The finale of an epic history runs from 1976 to 1980 – four years of upheaval and change which seem distinctly familiarDespite its title, Reaganland is actually an exhaustive history of the years 1976-1980 – and thus perforce a history of the administration of Jimmy Carter.It’s all here – the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, brother Billy, the Panama Canal Treaty, California’s Proposition 13 cutting property taxes, supply side economics, the “killer rabbit”, direct mail, the Ford Pinto, Ted Kennedy, Three Mile Island, malaise and a hundred other incidents and stories that defined these tumultuous years.At the centre stood the well-meaning, earnest Carter, whom Rick Perlstein describes as equal parts “engineer and preacher”, combined in “passionate certitude, beyond compromise”, sincerely seeking to do his best and switching between liberal and conservative policies based on his analysis of what might solve a problem.“[C]risis upon crisis. It began to look impossible for the president to manage it all.” Fractious relations with a Congress of his own party and an inexperienced White House staff did not help, and then came the fall of the Shah of Iran. To be fair, this is also the story of the Camp David accords, human rights in foreign policy and attempts to beat inflation and (mostly) maintain decency in politics. Reaganland is a detailed chronicle of that story.> There’s politics aplenty here, not least Ted Kennedy’s challenge in the primary and turmoil within Reagan’s own campaignThe 70s as a time of major social upheaval has been told before; Perlstein puts it in political context, chronicling the rise of the new right and its activists. They are the principal villains of this book, transforming American politics, using superior organizational prowess to mobilize sentiment and voters, outfoxing their opponents.There’s politics aplenty here, not least Ted Kennedy’s passionate challenge in the 1980 Democratic primaries and the turmoil within Reagan’s own campaign. But Reaganland is essentially sociopolitical history, focusing on the movements and causes that animated public debate so virulently and the impacts of major social changes, such as women’s rights, on American life. Perlstein seems most at home discussing these social movements. The long backgrounders necessary to this telling are integral to the book but contribute significantly to its length.Perlstein is frequently harsh on Carter, perhaps from knowing how the story ends. Yet lest one miss the point, the last chapter, quoting the Carter strategist Gerald Rafshoon, is entitled “Carter is smarter than Reagan”. Still, another Reagan shines through in parts. If Reagan were alive, he would probably parry Perlstein’s attacks with a smile and reprise his famous “there you go again” line to Carter.As Perlstein admits, for all Reagan’s malapropisms and missing facts, he could take a staffer’s draft and edit it just so to appeal to the common listener – precisely as one would expect of the actor “one take Reagan”, with more than 1,000 radio commentaries which kept him in front of the voting public. Equally, one can hardly draw a straight line between the Reagan who welcomed Mexican migrants “for whatever length of time they want to stay” and opposed a border fence to the Trumpism of today’s GOP.One can argue that the tragedy of the Carter administration is that its underlying analysis was correct. As Perlstein writes, “One of the bizarre things about the new conventional wisdom concerning American softness is how closely it resembled what Jimmy Carter was saying – even though Carter himself was being held up as the exemplar of how American leadership had failed.” Pollster Pat Caddell spoke of “alienation” as a theme of American life and found that “for the first time ever, Americans thought their children’s lives would be worse than their own”.This is a meticulously researched narrative history. But on its essential question – could the shift to the right have been avoided? – the answer is surely no, despite the many mistakes of Carter and his team.