BOOKS IN REVIEW Reagan Coopted HIS IS A BOOK I VERY MUCH WANTED TO LIKE.Not York Times. Its coverage of Reagan promoted the idea because it was supposed to reflect a liberal’s that he was simply an actor going through the mo- awakening to the importance and signifi- tions as president—reading from speeches written by cance of Ronald Reagan, but because I hoped his staff, dutifully following the directions of his it was a book by a member of the academy that shrewd advisers, falling asleep in cabinet meetings took Ronald Reagan seriously. and generally sleepwalking through history. One of the remarkable things about Rea- The fact that this imagery fit neatly with the in- Tgan is the dearth of serious scholarly works terests of some of his staff in exaggerating their own about his presidency. Although Professor Diggins importance was lost in the media’s pell-mell accept- could describe him as one of the three greatest presi- ance of this narrative. If you’re a scholar and believe dents in American history—the others being Lincoln this stuff—and why not?—you’re not going to make and Roosevelt—the number of scholarly books on your reputation by studying the Reagan presidency. Reagan, almost two decades after he left office, can be To be sure, there were some problems with this counted on one hand. story. Reagan was successful again and again in get- This is reflected in Diggins’s bibliography. Most of ting the things he wanted most—the the cited works are by journalists, and cover specific tax cuts, spending cuts, tax reforms, issues in Reagan’s political life, or memoirs by journal- increases in military appropriations, ists or figures in the Reagan administration. Diggins’s and other priorities seemed to fall text mostly cites Lou Cannon’s book—President into his lap. Before Reagan became Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime—the title of which sug- president many observers of the pres- gests the arch way in which, at the time Cannon was idency concluded that it was just too writing, many people in the press thought of Ronald big a job for one person. Reagan. What we needed, they suggested, Still, the Cannon book is one of the fairest and most was a corporate presidency, with sev- balanced available. As Diggins acknowledges, “Rea- eral executives dividing up the work. gan’s reputation has suffered But Reagan made the job look easy—so Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom, from northern liberal biases easy that he was accused of being lazy. and the Making of History that dominate the teaching and Once, when asked whether he was By John Patrick Diggins writing of American history working as hard as he should, Reagan (W.W. NORTON, 493 PAGES, $27.95) today.” responded “Well, they say that hard But there is another and work never hurt anyone, but I say, why take a chance?” Reviewed by Peter J. Wallison perhaps more practical expla- But there is in fact an explanation for Reagan’s nation for this. Press coverage, often cited as the first success. He had a strategy for his presidency in which draft of history, is really quite a bit more influential he would govern with principles and ideas rather than than that. by constantly intervening in the decision-making pro- Historians and political scientists read the New cess of his administration. As Diggins notes, “Reagan thought ideas were real and could move mountains.” Peter J. Wallison is a resident fellow at the American He also selected four objectives that he wanted to Enterprise Institute and the author of Ronald Reagan: achieve: The Power of Conviction and the Success of His • Reducing the role of the government in the econ- Presidency (Westview Press, 2003). omy through tax and spending cuts. 68 THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR JULY/AUGUST 2007 BOOKS IN REVIEW • Forcing American companies to compete by free- responsibility, freedom of the individual, and small ing trade. government, we have a figure who is skeptical about • Compelling the Soviet Union to come to the bar- the fundamental precepts of Christianity, and believes gaining table though a military buildup. that God wants people to create and take pleasure in • Restoring the American people’s faith in them- material abundance. selves. He concentrated almost entirely on these—and Reagan’s political philosophy is achieved them all. presented as inconsistent with the This was a completely different template for running the presidency from the one FDR pursued, political philosophy and objectives and Reagan showed that it could be successful. of the Founding Fathers—an In my book on Reagan, I pointed out this differ- ence in approach and strategy, in the hope that it eccentric view, to be sure. would attract the interest of historians and political Similarly, Reagan’s political philosophy is pre- scientists. Thus far, no luck. sented as inconsistent with the political philosophy This concerns