Kennedy and Reagan

by Scott Farris

  Their administrations also occurred at a time when leaders and institutions were still generally respected, and, therefore, the politics did not seem quite so vicious. It was not a golden age; divisions within America were actually quite pronounced during both men’s presidencies on a number of issues, particularly race. But in comparison with contemporary times, we remember both presidencies as times when America seemed less divided and we yearn for the unity we believe Kennedy and Reagan brought the nation.

  Kennedy and Reagan had extraordinary personal appeal and political skills, and no doubt one reason public opinion is nostalgic for their leadership is the hope that someone like them could transcend the current political divisions and again provide a sense of national purpose.

  Richard Reeves wrote that Kennedy (though the same applies to Reagan) “lived along a line where charm became power.” But would their charms be as effective in contemporary politics? The end of the Cold War is not the only change to which they would have to adapt to be successful politicians today.

  The most obvious challenge to Kennedy’s viability as a modern leader would be his personal behavior. His rampant philandering, ignored or winked at fifty years ago, would no longer receive a pass. Private lives are no longer off-limits. Politicians now know that affairs, past drug use, personal finances, even the type of underwear they prefer are considered fair game for inquiring minds.

  We now have confessional presidents, who are seemingly required to expose every past miscue and intimate detail of their lives, so that we learn not only the facts of their upbringing, but how they felt and still feel about it, about their experimentation with drugs, their troubles with alcohol, their affairs, their redemption through religion. In short, they have provided the opposite of the mystique that was a large part of the appeal of Kennedy and Reagan.

  Much of Kennedy and Reagan’s mystique was admittedly manufactured. With their roots in Hollywood, Kennedy and Reagan most certainly knew how to create and manage an image. But their mystique involved something more. There was a widespread belief among their admirers that they were quite literally uncommon.

  Only two groups have been regularly described as America’s version of royalty: movie stars and the Kennedy family. Even before Jackie Kennedy launched the posthumous Camelot myth, she and her husband had been proclaimed “America’s Royal Family,” such as in a special November 1962 edition of Ideal magazine. Reagan, of course, represented the royalty of show business, and it is difficult not to see him as the Republicans’ response to Kennedy, as if each party required a royal figurehead who could look like a dashing prince in white tie and tails.

  But there is little talk of an American royalty today. Certainly, neither Hollywood nor Washington provides many exemplars of noble behavior anymore, but it is not clear that such deportment would be particularly admired or emulated if they did.

  Institutions, experts, and authority of all kinds all have less credibility in American society today than they did when both Kennedy and Reagan were president. It is not only faith in government that has diminished—Reagan’s criticism of government as the problem assisted with that—but also faith in business, religious, charitable, and civic institutions of all stripes.

  Talk radio and the Internet have asserted a form of mass democracy in which any person’s opinions are given comparable weight to those of someone who has spent a lifetime developing expertise in a particular subject matter. Movements like the Tea Party on the right or Occupy Wall Street on the left seemed to relish the very fact of being essentially leaderless.

  Kennedy and Reagan’s “great man” view of how history is made is passé. In contemporary America, studies suggest that Americans desire leaders who are more nurturing than heroic and leaders who will listen as much as they lead.

  Perhaps Kennedy and Reagan could make an adjustment to this new style of leadership. From childhood, they always possessed an interesting mix of confidence and vulnerability. Those who knew him regularly remarked on what a good listener Kennedy was, and Reagan’s admirers often noted his sensitivity to the feelings and concerns of others.

  But their public images were unabashedly macho—Kennedy, the sailor; Reagan, the cowboy—and it is not clear how well those images would now play in a nation where so-called feminine qualities, such as empathy, inclusiveness, and patience, are increasingly valued, and where ten million more women than men vote in each presidential election.

  Kennedy and Reagan would also find the news media more difficult to charm today than fifty or even thirty years ago. As with the Cold War, Kennedy and Reagan benefited from a similar media landscape that has changed dramatically since Reagan left office.

  The media is neither as concentrated nor as filtered as it was during Kennedy and Reagan’s presidencies. If Kennedy and Reagan seem greater statesmen in our collective memories than contemporary politicians, it is in part because they had the ability to command the attention of the nation almost at will.

  Kennedy and Reagan had the luxury of knowing that they could receive, whenever they requested it, prime time to address the nation on live television to explain their policies and actions in detail. Because of limited viewing options, these network television speeches might easily reach more than half the population. Further, they knew that their remarks would be analyzed over the following days and weeks until they had saturated the national consciousness. Modern media is so immediate, diffuse, peripatetic, and cacophonous that it is difficult for even the president to capture the nation’s attention or to hold that attention for any length of time. The transcendent leadership that Kennedy and Reagan provided is unlikely to occur again—at least under current circumstances.

  Suggesting that Kennedy and Reagan might not thrive within a radically different political and media environment is not a mark against their legacy, of course. Washington, Lincoln, or either Roosevelt might also fail at electoral politics today. That says something far more unflattering about us than it does about them.

