The Age Of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008 [Hardcover]

Nothing in Sean Wilentz's history of American politics from 1974 to 2008 took me by surprise, except perhaps the author's willingness to give Ronald Reagan the recognition due for his political savvy and charisma. Most Reagan denigrators -- and I admit that I have been one -- have regarded him as a hyped-up Howdy Doody, a useful front for 'conservative' kingmakers. Wilentz actually credits Reagan with being his own man, the master of his own White House, and furthermore with being more flexible and open to pragmatic compromise than either his coterie of advisors or his latter-day disciples. Withholding judgment of his 'ends', Wilentz portrays Reagan as indeed the dominant figure of his Age, far more a man of 'means' than the three presidents who preceded him or the three who followed. Discussing the diplomacy that led to the INF treaty in 1987 as well as other steps toward nuclear disarmament, Wilentz writes:

"To complete that triumph of diplomacy and goodwill, Reagan had to withstand the criticism of many who had informed and reinforced his views of the Soviets for decades but who lacked his own understanding with Gorbachev and other reformers now in control of the Kremlin, a great change was at hand. Call it a triumph of character or idealism or perceptiveness or "wishful thinking" (in George Will's term), or some combination of these. But Reagan's ability to dispense with dogma (including his own) and negotiate with Gorbachev helped bring an end to a nuclear arms race that had terrified the world for forty years. ... Reagan deserves posterity's honor for not adhering stubbornly to the ideas and strategies of cold war conservatism and neoconservatism... His success in helping finally to end the cold war is one of the greatest achievements by any president of the United States -- and arguably the greatest single presidential accomplishment since 1945." (p 281)

Wilentz goes to town, as it were, in distinguishing between the solid core of ideas and ideals to which Reagan adhered, and the sundry rigid ideologies proclaimed in his name by his fragmented political heirs -- neoconservatives, fundamentalist reactionaries, states' rights bigots, free-market dogmatists, anarcho-capitalists, and fanatical libertarians, all of whom paid obeisance to a different idol. All except the evangelicals could be lumped as neoliberals in economic doctrine, but their unreconcilable ideologies and their willingness to 'fight dirty' to impose their ideas on teverybody fused together in the presidency of George W Bush, whom Wilentz perceives as the eventual hypertrophy (the grotesque and unfunctional exaggeration) of "Reaganism," which led to the debacles both foreign and domestic, and the collapse of the conservative paradigm.

The chapters treating Ronald Reagan himself are by far the most interesting of the book. Wilentz has scant praise for any of the other six presidents of the Age, and certainly no bias in favor of either Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II all represented 'failed' presidencies on either economic or diplomatic fronts, or both. In fact, the failures of the Carter administration opened the path for the ascendancy of anti-New Deal crusaders, and the embarrassments of the Clinton administrations, even despite economic recovery, facilitated the disaster of Bush II, with its manifold violations of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

The Age of Reagan is not a radical revision of anything. It's not based on secret knowledge, long-hidden files, or meticulous academic documentation. It was all in the newspapers, all public info. Anyone whose middle years, like mine, were lived out in the decades from Nixon to GWB, who followed events and who has a decent memory, could honestly have compiled the same text (given the literary skills and editorial discipline). Wilentz tells it just as I remember it! Later historians will dissect, differ over details, and document endlessly, but Wilentz has written the first basic "fair and balanced" history of the rise and fall of the peculiar ideology of American conservatism.

First off, and for the record: no, I did not vote for Al Gore in the 2000 election. Now, having said that: I thought this was a well-written and thought-provoking book by a preeminent historian, and a great example of 'partisan' history (although I think it's also fair to say that Wilentz does make an honest effort at balanced analysis, and of course his forthright thesis is right there in the title: Reagan, for good or ill, defined his--and our--American era). This book is also far better than the Reagan hagiographies cluttering most bookstores (which I couldn't even be bothered to read, and it would seem that way to even the casual browser, as they're mostly picture books anyway). But Wilentz is also balanced, and even, dare I say, nuanced in his approach to both the man and his time.

You may agree with some of the author's points, and disagree with others, but I assure you, the book itself is very well written, and certainly worth your time and energy to invest in. I bought my copy in a bookstore (remember bookstores?) on an impulse, and I was not disappointed--actually, I finished it in a matter of days. Normally, that would be that, but when I looked at this page on Amazon and saw only one one-star review, I decided to step in. This book is NOT as lopsided or unfair as that reviewer would have you believe, and what's more, the reviewer confessed to not finishing the book. I don't know how to do that, myself, even with books I loathe. But I certainly wouldn't have the audacity to publish a review of a book I didn't finish: not only is that unfair to the author, but it speaks of a mindset that does not allow for the hearing of both sides of an issue. 'Partisan,' anyone?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm about to start Nixonland, by Rick Perlstein. And if someone had told me that I would be reading two serious history books featuring Reagan and Nixon in their titles two or three weeks ago, I would have raised an eyebrow. And yet, here I go.

The extreme division among the reviewers of this book reflects a challenge Wilentz notes early on in The Age of Reagan: that it's very hard to write a recent history that anyone will consider objective in any way. His response has been to produce a book that, I think, will manage to disappoint readers on both sides of the political spectrum. Unlike most of the writing on the Reagan era so far-- which has been frankly hagiographic-- Wilentz pays attention to the scandals and missteps of the administration, including a lively portrayal of Iran-contra and a walkthrough of the S&L scandal. He mixes praise and critique in his portrayal of Reagan; later presidents, including the Bushes, do not fare as well. The reviews here make it clear how unwilling conservative readers are to revisit the S&L scandal years, or to confront the fate of Reaganomics... and yet liberal readers are unlikely to be completely comfortable with Wilentz's persistent focus on presidential politics and foreign policy as *the* defining elements of the age of Reagan. The fate of the poor, of women's programs, and of education under Reagan are not mentioned; some may join me in gaping at his description of the first Bush as an environmentalist who quickly stepped up after the Exxon Valdez incident (with the spill "cleaned up by mid-September"-- actually, Sean, the clean-up is still going on). Clinton's shenanigans with Monica rate dozens of pages; Anita Hill gets a paragraph. In other words, conservatives are unlikely to like everything this book includes, while liberals will probably be ruffled by what this book leaves out.

Beyond that, there are a couple of wider issues, centering around Wilentz's yen for sweeping statements. Certainly the statement that Reagan, "like many children of alcoholics, could not distinguish fact from fiction" made me yearn for a footnote... More importantly, instead of framing his argument as an examination of Reagan and his influence, he insists from the first sentence that the period from 1932 to 1970 was one of liberal reform (Joe McCarthy and Eisenhower would probably not agree) while 1974-present is one of conservative ascendency (despite the Clinton years, Bush's scrape-by win in 2000, etc.) Despite the liveliness of the writing, such sweeping statements really undermine this book, and raise questions about its suitability for, for example, a history classroom.

All that said, this book is well-written, and a quick read. If you have any opinion at all on the last four decades you'll probably find something in here to annoy you, but despite that I did enjoy revisiting the period with this author. Wilentz does help create a big picture of the era, and disagreeing with various of its elements, and arguing with his conclusions out loud as you read it, can be seen as entertaining or frustrating, depending on how seriously you want to take it.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 54 reviews  2.6 out of 5 stars