> In the end, a decisive portion of the American people simply decided that it was time for a change in leadershipFirst, did the superior organizational skills and aggressive tactics of the new right cause the shift to the right or was it merely the blowtorch that launched a prairie fire? Perlstein answers the question only indirectly, quoting the new right leader Howard Phillips: “We organize discontent.” Most of the time, he chronicles the changes – and then reports election results, a pattern which somewhat defeats the idea that political operatives caused these changes, even if the methods they used were frequently underhanded, brutal and angry.Perlstein blames Gerald Ford’s narrow defeat in 1976 on Reagan not campaigning aggressively for the president – others argue it was Ford’s bungling debate performance. But surely Ford’s election would hardly have stopped the rise of the new right – indeed, it might have accelerated it, given that its actions would be directed against a Republican and therefore less seen as “partisan” than when conservatives attacked Democrats.Second, there is a simpler version of Reagan’s election. Perlstein seems irritated that every evening, the broadcaster Walter Cronkite announced the number of days the hostages had been captive in Iran. But surely Cronkite, understanding its political impact (and his audience’s sentiments), showed that events had come to an inflection point in America. Similarly, the arrogance of those who felt Reagan could be summed up as merely the human protagonist in Bedtime for Bonzo and that his misuse of facts would doom him is a cautionary tale.Even if those voters who cared most about the hostages supported Carter by two to one on election day, in the end, a decisive portion of the American people simply decided that it was time for a change in leadership.Sometimes the conventional wisdom is right. At one point in 1979, 58% of gas stations had none to sell. In 1980, with the prime rate at 15.5% and inflation and unemployment combining for a “misery index” – a concept first articulated by Carter in 1976 – of 20.3%, economic conditions boded ill. When Reagan asked in the final debate of the 1980 campaign, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”, many Americans answered no and voted accordingly: 43% said they were simply against Carter. That and the new right made a majority.Perlstein concedes much of this at the end, somewhat grudgingly (“84% of Reagan voters gave ‘time for a change’ as their major reason for choosing him – not for any ideological reason at all”), but can’t resist a few final digs at both candidates.This version of the story has contemporary relevance. Times are bad, events are out of control, the president is seen as out of touch with reality, the American people want and deserve a change of leadership to a figure who offers a fresh start and a revival of optimism and national unity. It happened for Jimmy Carter in 1976; it happened to Jimmy Carter in 1980. It happened to George Bush in 1992.One imagines a scenario something like this is on the minds of the Biden campaign.
The finale of an epic history runs from 1976 to 1980 – four years of upheaval and change which seem distinctly familiarDespite its title, Reaganland is actually an exhaustive history of the years 1976-1980 – and thus perforce a history of the administration of Jimmy Carter.It’s all here – the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, brother Billy, the Panama Canal Treaty, California’s Proposition 13 cutting property taxes, supply side economics, the “killer rabbit”, direct mail, the Ford Pinto, Ted Kennedy, Three Mile Island, malaise and a hundred other incidents and stories that defined these tumultuous years.At the centre stood the well-meaning, earnest Carter, whom Rick Perlstein describes as equal parts “engineer and preacher”, combined in “passionate certitude, beyond compromise”, sincerely seeking to do his best and switching between liberal and conservative policies based on his analysis of what might solve a problem.“[C]risis upon crisis. It began to look impossible for the president to manage it all.” Fractious relations with a Congress of his own party and an inexperienced White House staff did not help, and then came the fall of the Shah of Iran. To be fair, this is also the story of the Camp David accords, human rights in foreign policy and attempts to beat inflation and (mostly) maintain decency in politics. Reaganland is a detailed chronicle of that story.> There’s politics aplenty here, not least Ted Kennedy’s challenge in the primary and turmoil within Reagan’s own campaignThe 70s as a time of major social upheaval has been told before; Perlstein puts it in political context, chronicling the rise of the new right and its activists. They are the principal villains of this book, transforming American politics, using superior organizational prowess to mobilize sentiment and voters, outfoxing their opponents.There’s politics aplenty here, not least Ted Kennedy’s passionate challenge in the 1980 Democratic primaries and the turmoil within Reagan’s own campaign. But Reaganland is essentially sociopolitical history, focusing on the movements and causes that animated public debate so virulently and the impacts of major social changes, such as women’s rights, on American life. Perlstein seems most at home discussing these social movements. The long backgrounders necessary to this telling are integral to the book but contribute significantly