Reagan gave them hope in what became known in conservative circles as the “City Upon a Hill” speech. Conservatives and certainly many of the speechwriters knew countless Reagan speeches by shorthand—“Bold Colors” and “New Republican” and “The Speech,” “City Upon a Hill,” “Ash-bin of History,” “Evil Empire,” and “Tear Down this Wall” and “Challenger” and others. All were important in the annals of Reagan history, which made them important in the annals of American history. Conservatives kept track of Reagan speeches including his first at CPAC.
During the presidency, with accustomed modesty, he said “I don’t really get to write my speeches these days—the fellas do.”55 But everybody knew better. Reagan was always his own best speechwriter, and from Ken Khachigian to Tony Dolan, all had their own humorous tale of over-writing and over-producing a draft, only to have it come back from the Oval Office with lines drawn through sentence after sentence, Reagan’s handwritten rewrite, and always a kind note to the author saying thanks for his or her great efforts.
Oliver North, who had caused so much embarrassment for Reagan by nearly getting him impeached during Iran-Contra, was not invited.56 Reagan had stormed in his private diaries that North had never been to Camp David to brief him on selling arms for hostages.57 During the week of the funeral, North was quoted in the newspapers, claiming he was not going to attend because as a celebrity, his presence might have distracted attention. “When I walk into the cathedral, all the cameras go to Ollie North, and that’s not what this is about.”58
Those who knew, knew this was bull. Army general John Singlaub, who’d parachuted behind enemy lines into Nazi-occupied France, a Reagan man, an American hero, was never enamored of North. “But I knew better. There was a wide gap between the media image of Ollie North . . . and the sordid reality of his true character and performance.”59
There had been an unofficial official “Do Not Admit” list to the Reagan White House that the Secret Service was aware of, as were most of those in charge of ticketing for all the events the week of the funeral. Some were people who had worked in the White House but had left or been forced out under a personal or ethical cloud. It was the job of those in charge of the events—from Andrews to the Capitol to the National Cathedral and all the others—to keep these people from gaining access and causing some disturbance or being an embarrassment.
Jim Hooley had already asked some volunteer advance men at Simi Valley to leave, as they were not helping and seemed to be there just to rubberneck and collect souvenirs. And they comported themselves more like yokels than as solemn professionals. Oddly, he also discovered that a square swatch of the black fabric backdrop had been neatly cut out by a tacky souvenir hunter.60
James Watt, who had been Reagan’s very controversial secretary of the interior before being fired, also would not be attending the services at the Cathedral though he was invited; the reason cited was a family sickness.61
And there were a few others who were specifically not invited.
Seating in the massive National Cathedral would be an exercise in the proximity of power but for the sake of security, there really was no alternative, especially with the unique pew arrangement inside the church. In the front would be the honored guests including pallbearers; the band and chorus would be in their usual locations. Right behind the centrally placed coffin would be the former presidents and First Ladies on the left side of the aisle and the Reagan family in the first row on the right side. Seats were also set aside for the diplomatic corps, members of Congress, and Reagan cabinet members. The service was to begin at 11:30 on Friday morning.62
Letters to the Editor of the nation’s newspapers continued to run heavily in favor of the Gipper, including one from the chargé d’affaires in Tehran during the Iranian Hostage Crisis, Bruce Laingen, praising Reagan for extricating himself from the Iran-Contra affair.63 Another message from Susan Berger Kabaker of Glencoe, Illinois: “I think that the public is drawn to this state funeral in part because of the greatness of Ronald Reagan, but more because it draws us together as a people who love America and all that it stands for.”64
Interestingly, letters to papers in the nation’s heartland were more heartfelt than some of the heartless letters published in the broadsheets of New York, Washington, Boston, and Los Angeles. In one Midwest paper, missives were printed under the headings of “A great man,” “high standard,” and “American hero.”65 Said longtime Reagan press aide Mark Weinberg, “He was their president.”66
In New York, charges against a mayor for performing a gay marriage ceremony were tossed out, though marriage between members of the same sex was illegal under state law.67 Also in New York, Congressman Anthony Weiner, who was considered to be a mayoral candidate, sponsored a bill to “track and catalog asteroids that are dangerously close to Earth.”68
Martha Stewart, having been railroaded by the government using false information, was understandably asking for a new trial in the hopes of clearing her name. She’d been convicted in part because of the perjured testimony of a witness who the government was now prosecuting—for perjury.69
Memories of Reagan continued to pour forth. A television producer, Steve Wark, who’d earlier been a part of the youth campaign for Reagan in 1984 and was with Reagan after the presidency shooting some public service commercials, noted that Reagan was still as good as ever. “He was a one-taker.” At the end of the shoot one particular day, Wark was told by Reagan aides not to talk to the former president afterward, not to ask for autographs, and certainly no pictures. The crew quietly packed up until a quizzical, almost hurt, Reagan said, “Doesn’t anyone want to take pictures?” With that he then spent the next half hour chatting with the film crew, telling stories, and taking pictures.70
Howard Baker, the kindly former senator from Tennessee and close friend of the Reagans who as much as any one man helped to right the administration after the twin second-term disasters of Don Regan and Iran-Contra, weighed in with his gentle thoughts on the Gipper. They had run against each other in 1980 for the GOP nomination, and had previously butted heads over the Panama Canal Treaties, but almost never did they criticize each other personally as there was real affection between the two men.
