Blogs HNN Jeremy Kuzmarov: Review of Gil Troy's Morning in America: Ronald Reagan & the Invention of the 1980s (Princeton U. Press, 2005) and Robert Collins's Transforming America: Politics & Culture During the Reagan Years (Columbia U. Press, 2006)Feb 25, 2007 8:05 pm
Jeremy Kuzmarov: Review of Gil Troy's Morning in America: Ronald Reagan & the Invention of the 1980s (Princeton U. Press, 2005) and Robert Collins's Transforming America: Politics & Culture During the Reagan Years (Columbia U. Press, 2006)
It is a feature of many modern-day academics to claim neutrality in the fervid political debates that have divided left and right over the past decades. They say they are committed to “objective scholarship” and are above the partisan affiliations, often assuming a middle-ground position. This is evident in two recent books on Ronald Reagan and the 1980s, Gil Troy’s Morning in America and Robert Collins's Transforming America.
Both authors assert that their books are neither an attack nor a defense of Reagan but rather an attempt to understand his political appeal and assess his place in history. In both cases, however, especially when it comes to foreign policy, the authors provide extensive praise for Reagan’s actions. They herald his role in ending the Cold War, which a growing number of Soviet scholars (and Americans) now attribute to social developments within Russia. They minimize further the political violence and brutality that resulted from his sponsorship of proxy wars in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, his bombing of Grenada and Libya and his support for dictators world-wide, including Suharto in Indonesia and Mobutu in Congo. They also ignore much recent scholarship linking Reagan’s policies to the rise of a bitter anti-American backlash in the Middle East, in part because of his training of mujahadin guerillas in Afghanistan, support for Saddam Hussein’s murderous invasion of Iran and Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. 1 In the face of these omissions and the positions that they take, are Collins and Troy truly objective analysts, charting a proper middle course between Reagan bashers and supporters? Or does their scholarship serve as an apology for a shortsighted Western leader who was responsible for major human rights violations and suffering, and was a bane to world peace?
Of the two, Collins is at the very least more thorough in his analysis. He recognizes flaws in Reagan’s strategy and his cozying up to unsavory governments – including apartheid South Africa while its armies were in the process of invading Angola and Mozambique. Collins also recognizes the ravages of the Contra war in Nicaragua – though ignores, like Troy, the carnage caused by U.S. support for vicious right-wing paramilitaries in Guatemala and El Salvador, which razed hundreds of villages and killed tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of civilians according to U.N. Truth Commission reports. 2 In Troy’s brief discussion of Latin American policy, he claims moral equivalency for the Nicaraguan Contras and Sandanistas. Is this a balanced assessment? Is Troy aware that the Contras were recruited from remnants of the hated Somoza dictatorship’s National Guard, which tyrannized the country for six decades prior to the 1979 revolution and ruled it as a personal fief?3 Is he aware, that without any base of popular support, the Contras resorted to terrorist tactics with U.S. support (including the mining of national harbors in explicit violation of international law), while adopting the main goal of destabilizing the country in order to undermine popular support for Sandanista reforms? Or that the Sandanistas, while abusive in ordering the forced relocation of Miskito Indians, melded progressive Christianity (liberation theology) with democratic socialism and allowed for free elections in 1984 (which they won) in a break from the Cuban precedent?