  Kennedy and Reagan remain fresh in our collective national memory. Each man was particularly popular with the youth of their day, and so it is unsurprising that public opinion surveys that rank our greatest presidents show that people who came of age during the two men’s presidencies remain their most loyal supporters. (Those younger than age thirty-five are less enamored with both men.)

  Their memories remain fresh too, because, unlike the presidents who served during our republic’s first one hundred fifty years, we have film of them that remind us of just how eloquent and attractive they were, of how they seemed to enjoy being president, and their insistence that we have a national purpose. And, as noted in an earlier chapter, there are virtual cottage industries devoted to maintaining certain myths about both men because those myths are used to justify contemporary policies—whether those policies are true to the reality of either man’s career or not.

  All presidential reputations rise and fall—even Lincoln’s reputation has had its ups and downs. As Merrill Peterson wrote in his magnificent study Lincoln in American Memory, “The public remembrance of the past, as differentiated from the historical scholars’, is concerned less with establishing its truth than with appropriating it for the present.”

  Gallup did not ask why people rate Kennedy and Reagan so highly, but the responses are not a judgment solely on the men themselves; they are also a judgment on the times in which we live. Kennedy and Reagan may rank lower in the esteem of future generations—or they may one day even rank higher. That will depend not simply on Kennedy and Reagan but on the conditions in which these future generations live. Upon the death of Franklin Roosevelt, the diplomat Adolf Berle said, “Great men have two lives, one which occurs while they work on this Earth; a second which begins at the day of their death and continues as long as their ideas and conceptions remain powerful.”

  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  Writing a book is not a solitary endeavour but the re
sult of the efforts of many people beyond the author. I remain, first and foremost, indebted to my primary editor, my wife, Patti, who has offered so many frank assessments and good suggestions that she deserves to be labeled a coauthor. I could not do this without her love and support or without the forebearance of my children, William and Grace.

  I am also deeply grateful that I have such a fine editor at Lyons Press in Keith Wallman, whose steady hand and upbeat approach to this project kept me from despair many times. He, project editor Meredith Dias, and the rest of the team at Lyons Press continue to inspire me with their professionalism and friendship. I hope they are proud to be associated with this book.

  I remain blessed to have an agent in Laura Dail, who not only provides sound advice and guidance, but who pushes me to be a better, more thoughtful writer. She provides the “tough love” that every good agent should.

  Once again, my good friend, Hank Stern, provided excellent and cogent comments as the manuscript was developed and, more importantly, in multiple conversations, challenged my interpretations of persons and events. He won more than a few of those arguments, but the big winner is the reader, who has a better book in hand because of Hank.

  Whenever I write I think of the many teachers and editors I have had over the years who gave me the foundation to do this work, especially my friend and mentor at the University of Wyoming, William “Bud” Moore.

  I also thank the very professional, helpful, and cheerful staffs at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Center for Public Affairs. Every request that I made was responded to promptly and efficiently, along with information that was usually above and beyond what I requested. Both presidential libraries are wonderful places. Anyone who cares about history and politics should visit them.

  Finally, while I hope they are properly credited as they should be, I also express my admiration for the many scholars whose work made this book possible. I freely acknowledge that this book has only a modicum of original research, though it hopefully provides an original point of view. The study of history is like building a pyramid; all new work rests on the efforts of those who came before.

  NOTES

  Chapter 1: The Sincerest Form of Flattery

  1finger of his right hand to make his point: Hart’s gestures and behavior were observed by the author, at the time a reporter for the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune, who covered a speech Hart gave at Laramie County Community College on February 23, 1988.

  1the second coming of Ronald Reagan: www.albanyherald.com/news/2012/nov/21/marco-rubio-may-be-next-reagan.

  2imitation of Kennedy, his “ultimate hero”: New York Times Magazine, May 3, 1987, by E.J. Dionne.

  3“the entire week” of Clinton’s inaugural festivities: Harris, The Survivor, p. 9.

  4and edit his announcement speech: Maraniss and Nakashima, The Prince of Tennessee, pp. 205–6.

  4junior to Kennedy’s youngest brother, Edward Kennedy: Kranish, Mooney, and Easton, John F. ­Kerry, pp. 31–34, 49–50.

  4that my father inspired them: New York Times, January 27, 2008.

  5he never imitated anybody: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/family-feud-reagans-children-debate-legacy-father/story?id=12786615.

  5who is the natural heir to Ronald Reagan: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1780064/posts.

  5Peggy Noonan, adding her own italics for emphasis: Noonan, When Character Was King, p. 14.

  6Palin “could be another Ronald Reagan”: www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/ann-coulter-palin/2009/01/08/id/327551.

  6how can we trust him to lead America?: Bunch, Tear Down This Myth, pp. 7–8.

  6and sounding cheerful and optimistic: www/wbur.org/2012/08/30/paul-ryan-next-reagan.

  6“sounds like the right RR,” which boded well for the ticket’s chances: http://spectator.org/blog/2012/08/11/romney-ryan-best-since-ronald.

  6cannot remain a national force in national politics, she said: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/tear-down-this-man-to-survive-the-gop-must-get-over-ronald-reagan/2013/04/25/cc828f5e-ab88-11e2-a198-99893f10d6dd_print.html.

