We don’t cheer for historians or pay them like we do professional baseball players. But if we did, Craig Shirley’s contract would likely rival that of MLB All-Star Shohei Ohtani.
The point is driven home again with his latest book, “The Search for Reagan: The Appealing Intellectual Conservatism of Ronald Reagan” (Post Hill Press), which is available Feb. 13.
Shirley’s insightful book is not so much a biography as it is an examination of Reagan’s greatest challenges viewed through the lens of his values, conservatism and unceasing optimism. And, as Shirley reminded The Western Journal via video interview (read on for a Q&A), these challenges included astonishingly few failures across his multiple careers.
Shirley fulfills the promise of the title by delving into the roots of Reagan’s wisdom, philosophy and winning political strategy. Much of that, in Reagan’s view, was tethered to an outright dismissal of identity politics, to a commitment to personal accountability, and to a recognition of the sacred responsibility to safeguard the American heritage of individual liberty.
As such, it should be required reading for many of our current public servants, conservatives or otherwise. How could they go wrong given Reagan’s record?
“Reagan accomplished ‘Big Things’ during his presidency, including the defeat of Soviet communism, the restoration of American morale, and the creation of some twenty million new jobs,” Shirley writes.
“He also tamed inflation and high interest rates and cut taxes. The net worth of families grew by 27 percent and the real gross national product grew by 26 percent. The number of millionaires in America grew from 4,414 in 1980 to 34,944 in 1987.”
All of that success explains Reagan’s unprecedented career polling data.
“When Reagan left office, he had an overall rating of 73 percent, but among voters under 30 years of age, some polls gave him a sky-scraping 85 percent approval rating … including an astonishing 40-plus percent approval rating among Democrats,” Shirley writes.
“In fact, a Zogby poll made public on Presidents’ Day in 2011 — also the one-hundredth anniversary of Reagan’s birth — asked Americans to rate the greatest president, and they chose Reagan, with [Franklin D. Roosevelt] second and [John F. Kennedy] third. A June 2005 survey of 2.4 million people said Reagan was the greatest president of all time, greater than both Lincoln and Washington.”
To be sure, measured by the most critical criterion for presidents — which Shirley defines as “having freed or saved many, many people” — Reagan must be ranked among the company of only George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and FDR. Notably, it was a liberal historian, John Patrick Diggins, who first made that assertion.
Here, then, are more of Craig Shirley’s comments on his new book and insights into Reagan’s conservatism — as well as thoughts on how Donald Trump compares to “The Gipper.”
TWJ: Reagan’s life as a movie star, governor and president stands in stark contrast to his childhood, which you describe as “one of austerity and poverty.” How did that shape his values and inform who he became?
Shirley: He had small-town values. It was his parents. It had such a profound effect on his life.
His mother attended the Disciples of Christ, and Reagan followed her into that [Protestant] faith. But he learned from his Catholic father a parish perspective. Part of the reason he had crossover appeal was that he spoke like a Catholic. He didn’t use the Protestant “I.” He used the Catholic “we.” If you listen to Reagan, he doesn’t say “my government” or “my White House.” He says “our government” and “your government.”
He said he didn’t know he was born poor. But looking back, he realized he was — everybody was poor then. So he had a view from the cheap seats, not the rarefied air of being wealthy and privileged, but from the perspective of his father, who was an itinerant shoe salesman, and his mother, who took in sewing to raise money. So it grounded him, really, in the hard reality of life in America.
Reagan famously said he placed his trust “not in one person or one party, but in those values that transcend persons and parties.” In his negotiations, he sought lasting solutions rather than quick fixes that could be undone. What informed that approach?
I suppose just … the lifetime of experience, including being president of the Screen Actors Guild and being governor. You know the Tax Reform Act of 1986 is still in place today. And a lot of old actors and actresses should light a candle every night and thank God for Ronald Reagan because as president of the Screen Actors Guild, he provided them with an income which could sustain them through residuals.
You note that Reagan was extremely sharp about people, but you also say that Nancy Reagan once said he was sometimes naïve about the people around him. Can you explain the difference?
I think he tried to see the good in people. He was giving. An example of that is his firing of Donald Regan, who was one of his chiefs of staff. He was not a good chief of staff, to be charitable. He tried to make himself an imperial chief of staff, and he ignored and treated Nancy Reagan badly, which, if anybody ever dealt with Reagan, is the only thing you do not do. Regan would eventually take care of matters, but he would drag his feet for a while to the point of actually being a detriment before taking on the mission.
Reagan is viewed as the “conservative’s conservative,” but you point out that wasn’t always the case. In addition to having to fight the left and establishment Republicans, he was criticized by conservatives for a time early in his presidency — as in the infamous Conservative Digest piece of February 1982. Can you elaborate?
The publication was then being published by my old friend Richard Viguerie. I remember the issue very, very well. We love Richard, but his job was to educate. I don’t mean to go off on a tangent, but when Frederick Douglass was lying on his deathbed, a young man came to see him and asked for his advice. And Douglass said, “Educate, educate, educate, educate.” That’s what some conservatives were doing when they thought Reagan veered off on the wrong course.
But I see Reagan’s point of view, which is just that it’s one thing to be leader of the conservative movement; it’s another thing to be president of the United States and leader of the free world. There are things you have to do and concessions you have to make and treaties you have to pursue.
You reveal that Reagan was in many ways a libertarian — that he once described himself as a “libertarian-conservative.” How was he a libertarian?
