Move Over, FDR

It is quickly becoming apparent that Ronald Reagan is rivaling FDR for the title of greatest American president of the last century. In the midst of our war on terror and sputtering economy, we appreciate Reagan's legacy of defense buildup and lesson of tax-cuts. Most of all, we appreciate the "national psychotherapy," as George Will has put it, that Reagan provided. We are not about to succumb to our current challenges, and our renewed spirit and vigor owe much to Reagan, especially after the miserable and dispiriting failure of the Carter administration.

Because all of these things are so obvious, liberal pundits feel compelled to attack Reagan's legacy, lest it should prove more important than FDR's. It is so horrifying for liberals not only to have FDR replaced, but to have him replaced by Reagan, that they are lapsing into a kind of psychosis about the events of the Reagan years and the recent commentaries on them. A prime example of this is a piece by Joshua Green in the Washington Monthly which is a kind of review essay seeking to challenge some recently published positive assessments of Reagan. Green complains explicitly that "one would have to go back to FDR to find a comparable example of a president portrayed in such consistently glowing terms -- and the swashbuckling triumphs depicted in these books mythologize Reagan to a degree which exceeds even that." It is as if for Green any president who dares rival FDR or any biographer who suggests as much for his subject is committing blasphemy. Besides, weren't Reagan's accomplishments on the level of FDR's?

Well, it is not enough to take Reagan down a notch. When this fails, Green trots out the old Reagan-was-FDR-in-disguise warhorse. Despite the stunning accomplishment of Reagan's tax cuts, government expanded during the Reagan years after all. But, as Dinesh D'Souza points out, Reagan argued that he was trying to undo the Great Society, not the New Deal. D'Souza also argues that Reagan was not a libertarian who opposed all government efforts to help the disadvantaged. No matter; Green proceeds as if he glossed over this part of D'Souza's biography.

Moving on to foreign affairs and the defense buildup, Green cites Reagan's remark that he dreamed of a world free of nuclear weapons as proof that Reagan was a kind of closet "peacenik," much to the embarrassment of hawkish conservatives. But only someone who thinks Reagan was simply a dastardly war-monger would view this as a criticism. Reagan's supporters have always known that he wanted to avoid war, if possible; and this was compatible with the defense buildup he accomplished. Liberals have never understood the concept of peace through strength, and this failure has hampered their understanding of Reagan. They seize on the fact that Reagan also wanted to win the Cold War and then simply accuse him of being bellicose.

Taking Peter Schweizer to task for not recognizing Reagan's timely softening toward the Soviet Union, Green again misses D'Souza's acknowledgement of Reagan's savvy which (against the judgement of his more hawkish advisors at that point) allowed him to understand that the Soviet Union was finished as early as 1987 and allowed George H.W. Bush to preside over its ultimate demise. Reagan's critics have never understood that he wasn't always interested in taking credit for his accomplishments, especially if allowing someone else to take credit meant accomplishing the goal more efficiently.

Green then argues that Reagan's defense of human rights was inconsistent with Republican principles. If you defend human rights, you must be a Democrat -- or so Green assumes. It is simply impossible for Green (and probably other liberals) to think that Reagan's opposition to communist tyranny and his support for dissidents was principled, despite Schweizer's efforts to show the roots of Reagan's principled thinking about communism from his Hollywood days. Everyone who heard Reagan's HUAC testimony came away impressed with how thoughtful the actor was on the subject of communism. Schweizer also discusses how Reagan disagreed with McCarthy's tactics and thought that causing us to suspend our liberal principles in our battles with them was precisely what communists wanted.

Green's essay is as stupid, petty, and out of touch with reality as he makes the recent Reagan biographies and documentaries out to be. Undoubtedly, they get at the real Reagan better than he does. Move over, FDR; here comes the Gipper.