Reexamining Reagan’s legacy
In the American Conservative, Richard Gamble reexamines Ronald Reagan’s legacy, especially looking at his rhetoric of “a shining city on a hill” (an adaptation of the Sermon on the Mount, and puritan John Winthrop’s Modell of Christian Charity sermon) — the American promised land in a covenant with God.
Though he returned to these words often, Reagan never accused America of dealing falsely with God, and so God kept His part of the covenantal bargain. …
In Reagan’s rhetoric, America’s identity as the “city on a hill” Jesus spoke of in the Sermon on the Mount became a generic affirmation of optimism, material prosperity, and providential destiny. Nothing remained of the hilltop city as a metaphor for the church’s teaching ministry, no place, that is, for the normative interpretation of these words from Matthew’s gospel among Christians for centuries until they were co-opted by American politicians and their speechwriters.
Gamble questions whether Reagan’s rhetoric is conservative as we assume, quoting historians who say he preached “yet another version of sinless, progressive America that had more in common with Tom Paine and Woodrow Wilson than with Edmund Burke.” It’s a bit academic, but worth the read.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top37 Comments to “Reexamining Reagan’s legacy”
So, rhetoric provided by speechwriters aside, which church did this hero of the right attend while President? And how often?
My guess is Billy G stopped by every so often…
Report comment to moderator
And then there were the deficits…
And the divorce…
And the gay kid…
And the astrologer…
One of these days someone is going to do an interesting comparative study between GWB and Reagan.
Report comment to moderator
Careful Alisa, you’re wandering dangerously close to the third rail of Republican politics …
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia,
As you’re aware, I’m no uncritical acolyte of Ronald Reagan.
But on a recent thread you said (at (14)) that one of his sons was “gay.” KBells (19) and I (25) questioned your assertion, but you did not reply to those challenges.
Which of Reagan’s sons is homosexual?
Evidence, please?
Report comment to moderator
I will hazard no surmise about the state of Reagan’s eternal soul before almighty God.
But I would point out that, according to remarks made by George Bush at Reagan’s funeral, he believed that men are “basically good.”
I don’t know if asserting the fallenness of man is required to trust in Christ alone for one’s salvation, but the “basic goodness of man” is an unbiblical understanding.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, one more time, which one of his kids is gay?
Report comment to moderator
I had assumed and am fairly sure I read at some point, during his Presidency that Ron is gay. If not, I’m wrong. Won’t be the last time.
(I can’t believe I’m apologizing to folks who believe what they believe, but I’m sorry if I was wrong.)
And I don’t always follow up on every thread. Is that a virtue? I think so.;)
Report comment to moderator
Regan did this country a great disservice when he helped transform this country from government of the people, by the people, for the people, to government is the enemy. This was facilitated by, and further emboldened, the Grover Norquist types that want to dismantle government and privatize everything, and ultimately lead too the almost intentional ineptitude of the Bush years, allowing them to “prove” that government isn’t the answer. This rhetoric and ineptitude still fuels the anti-intellectual opposition to the reforms this country desperately needs.
Report comment to moderator
Ron Jr. isn’t gay. He is someway fey and did study ballet (and is a liberal). He is an atheist. Were he gay he would be out and proud about it. He’s never shuddered from being outspoken about the ways in which he differs from his fathers worldview (i.e., being very liberal and an atheist). He’s also quite progay. Some folks are so progay that they don’t want to deny it because they are afraid of being seen as antigay. He has denied being gay in the most progay sensitive of ways. (Note to Tom Cruise if you really are heterosexual.)
Report comment to moderator
9. He has also been married for about 20 years.
Report comment to moderator
Is Ron a metrosexual? How clean are his fingernails?
Report comment to moderator
It’s funny in his book “Coming Out Conservative,” the late Marvin Leibman, a prominent conservative activist who went from having a “don’t ask don’t tell” relationship with conservatives, to be “out” relays when Ron Jr. dropped out of college to study ballet, the President (apparently unaware of Leibman’s homosexuality) expressed his concern that Ron Jr. might be gay. Leibman assuaged his fears by noting how many straight, studly ballet dancers there were like Baryshnikov.
Chris Buckley in his book about his famous parents (WFB and Pat) also briefly discussed Liebman, how so many prominent conservative activists turned out homosexual (Roy Cohn, Arthur Finklestein, Terry Dolan, Bob Bauman, etc.). And how his mother Pat was basically a @#$-hag; her best friends were gay males. WFB had a lot of gay friends as well; but he never wavered in his devotion to Roman Catholic teachings on the matter. His attitude was if they could accept his view of things, he could accept their friendship.
Pat unlike Bill was agnostic; hence I don’t think she had any moral qualms against homosexuality and neither does the agnostic Chris.
Report comment to moderator
And then there were the deficits…
And the divorce…
And the gay atheist kid…
And the astrologer…
Report comment to moderator
Oh dear. The strike through of gay appeared on the preview, but not on the posting. Some kind of glitch.
test
test 2
Report comment to moderator
Definitely a glitch.
Report comment to moderator
And then there were the deficits…
And the divorce…
And the atheist kid…
And the astrologer…
One of these days someone is going to do an interesting comparative study between GWB and Reagan.
