I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't offer some comment upon the recent
successful move by the Republican National Committee and all the 'unfair &
unbalanced' Right Wing talk show hosts to have the CBS Mini-Series on The
Reagans pulled, spiked, and censored from the airwaves.
Of course, I haven't seen the mini-series either and have no idea if it's a
good program, a fair portrayal, or a poorly written melodrama. Probably it
is a bit of each, as were previous mini-series attempts that were aired on
The Kennedys and FDR.
But this unwarranted & unquestioned Reagan worship has nauseated me for
some time, and this latest exercise at the political right exercising
bullying tactics to reshape their revisionist history is equally ridiculous
& dangerous.
They've now succeeded in trashing a program that they've never even seen
because they suspect it might paint an unflattering picture of their deity.
CBS, an entertainment network, has the gall to broadcast a program that
mentions Reagan's divorce? And Nancy Reagan's practice of setting the
president's schedule based on the advice on an astrologer? And Reagan's
personal indifference to the millions of people with AIDS, which is well
documented. How could they say all of these terrible and completely
accurate things? The outrage!
Gee, I wonder what would happen if they touched upon the Voodoo economics
of David Stockman that set the precedent for massive deficits that we are
currently dealing with? Or the deregulation of utility companies that cost
us millions of dollars during the recent blackout? Or that funny little
'joke' Ronald pulled when he went on the airwaves and said, 'We begin
bombing in five minutes.'?
While the controversy surrounding the CBS miniseries has generated
responses from across the spectrum, one of the best I've seen was a press
release sent out last week by Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), which, with
tongue planted firmly in cheek, claimed to join in the Republicans' protest
over the program.
In fact, Dingell, like the conservative critics, charged CBS of painting an
unfair picture of Reagan's presidency for the nation.
Yet, while the Republicans whined about CBS' overly negative portrayal,
Dingell wrote a letter to CBS President Leslie Moonves explaining that the
miniseries isn't negative enough.
In his letter, Dingell wrote:
"As someone who served with President Reagan, and in the interest of
historical accuracy, please allow me to share with you some of my
recollections of the Reagan years that I hope will make it into the final
cut of the mini-series:
$640 Pentagon toilets seats; ketchup as a vegetable; union busting; firing
striking air traffic controllers; Iran-Contra; selling arms to terrorist
nations; trading arms for hostages; retreating from terrorists in Beirut;
lying to Congress; financing an illegal war in Nicaragua; visiting Bitburg
cemetery; a cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein; shredding documents; Ed
Meese; Fawn Hall; Oliver North; James Watt; apartheid apologia; the savings
and loan scandal; voodoo economics; record budget deficits; double digit
unemployment; farm bankruptcies; trade deficits; astrologers in the White
House; Star Wars; and influence peddling."
Dingell concluded his letter, "I hope you find these facts useful in
accurately depicting President Reagan's time in office."
Of course, there is much more to 'The Reagan Legacy' that people need to be
reminded of, but in the current phase of 'The Imperial Presidency', as
historian
Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. so expertly described it, the 'truth' has become a
debatable and relative term - one that seeks to bend facts and reshape
events rather than look at them clearly & honestly for what they are.
In preparing for this piece, a survey of coverage in the national
mainstream & alternative media revealed very little 'digging' or analysis
in terms of the implications of this latest round of censorship.
With one exception.
The following is an op-ed piece by Richard Blow, former executive editor of
George Magazine and author of 'American Son: A Portrait of John F. Kennedy,
Jr., who is writing a book about Harvard University.
_____________
"Back in 1971, Tom Wolfe published an essay called "Mau-Mauing the Flak
Catchers" about San Francisco street activists who intimidated government
bureaucrats. Wolfe brilliantly showed how grass-roots leaders scared
nervous bureaucrats into doling out federal dollars for their
self-enriching "anti-violence programs."
On reading of CBS's recent decision not to air its miniseries on the
Reagans, I couldn't help but think of "Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers." Bill
O'Reilly, Joe Scarborough, Matt Drudge and other right-wing shouters
protested that the series painted an unflattering and biased look at the
Reagans and threatened a boycott of CBS.
Appropriating the techniques of the '60s, the performance artists of the
far right mau-maued a network, and it worked perfectly. Dispatching the
miniseries to the exile of Showtime, CBS crumpled like a paper bag.
Some commentators have decried CBS's move as a wimpy capitulation to
political pressure, and that's true. But there's another context in which
to view this fight-as part of conservatives' ongoing drive to beatify
Ronald Reagan.
It began with the successful move to turn Washington's National Airport, a
perfectly good non-partisan name, into Ronald Reagan National Airport. That
was part of a campaign coordinated by a conservative special interest group
to rename monuments and public spaces all across the country after Reagan.
Part of that campaign also included a push to add Reagan's visage to Mount
Rushmore. We haven't heard the last of that, I suspect.
And consider the outpouring of books written about Reagan in past years:
Dinesh D'Souza's Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary
Leader. Peggy Noonan's When Character was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan.
How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life by Peter Robinson.
Reagan books may be duplicating like the sorcerer's apprentice, but all
portray him in a similar vein: as a simple, kind, decent man with a
homespun wisdom that we can all learn from. A Jimmy Stewart of the White
House.
Forgive me for retching. It's just that this process of turning Reagan into
a saint is something I've watched with bewilderment for years now.
Reagan was a president who lacked basic knowledge of current events; the
former actor who accelerated the transformation of the presidency into the
most cynical kind of political theater; a foreign policy daredevil who
promoted civil war in Central America at the expense of the U.S.
constitution but is now bogusly credited with "winning" the Cold War; a
destroyer of all the environment except that which he owned; a man who
claimed to have nothing against homosexuals but wasn't willing to expend an
ounce of political capital to keep them from dying of AIDS; a leader whose
economic policies allowed the wealthy to feast at the government trough
while contributing to massively increased poverty and homelessness in
America's cities.
But according to the new mau-mauers, the Reagan mini-series could only be
biased, because there's simply nothing bad to say about the man. So, by
definition, any negative portrayal has to be the result of media bias.
By appearing to agree, CBS has only solidified this reality-defying image
of Reagan as national grandfather.
Conservatives promote the Reagan myth for a couple of reasons. One, it's
incredibly effective political propaganda. By fusing the power of nostalgia
with revisionist history, conservatives have turned Reagan into a beloved
national icon, flawless and untouchable, non-partisan yet deliciously
Republican.
That Reagan has Alzheimer's only facilitates this whitewashing. The man
himself can't actually say anything to remind us that he was more
complicated than the simpleton his creators make him out to be.
Meanwhile, the left is generally gracious enough not to kick a man while
he's senile. In the vacuum, the myth grows stronger; the statue becomes
harder and harder to topple. Who will dare tell the truth about Reagan when
he dies?
Now, no one wants to read mean things about a man with Alzheimer's, so
Reagan books have to promote the myth of the simple sage.
Shatter the myth, and people, especially conservatives, won't buy the books.
That's what really scared conservatives about the CBS miniseries.
Now as then, the mau-mauers do their work not for love, not for passion,
but for money.
|
