I compared the posts and i don't get the point. I say Reagan was a fabulating goofball and "nothing" in the sense of being presidential timber, or even of being an averagely reality-based, sensitive human being. I'm willing to believe the Newsweek assertions, which, btw, in no way detract from his heavily documented, goofball, Stepford-president status.
Hard not to have some sympathy for Edmund Morris even though I viscerally object (w/o, I admit, having read his book) to the literary conceit he chose. He has listed a string of characteristics, all amply documented, that add up to an airhead. And he is being repeatedly pressed by a shocked commentariat to justify his pasting of the label "Great" onto this individual. On Charlie Rose, he gave these reasons for his meta-conclusion that, overall, the airhead he portrayed was a great man.
1: He was incorruptible (there's much that casts some doubt on this one, but it hasn't gotten into the discussion, and corruptibility is less dangerous imo than mental confusion and a literal belief that after a nuclear catacysm will arrive the Second Coming of Christ and the establishment of His Eternal Kindom on Earth, so moving right along.)
2: He was successful in five different jobs and moved easily from one to the other without even seeming to try.
3: When he met Gorbachev in Europe, he drew himself up very straight and tall and so impressed Gorbachev with his physical presence that things went very well between them. |
