Department of "Huh?": Archive Entry From Brad DeLong's Webjournal

June 21, 2004

Department of "Huh?"

I read Alan Murray's piece on Ronald Reagan, and I find myself wondering if it is to be taken at face value, or if the dissonances I pick up are some Strauss-like code to indicate Murray's secret dissent from the propaganda wave:

Political Capital, by Alan Murray. "Bitter Partisanship Is in Stark Contrast to Reagan's Style: Mr. Reagan developed a governing style that inspired both respect and affection. The White House staff worked hard to keep him above the dirty work of politics and legislation. He scarcely knew the details of his own tax-reform plan: When Treasury Secretary Donald Regan gave him a two-hour briefing on an early version, he asked only one question, about a proposal to eliminate the deduction for country-club dues. As a result, the president became a carefully guarded "asset," to be used strategically and sparingly to rally public support or prod reluctant legislators...

"Respect and affection," Murray writes, apparently with a completely straight face. Affection, perhaps, but respect? Somebody who knows little and is not curious about his own tax reform plan, and that is supposed to inspire respect?

Murray goes on:

Sure, there were plenty of people who were appalled by Mr. Reagan's harsh antigovernment rhetoric, his attacks on "welfare queens," his policy tilt toward the affluent and his loose use of facts. But the day hadn't yet arrived when calling the president a "liar" was a sure route to the best-seller list...

And here I don't understand. I understand that we are not supposed to call Reagan a liar. But are we supposed to think that single mothers--welfare queens--have an easy life? Are we supposed to pretend that Mt. St. Helens emitted more industrial-class pollutants in one eruption than our industry did in a decade? Are we supposed to believe that Reagan knew what he was talking about?

Maybe what Alan Murray is saying here is that we need a different system of government--a system with an apolitical Head of State to serve as a symbol of national unity, and a political Head of Government to do the actual work. Maybe he is saying something else.

But do remember what even George H.W. Bush thought that we needed after Ronald Reagan. He thought that we needed a kinder and gentler America--and a kinder and gentler (as well as a smarter and less out-of-it) president. That seems to me to hit the mark.

Posted by DeLong at June 21, 2004 11:23 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this post

Comments

But given that the struggle of party politics in America has wedded together the two concepts of political dominance and policy dominance, could we achieve such a split? Would the bicameral executive where one wields the informal networking, political, and cultural influence (as well as the institutional veto) be a sufficient trophy for the immense investment in party dominance that is required for victory? The ideological strains of bringing in the multiple interest groups can be satisfied only by a 'to the victor goes the spoils' system of political appointments and the opportunity of victory to shape policy along ideological lines - either liberal or conservative - is the reward that motivates the radical faction. Splitting the political head from the policy head would make sense, except there is no indication that our party system would accept such a division. I long for it myself Brad, for a Cardinal Richelieu to run things and make sure the trains come in on time while the kings cavort about and motivate the public sentiment. Call it Emperor and Shogun, Queen and Prime Minister, Head of State and Head of Government, I think we're long overdue for this modification of our political governing system but before that can happen there has to be a new national consensus. Even Baker and Kissinger didn't wield that kind of power, though they would have liked to undoubtedly.

Until then I think your proposition will remain speculation.

Posted by: Oldman on June 21, 2004 12:33 PM

____

I had almost forgotten the word that was coined by George I: "kindler", as in "kindler and gentler". A felicitous thought, whether purposeful or inadvertent.

What price kindness or gentility today, or in the foreseeable future?

Posted by: Frank Wilhoit on June 21, 2004 05:47 PM

____

If you downloaded more of this (well-penned so far) piece, maybe more cheapscapes like me ( avoiding the premium content) could comment on it. B)

Posted by: calmo on June 22, 2004 10:53 AM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil uk on July 6, 2004 02:44 PM

____

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Posted by: reductil on July 6, 2004 11:07 PM

____