These casual slights of Reagan are born of a longstanding impulse to denigrate the Great Communicator as just that: a talking head, an empty suit, a man with a mellifluous voice and nothing else. This trope has been in play since the 1980s. My favorite iteration may have been in “Watchmen,” the last page of which features a pair of right-wing buffoons dismissing the idea that Robert Redford could win the presidency because “This is still America God dammit! Who wants a cowboy actor in the White House?” (GET IT?) Phil Hartman’s famous impression of Reagan on Saturday Night Live as an evil mastermind playing an amiable dupe for the public riffs on the same idea.
Ironically, Hartman’s impression — in which Reagan rattles off numerous details about various scandals he claimed to have no knowledge about and writes his aides’ resignation letters — may be more accurate than the commonly accepted caricature of the president as a know-nothing stooge. “I could tell dozens of stories about specific times when Ronald Reagan displayed detailed knowledge about policy issues, and when he took decisive action based on that knowledge — without the benefit of someone whispering in his ear or sliding a note into his hand,” George P. Shultz wrote in the foreword to “Reagan, In His Own Hand.” “But so ingrained is the belief that he was an amiable man — not too bright, the willing captive of his aides — that it would probably not make much difference.”
The collection of Reagan’s writings, largely culled from radio broadcasts he penned in the period between his residencies in the California governor’s mansion and the White House, are a stirring reminder that the mere “actor” was also a voracious writer, scribbling his columns down in his own shorthand whilst on airplanes or in the back seats of cars. His radio addresses are filled with facts and figures marshaled to support his unerring ideological belief that America — and the world — is at its best when government gets out of the way and stops preaching malaise. For instance, here’s Reagan in 1976 discussing the strengths of American capitalism’s dynamism compared to the rest of the world:
I won’t bore you with multiple excerpts along these lines; suffice it to say that Reagan wrote with similar passion and precision about issues ranging from the use of DDT to stop malaria to human rights abuses in the Soviet Union to welfare reform at home. Effortlessly mixing data and anecdata, Reagan’s writings reveal a man who actually believes in something other than himself. If only the same could be said about the man he is being so absurdly compared to.
Trump’s catchphrase, “Make America Great Again,” is Reaganesque only if you fail to consider there’s no “there” there. It’s meaningless sloganeering, an empty nothing whispered into the ears of those who (rightfully) feel as though they’ve been locked out of the political process, who feel that neither party is addressing their concerns. If Trump has ever thought deeply about the ideological underpinnings of American greatness — if he has ever written or spoken thoughtfully about the issues of our day and what must be done to actually return America to greatness — I am unaware of it. This isn’t to say he believes in nothing or has nothing to contribute: Trump certainly believes in Trump, and “The Art of the Deal” is a classic in the genre. But we’re not electing a negotiator-in-chief, and he doesn’t bring much else to the table, philosophically.
I can’t help but believe the emptiness of this phrase is one of the reasons that so many people who have long disliked Reagan have latched on to the idea that The Donald is just Ronald Reagan Redux. The idea that “It’s morning in America again,” as Reagan’s most famous campaign declared, has long been a source of scorn and derision amongst the smart set. Donald Trump is everything that Reagan’s ideological enemies in the intelligentsia thought The Gipper to be: an empty suit, a haircut, a demagogue. Demeaning Reagan as little more than the star of “Bedtime of Bonzo” was never anything greater than petty foolishness. Unfortunately, I’m not sure the same can be said for the star of “The Apprentice.”