If you ask me, I would say I’m a constitutional libertarian. Reagan too believed passionately in individual rights, individual dignity, freedom of the press, the ability of the individual. If you look at his speeches during all the time he was president, look how many times he talked about the rights, the power, the privacy and the dignity of the individual. He spoke of that many, many times as president because he believed fervently in that.
Reagan was an avid reader, always open to learning and self-improvement, and you say he learned lessons along the way, even from his losses. What did he learn from them?
His aide and surrogate son, Michael Deaver, once told me that Reagan was as competitive a son of a b**** as you ever knew. Reagan was extremely competitive. He was a winner in so many areas of his life, successful in so many areas — you know, with his radio career, as an after-dinner speaker, as governor or as a movie star, as the Screen Actors Guild president or as president of the United States. That’s a hell of a life. If any of us did any one of those things, we’d say we had a pretty good life. Reagan did all those things, so he learned a lot.
In the 1976 [presidential] campaign he learned about how politics really work. He went back to California, convinced there were dirty tricks in New Jersey, Mississippi and Ohio. For the first time in his life, he was actually bitter about something. And he learned what it takes to run and what it takes to get the nomination.
You note that Reagan did not believe in identity politics and didn’t pander to particular demographics. He constantly addressed his constituency with his signature “my fellow Americans.” Yet you say that approach sometimes hurt him politically. Can you explain?
He hated dividing Americans by wealth, race, sex or creed — or anything else. He was an idealist. He knew that America was strongest when we’re united as a country. But he also recognized that there were certain groups that were not fully integrated into American society and culture — women and African-Americans — and he tried to reconcile with that.
For instance, he signed the Martin Luther King Jr. federal holiday into law. He appointed Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court as a way to honor and to reach out to women, saying, “I understand that you’ve been held back by American society and culture for many years. And this is a way to advance women’s issues and advance women’s rights and dignity.” But he also did that with Jeane Kirkpatrick and Margaret Heckler, appointing a lot of other key staffers in the White House.
He also believed that economic prosperity was the key to unifying America. The tax cuts, budget balancing and deregulation were all so very important to Reagan because they empowered the individual — all individuals, not just white males, but also blacks and women, everybody.
Although Reagan was known as “The Great Communicator,” you say he consciously chose to limit his time on air. Why did he do that, and how do you think he would have approached today’s 24/7 news cycles, replete with social media?
This is such an important point. He understood the dangers of overexposure. Joe Biden is finding that out right now.
In 1977, after he ran for president and lost to Gerald Ford, CBS offered Reagan a commentary spot on the evening news twice a week. And it was for a lot of money. But he turned it down because he said, “People will get tired of me on television twice a week.” Reagan understood the power of presentation. Shakespeare said “the play’s the thing” and “all the world’s a stage,” and Reagan understood that innately. When you’re there, you make your presentation, explain the problem, and come up with your solutions. But don’t bore people and then, in fact, antagonize people.
In the 1920s, radio was a new phenomenon, but Reagan mastered that. In the 1930s, movies were a new phenomenon, but Reagan mastered that. In the 1950s, television was a new phenomenon, but Reagan mastered that. Reagan loved technology, and he understood the uses of technology. If Reagan were alive today, he’d be on Facebook and Twitter [X] and all the rest of social media, I think — but not overexposed. He wouldn’t be chattering, you know? Reagan would have rationed his appearances to say something important and then get off the stage.
Reagan came to the presidency with a profound belief in American exceptionalism and three great goals in mind: the revival of the American economy, the defeat of Soviet communism, and the restoration of American morale. You write that the latter goal was the most important. Why?
Reagan knew that a happy people are a productive people. And productive people can manufacture the tools needed to confront and defeat the Soviet Union. This was the ultimate undoing of the Soviet Union, where people weren’t optimistic. Standing in line just to get bread gives people little time to think about the future.
In American society, when people are happy and they’ve got their homes, their cars, they’ve got food in their refrigerator — well, then they believe the world can be better for their children. A hallmark of America is that Americans have always believed that the future would be better for their children than it had been for them. He knew that restoring American morale was the most important thing.
This is a book about Reagan’s conservatism, but its subtext is a defense of Reagan in the face of left-wing revisionists’ efforts to undermine his legacy. Why do you think the left still attacks Reagan so fervently even now?
Because they know that to destroy American conservatism, which is what they want to do, they have to destroy the 20th century’s most important conservative. You know what’s going on. I know what’s going on. Left-wingism can only survive with the destruction of American conservatism. They can’t compete in the marketplace of ideas, so the only alternative is to destroy it.
People often say that Donald Trump is “Reaganesque” in many ways and is perhaps his truest successor. As someone who knew Reagan well, do you agree with those statements?
Reagan was his own man. Donald Trump is his own man. Is he Reagan’s heir apparent? No. Men like Reagan don’t grow on trees, which is why Ronald Reagan is Ronald Reagan. Men like George Washington don’t grow on trees, which is why there’s only one George Washington.
I like Trump. I support him. I agree with him. He has adopted or has embraced many of Reagan’s core issues — tax cuts, a strong national defense, federalism.
You know, greatness is thrust on many men, but many men don’t see it. Reagan was a visionary. Reagan saw it. Reagan saw the opportunity that was handed him to save America, to revitalize America — to make America great again, [which was] originally one of the campaign slogans from the 1980 campaign. Mark Twain said history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. And so there’s a rhyming in American history in the darkness of Jimmy Carter and the darkness of Joe Biden being followed by the lightness of Ronald Reagan and the lightness of Donald Trump.
Note: Answers and questions from the video interview may have been edited and condensed to remove random utterances, such as pauses or filler words that are a part of speech, and for brevity and clarity.