The deficits were the fault of Congress.
The divorce was his wife’s choice, and he remained faithful to Nancy for decades.
The “atheist kid” was an adult with the right to make his own choices.
The astrologer may have been an urban legend. (At least Reagan is annoyed by the false claims in his diary, suggesting they weren’t true.)
Between what I’ve read of Reagan, and by Reagan (which is a lot) and what his son (not Ronnie) said at his funeral, I tend to think that Reagan was not a believer when he gained office, but became one during office. His son links his conversion to his being shot and coming close to death.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: As the book title says, “Mistakes were made. But not by me”.
Or as Harry T. said “The buck stops here”?
Reagan signed off on every single dollar of those deficits. I rather doubt that he contested the divorce. He never publicly denied the astrologer claim.
Did he start going to church after he was shot? Or was his absence someone else’s fault?
If he did “get religion” after the assassination, I will at least give him credit for not waving the cross around.
Report comment to moderator
From the Wikipedia entry on Lee Atwater:
As a member of the Reagan administration in 1981, Atwater gave an anonymous interview to Political Scientist Alexander P. Lamis. Part of this interview was printed in Lamis’ book The Two-Party South, then reprinted in Southern Politics in the 1990s with Atwater’s name revealed. Bob Herbert reported on the interview in the October 6, 2005 edition of the New York Times. Atwater talked about the GOP’s Southern Strategy and Ronald Reagan’s version of it:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964… and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster…
Questioner: But the fact is, isn’t it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps…?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”[7]
Now I’m not claiming that Reagan was a racist. But if nothing else he was a darn smart politician who knew how to use the racism of others. Or have others do it for him.
And I would hope that most Christians would be disturbed by that.
Report comment to moderator
Now I’m not claiming that Reagan was a racist. But if nothing else he was a darn smart politician who knew how to use the racism of others. Or have others do it for him.
And I would hope that most Christians would be disturbed by that.
Some will be disturbed by it. Some won’t. And you probably won’t know which is which until push comes to shove.
Report comment to moderator
ARCADIA (7): (I can’t believe I’m apologizing to folks who believe what they believe, but I’m sorry if I was wrong.)
Frank: I wasn’t seeking an “apology,” per se, for I was never offended by your mistaken claim. I was only seeking a clarification — perhaps Reagan had a third son of whom I was unaware!
Also, I listen to Ron “Jr.” on Air America every now and again. I agree with maybe 10% of his politics, give or take. But I do appreciate his general fairness to the conservative side — his willingness to focus on the issues rather than take sophomoric pot-shots at personalities.
ARCADIA (7): And I don’t always follow up on every thread. Is that a virtue? I think so.;)
Frank: Again, no explanation necessary. I may have returned to that thread once or twice to see if you replied, but then I’d forgotten about it — until you mentioned it again here.
I daresay, there may be two or three threads out there in which I failed to respond to questions put forth by others. All threads die. (But not all threads truly live! — Sorry, couldn’t help it!)
Arcadia, I suppose that the only thing I wondered about re. your “gay son” claim was if you’d simply assumed Ron was gay because he is/was a ballet dancer. If so, that would have been a knee-jerk assumption and so uncharacteristic of a liberal.
Report comment to moderator
“Now I’m not claiming that Reagan was a racist. But if nothing else he was a darn smart politician who knew how to use the racism of others. Or have others do it for him.”
This could very well be accurate.
Many will believe it but deny it publicly. This sounds very crafty and shrewd. It therefore clashes with lib doctrine that Ronnie was an amiable dunce who used cue cards and took frequent naps in the Oval Office.
Report comment to moderator
Reagan’s cheery gooey optimism about how good folks would be if govt got out of there way resonated with many. Capitalism forces you as biz owner to consider and try to satisfy the wants of your customers better than any competitor can. As Marvin has pointed out, if success means being a better servant to your client or customer then unfettered free enterprise is theoretically consistent with Christianity.
Liberalims morphed over decades into a profound mistrust of average ordinary working folks. Even today most blue collar folks are not beneficiaries of activist liberalism. It acknowledged a flawed fallen sin-prone state and instead of pointing to a Savior as the solution instead put hope in a nanny state.
Report comment to moderator
Would a Christian be disturb by these tactics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWusOhZpq7w
Report comment to moderator
I understand a little better the behavior of worldmagblog in that people use the rhetoric of persuasion although no one ever seems to persuade anyone else of anything.
Posting comments is an intermittent reinforcement schedule. Seeing someone else acknowledge our existence by replying to our comments (even in a negative way) is reinforcing.
However, I am still puzzled by the excessive stereotypes about “liberals” and “conservatives” that follow a rhetoric similar to racist rhetoric.
Clearly, Communists and Nazis are evil. [Does, anybody hear want to dispute this?]
If carried to the extreme, liberalism would probably lead to Communism or anarchism. At the moment, there is no successful working Communist nation. There probably never was one. An anarchistic nation is a contradiction in terms.
If carried to the extreme, conservatism would lead to either Nazism or libertarianism. There were successful Nazi and fascist nations, but they depended on conquering other nations for their long term business plans and they ran out of steam and the worms turned. There are no successful anarchistic nations.