“While I had hoped very much to be president myself, even I had to concede that Ronald Reagan was exactly what the country needed in those critical years of the 1980s. Those qualities of stability, confidence, courage and optimism were the bedrocks of Ronald Reagan’s own character, and he shared them with us when we needed them most.” Baker concluded saying that “this remarkable man with a ready smile and a profoundly good heart emerged to lead us out of the darkness and into the light.”71
George Will said, “He came to Washington like an occupying army.”72
The esteemed veteran political columnist David Broder weighed in. Unlike his liberal brethren, he every so often wrote favorably about Reagan, going back to the time when Broder was writing for a small Midwest paper covering Reagan while he was on the rubber chicken circuit for GE or when he’d make an appearance at Eureka College. Broder’s post mortem piece was softer toward Reagan than when he’d often been a burr under the saddle of the Reagan administration as one of the Post’s top political columnists and reporters; but his criticism was never personal.
He would criticize Reagan’s philosophies, but Broder did so in an even-handed manner. When Jimmy Carter was at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Broder regularly hit him over the head with a two-by-four. Broder called Reagan “The Great Persuader.”73 The scribe believed that he warranted the moniker because Reagan had persuaded himself of the righteousness of his positions, and would then go out and convince the American people. The column was typical of Broder. A praise here, a kick there. It was both honest and frank. It was why so many people read his work avidly.
> Still another opinion came from Mark Weisbrot, the director of liberal Washington think tank the Center for Economic and Policy Research. After faintly praising Reagan for shifting the political debate and changing “the world more than probably any American in the 20th Century,” Reagan’s economic policies, he wrote, “were mostly a failure.” He wrote derisively of the Reagan legacy on tax cuts, a military buildup, and said the growth of the 1980s was the slowest since the end of WWII. He also leveled charges at Reagan for firing the air traffic controllers in 1981 because they had gone on a strike, which Weisbrot failed to note was illegal.
And “Reagan is often credited with having caused the collapse of the Soviet Union, but this is doubtful. He did use the Cold War as a pretext for . . . funding and support for horrific violence against the civilian population of Central America.” Citing the United Nations as a source of reliable information, he wrote of the “genocide” inside of Guatemala and managed—through a couple of bank shots—to blame Reagan for this as well. But then bizarrely Weisbrot referred to the corrupt communist Ortega machine in Nicaragua as “democratically elected.” He also laughingly compared the Cold War to the “war on terror.”74
Others wrote extensively about the hangover of Iran-Contra; it was a black eye and an embarrassing episode that halted the momentum of the Reagan administration for more than a year in the second term, eating up precious time. The debate over the constitutionality of the Boland Amendment, which limited a president’s ability to conduct foreign policy, never took place as operatives inside the Reagan White House took it upon themselves to break the very law many thought trampled on the presidency; so that became the focus of congressional investigators and an independent counselor, Lawrence Walsh. Reagan later testified before the grand jury in his post-presidency and got terrible reviews for fumbling and his inability (or unwillingness) to answer questions. The John Poindexter attorneys went to California to take his deposition and during the morning session he was sharp and clear; after lunch, and after talking to his attorneys, Reagan reverted to a not-so-cooperative style in the afternoon. Reagan was cleared in the final report issued by Lawrence Walsh, and some thought he simply resented having to testify in the first place.
Overlooked in all the coverage and all the obituaries was the fact that the farther one got away from the power centers of Washington and New York, the kinder and gentler the stories became. They tended to focus on the life and times of Ronald Reagan. However, some repeated the cruel falsehood issued by Washington access seller Clark Clifford, who once called Reagan an “amiable dunce.”75 Yet Clifford some years later became dumbly embroiled in one of the biggest banking scandals in history, causing many to think of him as an “amiable crook.” Clifford’s indictments were put on ice because of his age and poor health.76
Some of the stories and obituaries, however, contained factual mistakes. One often repeated was that the nickname “The Great Communicator” began when he gave the speech for Goldwater in 1964; in fact, it had been hung on him as a term of derision by Judy Bachrach of the defunct Washington Star during the 1980 campaign.77 But it stuck and was embraced like “Yankee Doodle Dandy” by Reaganites, and even Reagan mentioned it in his farewell remarks in January 1989.78
Another mistake often made was misquoting Reagan’s famous putdown of the Left that he made in his landmark speech for Goldwater. Reagan said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”79 Over the years, it had often been mangled by fans trying to quote him.
The media also erred when it wrote of “the Nancy gaze,” which was incorrectly interpreted to mean she had no thoughts that weren’t his; that she had no thoughts of her own. But in fact, they sometimes disagreed, and Pete Souza witnessed one instance in which they argued over whether Reagan should go to Bitburg in 1985 at the invitation of Chancellor Helmut Kohl. It had been revealed that Nazi soldiers were buried in the cemetery there. A storm of protest ensued in the media and political circles and inside the Reagan White House. Mrs. Reagan also protested her husband’s stubbornness, but he replied that he made a promise to another head of state and if he didn’t keep that promise, “my word means nothing.”
