Backstory: The most contradictory man

By Michael Green

Why did so many Americans love Ronald Reagan? Besides being a pleasant sort whose policies won considerable support, he embodied one of our classic characteristics: He was as contradictory as we are.

He was a New Deal Democrat who became a Republican, a rags-to-riches story who presided over our worst maldistribution of wealth to the rich, a soft touch who slashed social programs that served the neediest, a lover of freedom who aided the communist witch hunt of the late 1940s and '50s. He attacked evil empires and coddled dictators, but overruled his advisers to improve relations with the Soviets. He espoused family values, but was our only divorced president and often got along poorly with his children.

If those contradictions aren't enough for you, consider his ties to Nevada.

Reagan's ascent especially boosted the fortunes of Paul Laxalt, a popular governor and senator who chaired his campaigns. As a junior senator from Nevada, Laxalt figured to be a minor cog on Capitol Hill. His close friendship with Reagan gave him and Nevada influence they otherwise couldn't have had.

That helped when Nevada didn't want the MX, the goofiest missile system ever--a bunch of fake missiles and one live one on railroad cars running around tracks in Nevada and Utah; the Soviets would have to take out all of the missiles to get the dangerous one, then we could take advantage of their vulnerability. Right.

Reagan listened to Laxalt, among others, and eliminated the MX--and Reagan rarely met a weapons system he didn't like. Yet Reagan was president when Yucca Mountain became the preferred site for nuclear waste. At first, that reflected the views of his Nevada GOP friends. They learned their lesson later--or too late. If George W. Bush is truly his heir, would Reagan have lied about sound science?

Laxalt's connections helped several prominent Nevadans move up in the Reagan years--County Commissioner Bob Broadbent to the Interior Department, Frank Fahrenkopf to Republican Party leadership, Sig Rogich to advertising and spin eminence. They helped counter the perception, which persists in too many places, that Nevada was just a mob haven.

At the time, though, local FBI Agent-in-Charge Joe Yablonsky believed this really was a mob haven. He was partly right. Laxalt and some of his friends pushed for his removal. Despite their ties to Reagan, Yablonsky's sting operation went on, catching and convicting several influence-peddlers.

As California's governor, Reagan and Laxalt, his Nevada counterpart, formed the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to protect the lake--in other words, conservatives creating more government. Yet Reagan supported policies that destroyed other environmental gems and supported the Nevada-rooted Sagebrush Rebellion, whose leaders wanted the federal government to leave them alone to do as they wanted to public lands.

Many think Reagan simply cut government, but he knew enough to raise taxes when necessary. Many think he ended the Cold War and his defense buildup undoubtedly contributed--and certainly helped the Western economy, which, ironically, suffered when the Cold War ended. But Mikhail Gorbachev took greater risks, and before giving him and Reagan the credit, ponder the prediction of Jean Monnet, the architect of European unity in the 1950s: "We won't change Russia, but the computers will."

Reagan and Nevada also share the benefits and problems of persona. No president since Franklin Roosevelt used the media so brilliantly to push his policies and construct his image--just as Las Vegas constructs its image, and sometimes suffers for it. One critic called Reagan an "amiable dunce," yet he was better read than he appeared--or possibly wanted to appear. Like Bush, Reagan was "misunderestimated." He used the powers of his office superbly. Whether he used them wisely always will be debated.

In retrospect, Reagan looks better to many because the current occupant of the White House looks so much worse. At least Reagan didn't think being president made him dictator for life, but few remember that his unnecessary invasion of Grenada followed from the attack on U.S. Marines in Lebanon, and he acted before informing the British government, which controls Grenada. In comparison to the immorality and lying in connection with Iraq, though, it looks statesmanlike. And if the Rug denies knowing his aides twisted the facts to go to war and the law to justify torture, Reagan claimed not to know Oliver North and company trampled the Constitution.

Many Republicans cite their party's success as one of Reagan's legacies. Well, Rush Limbaugh claimed Democrats wanted his funeral to be "bipartisan"--after spreading the vicious lie that Democrat Paul Wellstone's funeral was partisan. Bill O'Reilly lamented the polarization of politics after Reagan and demanded respect for the presidency. Few in the media have contributed more to polarization or shown less respect for being honest about presidents when they aren't his fellow Republicans than the man Al Franken aptly calls O'Lielly.

If those Republicans who regularly trample the truth are part of Reagan's legacy, it disgraces his memory. Even those who disagreed with him didn't hate him, and he didn't seem to hate anyone, either. Then again, his biggest legacy may have been best expressed by Rosalyn Carter years ago: We like Ronald Reagan because he makes us feel comfortable with our prejudices. Some are more comfortable than others.