There are many other levels in which both Collins and Troy can be criticized. Most disconcertingly, neither show any concern with the civilian toll of the political violence caused by Reagan’s policies in the developing world, which they justify as necessary to winning the Cold War, or go outside U.S. governmental sources to provide any kind of international perspective. Instead, they adopt the same parochial position shaping political debates over U.S. intervention in the 1980s. They fail to shed light on the indigenous appeal of left-wing social movements in impoverished countries subject to long-standing foreign exploitation, or to understand the independence of these movements from a weakening Moscow. Both authors in addition make no effort to analyze the long-term implication of Reagan’s foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, where the effects have been profound. Nor do they discuss in any depth the waste in human resources associated with his massive domestic arms build-up and missile defense system. 4
This is too bad because both scholars are skilled writers and provide a sophisticated lens for analyzing Reagan’s domestic policy and political appeal. Both correctly emphasize the resonance of Reagan’s message of limited government interference following the breakdown of Great Society programs and root his ideology in shifting intellectual currents. They also recognize the spread of corporate greed and the polarization of economic wealth due to his tax cuts for the rich and cutback in social services – though they minimize the impact of the War on Drugs in contributing to the burgeoning prison-industrial complex (Ignoring volumes of critical scholarship, Troy actually praises Reagan’s drug war – a dubious policy linked to major violations of individual civil liberties at home, the arming of repressive policing agents internationally and environmental destruction caused by the use of chemical defoliants). 5
To their credit, both Collins and Troy highlight Reagan’s influence in transforming American society and culture in his image. They stress his persona as a great communicator and ability to capitalize on the demoralization that set in following the Vietnam War era to his political advantage by playing on patriotic themes. Here their work builds on an already rich literature, including Richard Slotkin’s Gunfighter Nation and Michael Paul Rogin’s, Ronald Reagan - The Movie, to show Reagan’s political skill in tapping into deeply engrained nationalist sentiments. 6 Unlike Slotkin and Rogin, however, both Collins and Troy fail to grapple in any depth with the flip side of this process – how it entailed recasting the Vietnam War (which led to the deaths of some 2-5 million people) as a “noble crusade” and promoting parochial clichés about American national greatness and destiny, which bred support for foreign imperialism and condescension towards peoples of different social backgrounds and ideological outlook. This is a serious shortcoming in considering the long-term ramifications.
In terms of cultural analysis, both works could also be broadened. They fail to consider the crucial question of how the recreation of Reagan’s mythical vision of American innocence in Hollywood films like Rambo promoted the revival of a militaristic foreign policy and culture (a theme explored in works by Susan Jeffords and Bruce Franklin). 7 This omission underscores the most glaring flaw in both works – the failure to see through the Reagan mystique, which still takes hold over much of America. Consequently, their scholarship not only fails to meet the standard of objectivity that the authors claim for themselves – it also fails to advance on previous works that are more perceptive in understanding the complex paradoxes of Reaganism and its impact.
1 See in particular, Mahmood Mamdani, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: The U.S., the Cold War and the Roots of Terror (New York: Random House, 2004).
2 See Greg Grandin, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, The United States and the Rise of the New Imperialism (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006), ch.2.
3 See Richard Grossman, “The Blood of the People: The Guardia Nacional’s Fifty Year War Against the People of Nicaragua, 1927-1979” In When States Kill: Latin America, the U.S. and Technologies of Terror, ed. Menjivar & Rodriguez (University of Texas Press, Austin, 2005), p. 66-7.
4 On this point, see Frances Fitzgerald, Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars and the End of the Cold War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000).
5 See for example, as an indicative title, Christina J. Johns, Power, Ideology and the War on Drugs: Nothing Succeeds Like Failure (New York: Praeger, 1992), Ted G. Carpenter, Bad Neighbor Policy (Washington, CATO, 2004).
6 Richard Slotkin, Gunfighter Nation: The Myth of the Frontier in 20th Century American History (New York: Atheneum, 1992), Michael P. Rogin, Ronald Reagan – The Movie (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).
7 H. Bruce Franklin, Vietnam and Other American Fantasies (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2000), Susan Jeffords, The Remasculanization of America: Gender and the Vietnam War (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989).
comments powered by Disqus
George E. Rennar - 2/25/2007
What's it take to get books that are positive about American successes reviewed by people who do not hate and fear the United States?