Reagan went, explained why, and was battered in the world press but the storm eventually passed. “Even the first lady couldn’t change his mind.” Souza said he only saw them argue “rarely” but if they did, “it inevitably concerned something that was hurting him politically.”80 Others had seen them argue over White House Chief of Staff Don Regan, who everybody—especially Mrs. Reagan—knew was hurting the president.
Souza was there in the Oval Office the last day of the Reagan presidency to record the moment for posterity. He later looked at his work and thought Reagan looked “almost sad.” In the years that transpired, he would occasionally drop Reagan a note that was always promptly answered with a handwritten letter. Until “our correspondence ended when his Alzheimer’s disease became apparent in 1993.”81
The day before, June 8, had been another memorable day in American history. In 1948, the first of many corporate-sponsored television shows, the Texaco Star Theatre, began broadcasting on NBC with Milton Berle as the host. It was a forerunner to the GE Theater hosted five years later by Reagan on CBS. And it was twenty-two years earlier that President Reagan had addressed the British Parliament, the first American chief executive in history to do so. For some, the most important anniversary was the passing of the great Leroy “Satchel” Paige in Kansas City.82
It was the thirty-sixth anniversary of the capture in London of James Earl Ray, the man who’d been indicted in the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.83
Twenty-three years and several months earlier Reagan had himself nearly been shot dead. Of the six bullets fired by John Hinckley that day, four found the hard flesh of tough men, doing their damage. The first shot had been taken by District police officer Thomas Delahanty, the second hit Jim Brady in the head, the third hit McCarthy, the fourth went through a nearby window, Reagan took the fifth bullet, and the sixth and final shot went across the road.84 McCarthy actually spread his torso and body in front of the car door to the limousine acting as a human shield, just the way he had been trained.
These men and Agent Jerry Parr, Agent Ray Shaddick, and others saved Reagan’s life that day. To a man, they adored him and Mrs. Reagan—“Rawhide” and “Rainbow”—and the Reagan assignment was so popular agents actually argued over who would get to serve on the Reagans’ detail. Stories were legendary about their kindnesses and thoughtfulness to the men and women of the Service and their families.
It was announced that Wall Street was making plans to honor the memory of Ronald Reagan.85 Some went slack jawed. It had long been known that Reagan was not enamored with the titans of finance, nor they of him, a by-product of his populist upbringing. The New York markets would be closed on Friday along with the Chicago markets. Many leaders of Wall Street high finance praised Reagan in death, which was both curious and ironic. In the 1970s, these giants of banking used to routinely knock Reagan. Reagan had always been suspicious of oligarchies and plutocrats.
Stories were being written that seemed to track liberals’ complaints about Reagan, as if the media thought they hadn’t covered the Reagan critics enough over the previous several days. Reporters went to inner-city haunts like barber shops and spoke with blacks who had a low opinion of Reagan. But, it was also noted, “a substantial segment of the public also strongly disagreed with him on education, the environment, abortion and civil rights, views that now help to complete a fuller portrait of the 40th president.”86
A nationally syndicated radio talk show hostess, Bev Smith, whose broadcast audience was largely African Americans, said that in a three-hour show, not one caller praised Reagan or said anything nice about him. Ralph Neas, pres
ident of People for the American Way, a liberal interest group, said, “As people start looking at the real record, we have been candid in saying Ronald Reagan had an absolutely abysmal record in terms of civil rights, the environment and reproductive freedom.”87
One could only imagine newspaper editors yelling at their reporters to find things to say and write about the Reagan era, and the journalists followed their bosses’ directives. “In terms of culture and style, the Reagan era was not as intellectual or refined as the patrician Kennedys’, but it was just as glittering . . .”88
Even at this, the midpoint in the week of the Reagan funeral, newspapers were still finding things to hit Ronald and Nancy Reagan with. The Chicago Tribune complained that she’d made the Ritz-Carlton her favorite haunt and “instantly establishing its posh Jockey Club restaurant as prime gathering . . . for inveterate climbers.” It also roughly reviewed Frank Sinatra’s friendship with the Reagans, and that Washington became a tacky center of “showbiz” and an “adjunct to New York high society.” And, “the Reagans were not much for art and art museums . . .”
It got worse. “But perhaps in deference to his age and the social awkwardness engendered by the president’s hearing problems, the Reagans had a penchant for retiring unusually early. At one gathering for 330 foreign ambassadors, other diplomats and State Department officials, the Reagans shook every hand—then went immediately to bed.” The story did manage to bury one sentence saying Nancy Reagan had been the best White House hostess since Jackie Kennedy. Not to let a slight go by, however, it continued, noting that Nancy Reagan and Raisa Gorbachev had battled, then proceeded to criticize the Reagans’ taste in music and performers.89
Last Act Page 23