  7Reagan each topped the list three times; Kennedy did so twice: www.gallup.com/poll/146183/americans-say-reagan-greatest-president.aspx.

  7Reagan and Kennedy outpaced all three: www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm.

  7approval rating was also an extraordinary 74 percent: www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry .htm.

  8the Democrat Kennedy as our fourth-greatest president: www.gallup.com/poll/146183/americans-­say-reagan-greatest-president.aspx.

  8you will not approve of: Ibid., pp. 193–94.

  8the second worst, behind only Nixon: www.pollingreport.com/wh-hstry.htm.

  9and grand that celebrated the greatness of America: Fite, Mount Rushmore, p. 4.

  10And I won’t be around to read it: Reeves, President Reagan, p. xiii.

  11depending on who is organizing the survey: A helpful and accessible summary of the various presidential rankings by historians can be found at the online Web encyclopedia, Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States.

  11(Kennedy was ranked fifteenth): Taranto, Presidential Leadership, pp. 11–12.

  11and learned why he made his decisions: Dallek, An Unfinished Life, pp. 557–58.

  12Why isn’t he on Mount Rushmore yet?: Ridings and McIver, Rating the Presidents, p. 267.

  12voided by reality and [Kennedy’s] sex life: Ridings and McIver, eds., Rating the Presidents, p. 228.

  12judgments drawn from the full record of their terms: Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern, p. 168.

  Chapter 2: Martyrdom and Near Martyrdom

  14who really killed Kennedy: Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. xiv. Bugliosi adds that probably 95 percent of these books advance false conspiracy theories that dispute the findings of the Warren Commission that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

  14a long shadow over our national life: Piereson, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, p. xv.

  14bookend to Kennedy’s traumatic murder: Troy, Morning in America, p. 76.

  16not a grave danger to the Republic: Caro, Passage of Power, p. 347.

  16never able to lead Congress effectively: Caro, Passage of Power, p. 671n.

  16“more powerful mandate” for his program: Sorensen, Kennedy, p. 754.

  16“and maybe Georgia” to ensure re-election: Schlesinger, Robert Kennedy and His Times, p. 605.

  16headline that said, JFK Could Lose: Perlstein, Before the Storm, p. 234.

  16because “he was not Jimmy Carter”: Jeffords, Hard Bodies, p. 28.

  17might become another Vietnam: Wilber, Rawhide Down, p. 4.

  17The Reagan honeymoon is truly over: Wilber, Rawhide Down, p. 235n.

  17and sometimes hurting or killing people: Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 532.

  17(fn)about having become “a mother of history”: Wilber, Rawhide Down, p. 41.

  18an ongoing feud with ultraconservative extremists: Several papers at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston attest to the significant concern Kennedy had regarding the perceived power of right-wing groups in America. Two memorandums, one authored by labor leaders Walter and Roy Reuther and labor lawyer Joseph Rauh and titled “The Radical Right in America Today,” dated Dec. 19, 1961 (“The Reuther Memorandum Folder, Box 48, Attorney General’s General Correspondence, Robert F. Kennedy Papers, JFKL), and another authored by presidential aide Myer Feldman titled “Memorandum for the President: Subject: Right-Wing Groups, “dated Aug. 16, 1963 (“Right Wing Movements, Part I” Folder, Box 106, President’s Office Files, Presidential Papers, JFKL), outline the scope of the perceived problem and suggested administration responses. Feldman’s memo notes the far right was spending up to $25 million annually to support conservative broadcasts on mo
re than one thousand radio stations nationally, and the John Birch Society had perhaps already one hundred thousand members (including actor John Wayne) with a goal of one million. The Reuther Memorandum recommended a series of steps to counter the radical right—steps the Kennedy administration had already taken, including using the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the finances of conservative groups and pressing the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the “fairness doctrine” in an attempt to hamper conservative broadcasters.

  18unrelated to reality, wholly unsuited to the Sixties: “Remarks Prepared for Delivery to the Texas State Democratic Committee in the Municipal Auditorium in Austin,” Nov. 22, 1963, “Speech Files 11/5–11/22, 1963” Folder, Box 48, Speech Files, Presidential Office Files, JFKL, and “Remarks Prepared for Delivery at the Trade Mart in Dallas before the Dallas Citizens Council,” Nov. 22, 1963,” “Speech Files 11/5–11/22, 1963” Folder, Box 48, Speech Files, Presidential Office Files, JFKL.

  19conspiratorial atmosphere of violence: Perlstein, Before the Storm, pp. 247–49.

  19controversy about ‘who killed Kennedy?’: Piereson, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution, p. x.

  19It even robs his death of meaning: Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. xxvii.

  19(fn)“. . . helped him do this.” Skinner, Anderson, and Anderson, eds. In His Own Hand, p. 234.

  20the deepest revelation of their inward strength: Manchester, Death of a President, p. 644.

  20young children in either hand: Manchester, Death of a President, pp. 529–30.

  20ageless sage honored with an eternal flame: Bradford, America’s Queen: The Life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, p. ix.