Jeremy Kuz - 2/15/2007
Yes, I don't fundamentally disagree with Professor Troy. It is a book well worth reading with many keen insights ,and beautifully written. so go ahead and buy the paperback!
in terms of analysis, with all due respect to an excellent teacher and fine gentleman, I beileve that the glaring shortcoming is the inability [of the two authors] to come to grips with the terrible human toll exerted by Reagan's support for proxy wars in the developing world, and that his knee-jerk anti-communism led him into the arms of some of the worst dictators of the 20th century. I don't believe that this is a "far-left" argument (it is the synopsis of most diplomatic historians and political analysts of the period). The events in Central America were particularly awful - the UN Truth Commission report found Reagan's admiinstration responsible for arming and training forces which committed genocide in Guatemala against Mayan Indians, for example, as the worst dimension of it. The facts are by now well documented in a rich scholarship that any historian of the 1980s needs to address. [and I believe intellectually dishonest not to do so].
As for the middle-east, this is more controversial, but the anti-american backlash and support for extremism in the region today does not come out of a historical vaccuum - and while these sentiments existed long before the 1980s, leading Islamic specialists (I point to Mamdani and Khalidi among others) pinpoint the Reagan years as particularly inmportant in fuelling the rise of Islamicist groups as a result of particular developments (a few of which I mention in the review - the arming of the mujuahadin in Afghanistan (in the largest covert CIA operation in its history), Israel's attack on Lebanon, etc.). Again, I don't believe this is a radical suggestion - one merely that any historian who wants to understand the so-called "clash of civilization" taking place, needs to address, and especially pertinent for those of us who don't want decades of more war but broadened cultural understanding and peaceful rapprochement.
finally, on the point of nationalism, Reagan insipred a particular brand of it in the US, which while favorable in some respects, also yielded a dark side in fostering an uncritical view of American history (and whitewashing of the brutalities of the Vietnam War, for example, which in Reagan's version was all the fault of the Vietnamese), and fueled deeply engrained perceptions of national exceptionalism. The consequence of such sentiments, at their worst, was a rekindling of a belief in the universality of American values and condascending view of other peoples and cultures, which some critics would say dictated America's approach to the world in the aftermath of 9/11. connecting the dots on these issues is, I think very important, for Reagan biographers interested in assesing his impact and legacy - both good and bad.
By pointing out the dark side, it may very well be that my review was one-sided, but this was my whole point.
Gil Troy - 2/15/2007
Hmmm, let’s see who come closer to a “centrist” or “objective” approach? My book “Morning in America” points out strengths and weaknesses both in Reagan’s foreign policy and domestic policy. The book explicitly and admittedly is much more focused on the domestic side, attempting to examine Reagan and the 1980s, from a political and cultural perspective, something the review barely notes, in its disappointment that I did not write a foreign policy polemic.
On the other hand, this reviewer only seems capable of hitting Reagan (and the two authors) hard from the left, even the far left. We have to read all the way down to the final sentence for the reviewer to acknowledge any complexity in the Reagan record, when he throws in the word “paradoxes.” Kuzmarov’s stance, however, acknowledges no paradox, little complexity, just a litany of horrific sins for which Reagan appears to be solely responsible.
The bogeyman caricature of Reagan that emerges as the reviewer’s standard lacks nuance. Robert Collins – whose book I look forward to reading – and I get credit when we bash Reagan, scorn if we praise anything remotely connected to him or his administration. I’m wondering if it is the reviewer not the targeted authors who is “claim[ing] neutrality” while actually mounting his own partisan hit job.
I stand by my work, my approach, and my statement in the book – which this review further proves – that wading into Reagan scholarship is neither for the faint-hearted nor the untenured. I encourage readers to judge for themselves as “Morning in America: How Ronald Reagan Invented the 1980s” has just been released in paperback by Princeton University Press. And I wish my former student good luck – and a bit more balance, nuance, and humility – in the pursuit of scholarship.
- Historian David Kaiser says the most exciting day of his life was JFK’s election
- Michael Bliss, Historian Who Dispelled Myths of Insulin’s Discovery, Dies at 76
- Jill Lepore: Americans Aren't Just Divided Politically, They're Divided Over History Too
- AHA joins protest of Trump’s plan for drastic cuts to the NEH