However, in representative government countries with reasonably free elections, such as in areas like North America, Australasia, and Western Europe, there are liberal governments and conservative governments. There are points to each. However, if one were clearly superior to the other as an idealogy, then one would prevail and be elected over and over and over and the other would decline and eventually disappear, like Whigs and Tories.
When was the last time you voted for a whig or a tory?
Report comment to moderator
Richard Gamble wrote; “Reagan never accused America of dealing falsely with God…”
This is a strange comment. I would not have expected this from him when you consider his role as President and when you honestly see how badly we needed the informed optimism he provided at that time. But he certainly did warn us not to deal falsely with our God. Before he was President and with reference to the “city on a hill” theme (and quoted by Gamble), Reagan once said;
“[The] eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.”
Reagan knew well when and how to honestly call us to our responsibilities before God and he also knew when and how to lift our spirits.
Report comment to moderator
The central aspect of the “city on a hill” theme for Reagan was FREEDOM! Gamble should have known that. It was not (as Gamble falsely claimed) “a generic affirmation of optimism, material prosperity, and providential destiny.” Gamble missed the heart of Reagan’s influence, legacy and his conviction.
Speaking of Winthrop’s “city on a hill” phrase, Reagan (in his Farewell Address in 1989) described Winthrop as “an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man.”
Reagan continued:
“He journeyed here on what today we’d call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.”
And speaking of America as that “city on a hill,” Reagan continued:
“But more than that: After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she’s still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home.”
It is always so much better to let Reagan speak for himself. Even his biggest supporters cannot improve on his own words, understood in context.
Report comment to moderator
Gamble wrote; “Reagan as conservative icon must not become a way to shut down debate within the conservative movement.”
Huh? This is mindless academic elietist rhetoric. Who is trying to shut down debate among conservatives? Gamble’s general thesis is made of straw.
Report comment to moderator
John Winthrop’s 1830 sermon was indeed about optimism. Its essential message: Let us lose our spiritual shackles and together escape the coming judgment on England. Let us head for the New World to build a shining “city on a hill” for all the world to see and follow.
Winthrop thought his homeland had broken their covenant with God and it was time to start over. Like many Puritans, he saw America as an opportunity for new beginnings. He wanted to forge a model community that could serve as a light at the end of the tunnel in which he thought the world was stuck.
Listen to Winthrop:
“The Lord will be our God, and delight to dwell among us, as His own people, and will command a blessing upon us in all our ways, so that we shall see much more of His wisdom, power, goodness and truth, than formerly we have been acquainted with. We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when ten of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies; when He shall make us a praise and glory that men shall say of succeeding plantations, “may the Lord make it like that of New England.” For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us.”
___________
Wow! Sounds a lot like Reagan!!!
Report comment to moderator
One of the great movie lines of all time is from the 1939 film, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Freshman senator Jefferson Smith (played by James Stewart) tells his hardball senatorial secretary; “Always try to see life around you as if you’d just come out of a tunnel.”
Winthrop’s sermon was about a sense of emerging from a tunnel and into the light. That beautifully ties Winthrop’s message as much to President Reagan’s message as to any leader who ever followed Winthrop throughout our history.
_____________
Report comment to moderator
For real, Random, you funny. When the theocracy comes, we kill you last.
Report comment to moderator
I hope you all recognize 30 as a joke based on an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie quote and that I don’t really want to kill Random last.
Report comment to moderator
30 and 31 are on the wrong thread. disregard
Report comment to moderator
There are a lot of people that despise Reagan. Didn’t he follow Jimmy Carter?
There are a lot f people who despise Bush II. Didn’t he follow Bill Clinton?
I wonder who will be the next despised President. Will he follow Barack Obama?
Report comment to moderator
There are a lot of people who despise Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, too.
What’s your point?
Report comment to moderator
The absurd hero worship of a grade B actor with questionable ethics and intelligence by the Republican party signifies their own lack of character and intelligence.
The man who “show showed that deficits didn’t matter” started the slow process of decline in America. He heralded not the dawn but the dusk. Debt, trade deficit, and refusal to make tough decision especially in the domestic economy began under his watch. Although Bush Sr and esp Clinton attempted to fix the problems, the arrival of the wanna be Reagan, Bush Jr., may have made the decline irrevocable. And before anyone jumps in to claim, I will be dancing in the streets, you need to know I agree with historian Niall Ferguson’s assessment: If not American then who? Is there a better leading power for the West? Unless the EU can over come centuries of cultural fracture and an historically understandable abhorrence of empire building, America is the best solution for a unipolar world, however, that doesn’t exempt it from criticism.
Report comment to moderator
Joel, that’s some hardcore idol worship you’ve got going there. Of course I would be remiss if I failed to point out yet another case of your hypocrisy as you fault others for worshiping Obama.
Report comment to moderator
More Reagan Legacy:
Selling poison gas to Iraq to use against Iran and its own people.
Selling weapons to Iran to illegally fund murderous right wing militias.
Arming and training radical jihadist Muslims destine to turn against us.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!