me, because it will be historians and and objectives of the Founding Fathers—an eccentric political scientists who will ultimately establish Rea- view, to be sure. gan’s place in history, and it would be a shame if he does And second, that Reagan’s role in ending the Cold not get the recognition he deserves because of a mis- War and the threat of Communism was the result of his placed view by academics about the reasons for the conversion, once he became president, to views about success of his presidency. the dangers of nuclear war that one would normally associate with American liberals. HICH BRINGS ME to Professor Diggins’s book. In the end, Diggins, despite his high regard for Although this is a book about Ronald Rea- Reagan, actually underestimates Reagan’s contribu- W gan, there is very little Reagan in it. By this I tion to the collapse of Soviet Communism. mean two things. First, although Diggins makes a lot of interesting HE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE BOOK, I think, is its and controversial assertions about Reagan and what failure not only to provide a complete under- he achieved, he doesn’t take the time to support these T standing of Reagan’s political philosophy, but statements with examples. to offer a complete understanding of the meaning of The book would be a more useful contribution to the terms “liberalism” and “conservatism” as they are an understanding of its subject if we had been given used in the United States today. examples of Reagan doing or saying something that Diggins writes: would give Diggins's observations more substance. And second, although Diggins regards Reagan as In confronting the Soviet Union, Reagan invoked great primarily because he ended the Cold War and the the principles of freedom, human rights, democrat- totalitarian Communist threat without firing a shot, ic elections, and self-determination, liberal ideas he is somewhat unclear about what Reagan actually derived from the natural rights legacy of John Locke did to achieve this extraordinary historical triumph. and the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. Yet if In other words, the book does not fail in its con- Reagan carried forward the message of liberalism, ception, but in its persuasiveness. Because of the pub- why did he become the emblem of conservatism? licity it has received, this book could encourage some scholars to look more carefully at Reagan, but it won’t This question would seem incoherent to Reagan persuade anyone to accept Reagan’s greatness by the conservatives, who believe themselves to be, and in force of its argument. fact are, liberals in the classical sense. To illustrate these points, I will focus on two cen- They believe in smaller government, popular sov- tral ideas in the book. ereignty limited by natural or God-given inalienable First, that Reagan had a romantic and transcen- rights, individual self-reliance and economic self- dentalist personal philosophy, similar to that of Ralph determination for individuals freed to the extent possi- Waldo Emerson. ble from government regulation. Here, in place of the familiar Reagan of personal In foreign policy, conservatives who align them- JULY/AUGUST 2007 THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR 69 BOOKS IN REVIEW selves with Reagan are idealists, believing that all peo- corporate bureaucracies and defend government reg- ple are basically the same, respond to the same eco- ulation that helps fend off risk and promote confi- nomic incentives, and will if given the opportunity dence and stability. prefer democracy and self-determination to state Reagan conservatives, on the other hand, admire controls. entrepreneurs and innovators; they understand and They will tend to see the United States as a force for welcome change and what Schumpeter called “cre- good in the world and in this sense have some kinship ative destruction,” despite its propensity for risk, tur- with a Wilsonian foreign policy. Reagan was, without bulence, and uncertainty. question, a liberal in this classical sense. While classical liberals are called conservatives In the American idiom, oddly enough, classical in today’s America, there are important differences liberals are called “conservatives.” In the sense that between classical liberals and what I will call Amer- Reagan is the icon of conservatives and Republicans, ican liberals. it can fairly be said that most Republicans and con- The latter, in my view, see people primarily as servatives are classical liberals. Thus, there is no par- members of groups rather than as individuals, believe adox in his promoting classical liberal ideas as an the power of the state is necessary to protect individ- “emblem of conservatism.” uals and groups from economic exploitation, and do There is, of course, another strand of conservat- not see the United States as an unalloyed force for ism which is not associated with Reagan.