to its length.Perlstein is frequently harsh on Carter, perhaps from knowing how the story ends. Yet lest one miss the point, the last chapter, quoting the Carter strategist Gerald Rafshoon, is entitled “Carter is smarter than Reagan”. Still, another Reagan shines through in parts. If Reagan were alive, he would probably parry Perlstein’s attacks with a smile and reprise his famous “there you go again” line to Carter.As Perlstein admits, for all Reagan’s malapropisms and missing facts, he could take a staffer’s draft and edit it just so to appeal to the common listener – precisely as one would expect of the actor “one take Reagan”, with more than 1,000 radio commentaries which kept him in front of the voting public. Equally, one can hardly draw a straight line between the Reagan who welcomed Mexican migrants “for whatever length of time they want to stay” and opposed a border fence to the Trumpism of today’s GOP.One can argue that the tragedy of the Carter administration is that its underlying analysis was correct. As Perlstein writes, “One of the bizarre things about the new conventional wisdom concerning American softness is how closely it resembled what Jimmy Carter was saying – even though Carter himself was being held up as the exemplar of how American leadership had failed.” Pollster Pat Caddell spoke of “alienation” as a theme of American life and found that “for the first time ever, Americans thought their children’s lives would be worse than their own”.This is a meticulously researched narrative history. But on its essential question – could the shift to the right have been avoided? – the answer is surely no, despite the many mistakes of Carter and his team.> In the end, a decisive portion of the American people simply decided that it was time for a change in leadershipFirst, did the superior organizational skills and aggressive tactics of the new right cause the shift to the right or was it merely the blowtorch that launched a prairie fire? Perlstein answers the question only indirectly, quoting the new right leader Howard Phillips: “We organize discontent.” Most of the time, he chronicles the changes – and then reports election results, a pattern which somewhat defeats the idea that political operatives caused these changes, even if the methods they used were frequently underhanded, brutal and angry.Perlstein blames Gerald Ford’s narrow defeat in 1976 on Reagan not campaigning aggressively for the president – others argue it was Ford’s bungling debate performance. But surely Ford’s election would hardly have stopped the rise of the new right – indeed, it might have accelerated it, given that its actions would be directed against a Republican and therefore less seen as “partisan” than when conservatives attacked Democrats.Second, there is a simpler version of Reagan’s election. Perlstein seems irritated that every evening, the broadcaster Walter Cronkite announced the number of days the hostages had been captive in Iran. But surely Cronkite, understanding its political impact (and his audience’s sentiments), showed that events had come to an inflection point in America. Similarly, the arrogance of those who felt Reagan could be summed up as merely the human protagonist in Bedtime for Bonzo and that his misuse of facts would doom him is a cautionary tale.Even if those voters who cared most about the hostages supported Carter by two to one on election day, in the end, a decisive portion of the American people simply decided that it was time for a change in leadership.Sometimes the conventional wisdom is right. At one point in 1979, 58% of gas stations had none to sell. In 1980, with the prime rate at 15.5% and inflation and unemployment combining for a “misery index” – a concept first articulated by Carter in 1976 – of 20.3%, economic conditions boded ill. When Reagan asked in the final debate of the 1980 campaign, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”, many Americans answered no and voted accordingly: 43% said they were simply against Carter. That and the new right made a majority.Perlstein concedes much of this at the end, somewhat grudgingly (“84% of Reagan voters gave ‘time for a change’ as their major reason for choosing him – not for any ideological reason at all”), but can’t resist a few final digs at both candidates.This version of the story has contemporary relevance. Times are bad, events are out of control, the president is seen as out of touch with reality, the American people want and deserve a change of leadership to a figure who offers a fresh start and a revival of optimism and national unity. It happened for Jimmy Carter in 1976; it happened to Jimmy Carter in 1980. It happened to George Bush in 1992.One imagines a scenario something like this is on the minds of the Biden campaign.