
I’m really happy to see in the review that Reagan slapped around his conservative detractors a bit, even if it was written at the time for his eyes only.
I was working in DC back then (1981-1983) and I distinctly remember Reagan being somewhat regularly taken to task for being too “squishy” by those self appointed watchdogs of “true conservatism”: Richard Viguerie (Publisher of Conservative Digest), John Lofton (Editor of Conservative Digest), Howie Phillips (Chairman of the Conservative Caucus) and Paul Weyrich, (Chairman of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress).
For the most part, these were good men and true believers, but they never seemed to give Reagan a break. It was ridiculous. Of course, I think their main cause for upset with Reagan is that he didn’t invite them over to the White House or to policy discussions very often.
Regardless, they trashed the greatest President of my lifetime way, way, too much, and way too gratuitously. Did Reagan have his faults and missteps? Of course. Should they have been pointed out when they affected policy/politics. Yes,...but they didn’t need to be beaten into the ground ad infinitum and mercilessly.
Sorry for the rant,...but I am happy to see that the Gipper unmasked his thoughts and feeling about individuals - who should have been his staunchest supporters and most natural allies, yet who beat up on him - in his diaries.
I think John Diggins talks about that in his new book on Reagan. I saw an interview with him on CSPAN. Reagan had the classic American belief that other people can't hate us, they just misunderstand us. Yet he combined that with an unrelenting pressure on the Soviets, speaking to them in a way that no one had, and being the first Cold War President to go an entire term with no summit with a Soviet leader. A strong and fascinating man.
I have not yet read John Diggins new book on Reagan but would like to do so.
Longsh, but bump for later reading.
No, but this was before MR’s great epiphany where he came to love and appreciate his dad. I think Ron comes off OK except for the SS business. They had one big blowup over something, then he called regularly and came over for dinner.
Yep, thats pretty much how I see it.
It was surprising just how quickly RR tired of Haig.
Yep.
No, you are exactly right. This was clear in his bio, “An American Life,” where he repeatedly complained about conservatives in California being an obstacle to progress there. Reagan had certain principles he absolutely would not budge on-—SDI, the Soviet oil pipeline, tax cuts-—but on other issues, it irritated him that either “right” or “left” would get in the way of some improvement.
One thing in "Crusader" that was mind-blowing (and I had seen this in "Reagan's War" by Schweizer, but kind of sloughed it off as, "well, perhaps, but who knows?"---now it's confirmed.: Kengor recounts the NSDD (National Security Decision Document) that arranged for the U.S. to "leak" technology to the Soviets that was deliberately flawed and screwed up. In one case, software for the pipeline passed all the tests, then failed under actual operation, causing a massive break in the line and setting back the pipeline almost a year.
Hmmm. Do you suppose some of that program still lingers, in the form of stuff "leaked" to N. Korea via China? (Failed missiles?)
On two or three occasions (one being the pipeline) EVERY SINGLE ONE of Reagan's cabinet came down on one side, and RR on the other, and he said, "We're doing it my way."
‘You get the sense in the diaries that Haig and Allen and Schulz were little children pushing their own agendas. ‘
Yep, and they are still doing it today, except they ride RR’s coattails, and don’t mention when he overrode them.
“On two or three occasions (one being the pipeline) EVERY SINGLE ONE of Reagan’s cabinet came down on one side, and RR on the other, and he said, “We’re doing it my way.””
Yep. Reminded me of Reagan’s comment after being briefed extensively on the Soviet Union and what the great minds were thinking “We win, they lose”.
Thrity years later, same crap, even some of the same names.
BTW, have you noticed how much more aggressive (better) John Boehner of OH has been since he’s (again) been in the minority? Weird.
I worked in Arlington, Va in the early eighties, and I remember vividly the attacks on the Gipper by those same individuals you mentioned. The attacks against Ronald Reagan by these conservatives predated his election in November of 1980, since most of these people supported then Congressman Phil Crane for POTUS in the 1980 GOP primary.
You are correct. Viguerie and the leaders of “The New Right” backed Phil Crane to the hilt and, truth be told, I can certainly see why they liked Crane. He was conservative to the core in his voting and speaking - and he was one of them: A Washington insider. Still, Congressmen tend not to get elected President!
I loved Phil Crane back in the day because of his overall voting record and his fight against Jimmy Carter’s Panama Canal giveaway. However, when it came to Presidential Primary Politics, Ronald Reagan was the choice.
Weicker was from Connecticut (defeated by Lieberman in 1988, I believe). Campaigned for on a “no state income tax” platform for governor, then instituted a state income tax as soon as he was elected. Also was directly responsible for the Hartford Whalers moving to North Carolina. I wish he was from New Hampshire. :)
You are right! I missed that. I’ll have to check, but I’m pretty sure Reagan identified him as “N.H.”
wikipedia:
“Weicker served in the Connecticut State House of Representatives from 1962 to 1966 and as first selectman of Greenwich, Connecticut before winning election to the U.S. House of Representatives, in 1968, as a Republican. Weicker only served one term in the House before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1970; he served in the U.S. Senate for three terms, from 1971 to 1989, before being defeated for a fourth term by Joe Lieberman. He gained national attention for his service on the Senate Watergate Committee. During his Senate service, Weicker was always regarded as somewhat of a maverick, and a liberal voice in an increasingly conservative Republican Party. President Reagan referred to him in his diaries as “a pompous, no good, fathead”, a reflection of Weicker’s attitude towards the Reagan administration.
Weicker’s tense relations with establishment Republicans may have roots in receiving strong support from President Nixon in his 1970 Senate bid, support repaid in the eyes of his critics by a vehement attack on the White House while serving on the Watergate Committee. Later, his relations with the Bush family soured, and the brother of then Vice President Bush (Prescott Bush, Jr.) made a short-lived bid against Weicker to gain the 1982 Republican Senate nomination. Finally, conservative animus spilled into overt support for Joe Lieberman in 1988, both from national sources such as National Review (publisher William F. Buckley, Jr., and his brother, former New York Senator James Buckley, both endorsed and campaigned for Lieberman in 1988), but more importantly, from rank-and-file Connecticut Republicans irate with Weicker’s effort to make the local party more liberal and prevent the nomination of conservatives to state office, and the poor showing of Weicker-backed candidates in the 1986 elections. Weicker was defeated in the 1988 election by less than 1% of the vote, owing in large part to defections by Republicans to Lieberman.”
Just re-checked: I was the one who erred. I identified Weicker as NH, when he was from CT. The Reagan Diaries do not identify him at all.
Weicker is one of the most disgusting and vile human beings ever to hold office in this country. It seems fitting he was born in Paris.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.