Wayne DeWald writes, "Mark, I hope you'll weigh in on The Reagans controversy" but I'm not sure I have anything to say that a lot of others haven't said. I've never been a fan of docu-dramas, especially those where the issues involved were still very much "in play," insofar as history is concerned. I didn't like the recent film that attempted to portray George W. Bush as John Wayne on 9/11. I doubt I would have liked this new one about the Reagans. But then, the actual content of the film is almost irrelevant, and I got the feeling that a lot of folks who weighed in on the content of the movie and claimed to have read the script or even viewed excerpts were bluffing, trying to avoid the charge that they were attacking or defending that which they had not seen.
Most of our past presidents exist in two forms, man and myth. Their partisans cling to the myths, not just out of denial but because the myth can be useful. Democrats sell the myth of John F. Kennedy, suggesting you should vote Democratic to resurrect the glory days of Camelot. Republicans put down their opponents by comparing Democrats to the mythic Reagan, not the real guy. To me, the real guy was either hopelessly out of touch with what his administration was doing with regard to foreign affairs and things like Iran-Contra, or was lying and shredding the Constitution. I have a friend who somehow believes Reagan was the former, but also a great president. I don't understand that except that we all have a powerful need to believe we have Superman in the Oval Office and some of us are willing to ignore a lot of reality to believe that. A lot of Republicans — especially lately, defending Bush tax cuts — insist Reagan never raised taxes. Or if forced to admit he did, they suggest that evil Democrats held Nancy at gunpoint to get him to do so…and by the way, Reagan gets all the credit for subsequent economic good news. I don't think any president, Reagan or Clinton included, deserves as much personal credit or blame for the economy during his watch as they often get. But when you're campaigning, it's useful to claim or assign responsibility.
I have no idea how slanted or wrong the CBS mini-series might have been. The examples of bias cited by its critics seemed rather mild — or, at least, nowhere near as bad as they might have been. I think Reagan's record has a lot of embarrassing and unethical blots that his fans are rabid to deny…but I also think that on a human level, a very strong case can be made that this was the wrong time to exploit/depict the former Chief Exec and his First Lady at all. A wholly-positive portrait that didn't mention the negatives would just be propaganda. But CBS should have known that including any negatives would incur the wrath of those trying to sell the myth, abetted by those who believe you don't speak ill (even the tiniest bit) of an Alzheimer's sufferer and the woman taking care of him.
The main problem of course is that by giving in and dumping the movie elsewhere, CBS has empowered a certain mob mentality and probably scared off a lot of more worthy efforts. Somewhere, there's a writer with an idea for a valuable and important docu-drama who won't bother to pitch it — or won't find producers receptive — because it might spark controversy. That's a loss for us all, but the parties celebrating their "win" over CBS probably won't see it that way.